| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 6/15/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
Land Use and Economy of Lime Village by Priscilla Russell Kari - Technical Paper Number 80, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence (dated June 1983) - found paper in library by ADEC during risk assessment process. |
Former Staff |
| 7/31/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
A crew was sent to Sparrevohn air force station (AFS) in 1984 to evaluate potential soil contamination at the White Alice Communication System site. Sixteen soil samples were collected from the area around the buildings at the site. The sixteen samples tested showed no PCB contamination. Soil contamination was found at an old transmitter pad at the Upper Camp. The pad was not considered to be a part of the White Alice site cleanup and no contaminated soil was removed. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
Phase I Records Search AAC-Southern Region Air Force Stations: King Salmon, Cold Bay, Cape Newenham, Cape Romanzof, Sparrevohn and Tatalina received. POL product contamination of shallow ground-water supplies has been documented at King Salmon AFS, Cape Romanzof AFS and Sparrevohn AFS. Lower Camp POL soil saturation and seepage was documented at Sparrevohn AFS by Environmental Systems Corporatlon (1981). No definitive studies have been performed at Cape Romanzof AFS or at Sparrevohn AFS. A contaminatlon problem is known to exist at sites, but nothing else documented.
The major fuel losses have occurred at King Salmon AFS, Cape Romanzof AFS and Sparrevohn AFS. In these cases where major spills or product losses have occurred, surface waters near or downslope of the leakage points have probably received some POL products, thus degrading water quality locally. The actual extent of the contamination is not known. The shallow aquifers underlying Cape Romanzof AFS and Sparrevohn AFS have also been contaminated by POL product losses. The extent or severlty of the contamination problem existing at these facllities has not been determined.
Sparrevohn AFS uses a gallery to obtaln its needed water supplies. A second gallery, located near Building ]28, is not used due to POL contamination. Both devices have been constructed to collect large quantities of ground water from the highly permeable mixed talus and alluvium common to the Lower Camp area near the course of an unnamed stream which extends through the Lower Camp. These deposits form a shallow aquifer at the site and occur at or near ground surface. It is presumed that ground water occurs within them at shallow depths under water table (unconfined) conditions. Ground-water flow probably follows local topography. Two sites (Spill/Leak Nos. 1 and 3 and the Waste Accumulation Area) are similarly located in close proxlmlty at the Lower Camp.
The first gallery, designated "well number 1" on installation documents, It is 18 feet deep, 26 feet long and is 12 feet wlde. The second gallery is reported to be 14 feet deep and has a single lateral of undetermined length resting on bedrock. The second gallery is identified as "well number 2" on base drawlngs. The first gallery is utilized to furnlsh water supplies to the Lower Camp year around. Water is pumped from the operational unlt to Upper Camp storage facilities during the summer months only.
The wastes generated at Sparrevohn AFS are primarily waste oils and contaminated fuels, generated in equipment and vehicle maintenance shops and in the power plant. Prior to 1976, the wastes may have been dlsposed of by runway oiling. Since 1976, the wastes have been placed in drums for shipment to Elmendorf AFB for disposal through DPDO.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/29/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Fairbanks staff (ADEC) sent David M. McDowell (Shannon & Wilson) a letter on the Quality Assurance Program Plan for Underground Storage Tank Site Assessments, Revision 2.3, March 25, 1992. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has reviewed the document
referenced above. This Quality Assurance Program Plan (OAPP) as required by the Underground Storage Tanks Regulations 18 MC 78 as amended through August 21,1991 is approved and meets the Department's minimum quality assurance requirements for sampling and analysis for USTs.
Although the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction to your plan states:
"Shannon & Wilson Inc. reserves the right to revise this document if, during the course of a
project, the procedures contained herein prove to be inadequate or inappropriate."
You should be aware that this document is approved by the ADEC in the form submitted to the
Department as referenced above; any and all revisions to the OAPP, whether site specific
or generic, must be reviewed and approved by the Department prior to incorporating those
revisions in work plans at UST sites.
Thank you for your prompt response to the suggested clarifications needed for approval of
this OAPP. Please submit a copy of this OAPP to those ADEC District Offices with which you plan to work. |
Don Gibler |
| 3/30/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SI - Site Investigation). Woodward Clyde Consultants IRP Stage II 1989 Workplan March 1989 sent to ADEC. No removals or field work are proposed in the scope of work for any of the sites at Sparrevohn AFS. Both the Upper and Lower Camps are classfied as Category I, no further action and a TDSNF Technical Document to Support NO Further Action will be prepared for the installation. |
Former Staff |
| 8/31/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1989 a removal action was performed in response to analytical results of soil sampling conducted in 1986. Clor-N-Soil (field screening) tests were conducted as the soil removal progressed to verify cleanup. Removed PCB-contaminated soil from Lower Camp was placed in overpack drums. PCB-contaminated soil from the transmitter pad area at Upper Camp was initially placed in overpack drums; however, due to the anticipated onset of poor weather conditions, contaminated soil was loaded into dump trucks and transported to a containment dike which was constructed at Lower Camp. Subsequent filling of overpack drums with contaminated soil, which was conducted until mid-October, was apparently conducted from the containment area at Lower Camp.
The contaminated soil downslope from Upper Camp has not been completely removed. Soil samples apparently collected from the area in 1989 indicate the presence of PCBs at concentrations ranging from 1.19 mg/kg to 683.6 mg/kg. It was estimated that about 200 cubic yards of PCB-Contaminated soil is remaining (summary of 1989 field season by John Donnally, 611 CES/CEOR). |
Louis Howard |
| 3/23/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Letter to Air Force from ADEC PM L. Howard: Sparrevohn PCB Removal/disposal and King Salmon Airport work for 1992 Field Season. The Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the brief outline of the proposed FY92 Defense Environmental Restoration Program 11 CEOS February 24, 1992, and the Revised FY 92 DERP project list dated February 27, 1992.
I am the project manager for King Salmon Airport and the Air Force's Remote facilities such as Sparrevohn, Cape Romanzof and the Naknek Recreational Camps. ADEC has the following comments and questions concerning the sites.
King Salmon Airport-The "Drill Support of Contracted RI/FS various Iocations including S. Bluff" and item 2 "King Salmon Drill Support" needs to be clarified and expanded on in a workplan. It has come to ADEC's attention that work is being scheduled for May 1992 and ADEC has not received any scopes of work or workplans outlining any proposed work at King Salmon. Some of the information that ADEC is looking for is the location and rationale for placement of monitoring wells and/or borings which includes the South barrel bluff.
Additionally, ADEC requests that the aquifer parameters be further characterized before any remedial actions are designed and/or proposed (i.e. design of a groundwater extraction system). Other issues that need to be addressed are whether releases are occurring along the bluff and discharging into the King
Salmon Creek. The one time surface water sampling effort that was performed during the Stage I effort was not sufficient to fully characterize the site or adequate enough to address the issue of continuing releases and seasonal effects on contaminant transport.
The proposed shredding of 26,000 barrels that were removed from the North Barrel Bluff in FY91 must have a workplan outlining what is to be done with any contamination released by the barrels at the North Barrel Bluff. This workplan must also address the possible release of contamination at the temporary storage
area.
Issues raised in the Stage I Final Technical Report dated August 1989 under VI Recommendations sec, 6,1.3 pages VI-7 to VI-IO need to be followed up and resolved through additional investigative efforts.
Sparrevohn Air Force Station (AFS)-The report included with the revised schedule for FY92 stated that 900 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil contained in a containment cell is in a state of repair. Workplans outlining steps to move or contain the contaminated soil must be done in accordance with DEC regulations. If thermal remediation is chosen to treat the PCB contaminated soils, then proposed method of treatment must undergo review and approval by ADEC's air quality program staff as well as the Contaminated sites staff. Other federal requirements under TSCA and RCRA will have to be considered if thermal remediation of the PCB contaminated soils is the selected method of remediation/disposal.
ADEC realizes that the field work scheduled for this summer may not meet the requested 90 day review schedule. We are willing to conduct expedited reviews for this year's field work and any emergency actions deemed necessary by the Air Force. Long term planning and scheduling is needed for ADEC and the Air Force to insure that work plans are adequate and the field work is of acceptable quality for remedial design or site closure. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
A total of 900 overpack drums were filled during the 1989 field season (898 of PCB-contaminated soil and two of disposed test kits, used PPE, etc.). Information obtained from conversations with Mr. Larry Pelligrino and Mr. John Donnally of the 611 CES/CEOR indicate that all of the 900 drums were shipped from Sparrevohn. The PCB-contaminated soil was apparently disposed of at the U.S. Pollution Control, Inc., Grassy Mt. Facility in Clive, UT in 1992. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/23/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
PCB Contaminated Soil -On March 23, 1993 the department sent the Air Force a letter noting approximately 900 cubic yards of soil contaminated with PCBs had previously been excavated and stockpiled at the site. The letter states the stockpile was in a state of disrepair and that workplans for containment, treatment or disposal of the soil must be approved by the department. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/16/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
John Sandor (ADEC Commissioner) sent letter to Ted Stevens regarding inquiry of July 27, 1993, pertaining PCB contamination of Alaskan Aircraft Control and Warning Sites (ACWS); Sparrevohn and Cape Newenham Long Range Radar Sites (LRRS).
We received your letter and enclosure (a letter from Mr. Charles Swindle) on August 2, 1993. Our staff researched our records pertaining to the 1983 incinerator exposure incident and subsequent investigation and cleanup efforts at each of the sites. Both sites are currently being evaluated under CERCLA for possible inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). If either of the sites is added to the NPL our staff will assist EPA in review of documents pertaining to environmental cleanup so that we can
ensure Alaska's concerns are addressed. If the sites are not added to the NPL our staff will take the lead on oversightof the future investigationsand cleanups. The following is a brief summary of significant actions at each site starting with the
incinerator exposure incident.
Sparrevohn LRRS:
August 25, 1983 Ms. Agnes O'Conner was cleaning the incinerator and developed a severe skin irritation from exposure to smoke or ash from the incinerator.
October 4, 1983 The Anchorage Daily News published an article on the incident and stated the irritation may have resulted from exposure to PCBs.
October 19, 1983 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) staff inspected the site with Air Force personnel. They conducted interviews,field screening, and sampled residue from the incinerator. The incinerator was found to be defective in that the stack burners were not working and the gaskets were not properly sealing the doors shut. It was also reported that the incinerator had been oveffilled which resulted in incomplete combustion of the wastes. Field screening showed chloride ions were present, however, persons conducting the tests were reasonably sure these were from incomplete combustion of plastics rather than from PCBs. Two samples of ash and residue from the incinerator were sent to the ADEC laboratory in Juneau for analysis. No PCBs were detected in either sample.
January 16, 1984 The Air Force submitted a memorandum to ADEC which outlined a schedule for initial cleanup of hazardous and solid waste at several remote Alaska sites. Sparrevohn LRRSwas scheduled for June through September of 1984.
1989 - 1990 Woodward Clyde Consultants conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The report did not contain sufficient information to complete a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS) for the site. Hazard Ranking Scores are used to determine if a site should be added to the NPL. EPA requested additional information in order to complete the HRS.
1992 The US Air Force submitted a Preliminary Assessment (PA) report to EPA under the CERCLA program. EPA requested additional information be submitted in order to complete the review.
July 1993 The US Air Force submitted a Site Investigation (SI) Report under the CERCLA program. The report is currently under review.
Recent conversations with Air Force staff indicate up to 1,000 cubic yards of petroleum and PCB contaminated soil were excavated between 1984 and 1990. Some of the soil is currently stockpiled at the site and some appears to have been disposed of off-site. At this time we have been unable to locate written records of this work. The Air Force has been asked to provide additional information.
Planned actions: ADEC staff intend to inspect the sites this fall and work with EPA and the Air Force on development of future plans for investigation and cleanup for both sites.
Conclusion: Based on information available to us, it appears that in 1983 at least one worker at Sparrevohn LRRS was exposed to some chemical or compound related to the incinerator which resulted in a sever skin irritation. It is not readily apparent what caused the irritation. Samples of ash and residue from the incinerator, collected on October 19, 1983, did not contain PCBs. However, PCBs have been documented in soil at the site. PCB contaminatedsoil has also been documented in soil at the Cape Newenham LRRS.
Our Department is continuing to work with the Air Force and EPA to further investigate and cleanup environmental contamination at both of these sites, The ADEC contact for both projects is John Halverson, with our Southcentral Regional Office. Please feel
free to contact him at 563-6529 if we can be of further assistance to you. |
John Halverson |
| 8/16/1993 |
CERCLA PA |
Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment Mgr. (USEPA) sent letter to Patrick M. Coullahan. The letter informed the Air Force of EPA's review of the Site Inspection (SI) report for Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. From EPA's evaluation, it has been determined that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in the federal agency hazardous waste compliance order docket tracking system.
If new or additional informaiton becomes available that suggests the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate the facility accordingly. EPA's NFRAP decision will not relieve your facility from comlying with appropriate State of Alaska (environmental) regulations.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 120(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with State cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. All contaminated soil should be removed to an approved disposal facility. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA.
NOTE To file: SEC. 120. FEDERAL FACILITIES.(a) APPLICATION OF ACT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 107 of this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 106 and 107.
(2) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO FEDERAL FACILITIES.—
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this Act for facilities at which hazardous substances are located,
applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities
shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines,
rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this Act.
(3) EXCEPTIONS.—This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 104(c)(3) in the case of a facility
which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) STATE LAWS.—State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) when such facilities are not included
on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than
the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality.
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/13/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter sent to 11 CEOS/CEVR re: Sparrevohn LRRS. PCB Contaminated Soil-On March 23, 1993, the department sent the Air Force a letter noting approximately 900 cubic yards of soil contaminated with PCBs had previously been excavated and stockpiled at the site. The letter states the stockpile was in a state of disrepair and that workplans for containment. treatment or disposal of the soil must be approved by the department. No further correspondence on this issue is present in our files. There was no information documenting where the soil was excavated from or what confirmation sampling was done to verify the effectiveness of the cleanup efforts.
The department requests submittal of documentation on how, when and where this soil was generated and what sampling data was gathered. The department also requests submittal of a plan, including a schedule, for containing, treating and/or disposing of the contaminated soil. Please note, this appears to be a potential violation of state and federal regulanons and it must be addressed as soon as possible.
No Further Action Decision Documents-The file also contains draft no further action decision documents for three sites: Site 1. Spill/Leak #1; Site 3. Waste accumulation area and Spill/Leak #3; and, Site 4. Landfill #1. There was no Site 2 identified in the document. Site 1; Site I is in the Lower Camp where a diesel fuel spill of an estimated 12,000 to 42,000 gallons occurred in 1979-1980. The spill impacted an adjacent stream from which fuel was recovered for approximately 1 year. Reportedly, fuel has been observed seeping into the creek as recently as 1985. Site 3; Site 3 is identified as a waste accumulation area on a gravel pad adjacent to the north end of the runway. The area is reported to have been graded and filled with gravel. A spill of approximately 1500 gallons of diesel fuel occurred in 1984 when a fuel bladder broke. No fuel was recovered from the spill area. An accumulation of wastes from leaking 55 gallon drums stored over the years has reportedly contributed to contamination of this site. Site #4: Site 4 is a landfill located west of the runway and south of the lower camp. It has been in use since the 1950s. Liquid and hazardous materials may have been deposited in shallow trenches excavated to the depth of bedrock until recently, when such materials have been shipped off site for proper disposal.
Site investigation work used as the basis for the proposed no further action decisions consisted of sampling water from the drinking water collection gallery and collection of surface water and sediment samples from streams at the facility. Based on the information presented to date, it does not appear that these contaminant source areas have been adequately investigated. Therefore, the state can not concur with the recommendation for no further action on these sites.
The department requests submittal of a plan and a schedule for conducting additional investigation at these sites. Based on a review of information in our files, the department requests a response to this letter by not later than June 30, 1994. The response should include submittal of the following information:
1) documentation on the excavation and stockpiling of PCB contaminated soil at the site:
2) a plan (including a proposed schedule) for containment, treatment and or disposal of the stockpiled contaminated soil;
3) a proposed schedule for submittal of a plan for additional site characterization at the sites referenced above; and
4) information on what site #2 consisted of and what actions or decisions were made pertaining to the site. |
John Halverson |
| 8/3/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
US Air Force Memorandum for Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation ATTN: John Halverson. Air Force letter to J. Halverson re: ADEC letter May 13, 1994.
1. Your letter of 13 May addressed two basic topics, one was the plan for disposition of a PCB contaminated soil stockpile at Sparrevohn LRRS and the other was the plan for further work at three sites for which No Further Action Documents (NFADs) had previously been submitted.
2. The stockpile originated when an earlier removal action was insufficiently funded to transport all of the soil off site. The 611 CES requested high priority funding for the 1995 field season to containerize the remaining soil and transport it for disposal. Schedule development is contingent upon the receipt of funds; the 611 CES has requested they be distributed early enough in the fiscal year to negotiate contracts for air transport and turn-in to a disposal facility in the 1995 field season. The 611 CES expects this project to be funded, due to the concern expressed by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) about the potential violation of state and federal requirements and the associated risk to human health and the environment. Funding has been received to perform maintenance on the stockpile cover this summer and this will be finished by 30 September 94.
3. The NFAD referred to concerned three sites: Site 1 (Spill/ Leak #1), Site 3 (Waste Accumulation Area and Spill/Leak #3), and Site 4 (Landfill #I). These sites were, according to the contractor who performed the work, the ones with the most potential for contamination. The site nomenclature has changed since 1991, but the following eight sites are presently being carried by the 611 CES as potentially contaminated (including the three sites addressed in the draft NFAD):
LF01 Landfill No. 1 (Lower Camp) ***
SD02 Road Oiling (Lower Camp)
SD03 Transmitter Pad (Upper Camp)
OT04 White Alice Site (Upper Camp)
ST05 Diesel Fuel Spill/Leak #I (Lower Camp) ***
ST06 Spill/Leak #2 (Lower Camp)
SS07 Waste Accumulation Area/Leak #3 (Lower Camp) ***
DPO8 Dump Area (Upper Camp) ***
Sites addressed in NFAD referred to above Site 2 was the Road Oiling and no actions or decisions have been made at the site to date.
3. The 611 CES has requested funding to perform RI/FS/RD at Sparrevohn LRRS in 1995, but it is unlikely that this will be funded because of budgetary constraints require work to be prioritized by risk and/or regulator requirements. Signed Scott H. Hill Major, USAF, Chief, Environmental Flight. |
John Halverson |
| 9/16/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Following completion of the 1989 field season, approximately 266 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil (containing 50 to 499 ppm PCBs) was estimated to remain in the containment at Lower Camp (summary of 1989 field season by J. Donnally, 611 CES/CEOR). The stockpile cover was replaced in 1994, and at that time the estimate of the amount of stockpiled soil was revised to 355 cubic yards. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/6/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Memo from AF to ADEC received by ADEC on February 6, 1995. Rodney L. Hunt, Lt. Col. USAF Commander sent letter to ADEC re: Compliance Advisory/Request for Additional Information and Remedial Action at Sparrevohn LRRS, AK
1. The following information is submitted in response to your 20 Dec 94 letter requesting information on the location and depth of the excavation(s) where the PCB impacted soil was removed, the volume of soil removed, the range of PCB concentrations in soil that was removed, the concentration of PCBs at the limits of the excavation, the volume of soil transported off-site, and the ultimate disposition of soil transported off-site. Your letter also requested that the 611 CES submit documentation of efforts taken during the fall of 1994 to contain the stockpiled soil.
2. Attached is a summary of the activities performed by the 611 CES to remove PCB contaminated soil from Sparrevohn LRRS. This is based upon a review of archived data provided by the operating engineers and conversations with the foreman who performed the work. Additional data and disposal certificates can also be provided upon request. The existing containment area at the lower camp contains approximately 400 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil. The cover on top of this pile was replaced in September 1994.
3. With respect to the contaminated soil remaining on the installation, the 611 CES is planning on-site treatment for the remainder of the PCB contaminated soil in the containment area during the 1995 field season. We are exploring a solvent extraction process (Terra-Kleen) expected to be able to achieve PCB levels better than i0 to 25 ppm in the treated soil. A soil sample from Sparrrevohn was collected in January 1995 for design and optimization testing at the vendor's laboratory. The soil will also be analyzed for the presence of any semi-volatile compounds or metals that could interfere with the treatment process or with the reconstitution of the solvent for eventual reuse. Preliminary results are expected by the end of February 1995 which should indicate whether this treatment method will be feasible for the contaminated soil present at Sparrevohn LRRS and will indicate the levels to which the vendor expects to be able to treat the soil. |
John Halverson |
| 4/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Bench Scale Treatability Study PCB Contaminated Soils Sparrevohn LRRS Alaska. Bench scale tests were collected from a PCB spill site at Sparrevohn LRRS were conducted at Terra-Kleen's facility. The tests indicated that the soil was very rocky with rocks ranging up to three (3) inches in diameter 80% of the site is gravel, while 20% of the site is primarily clay fines. The PCBs are concentrated in the clay, but separation of the gravel from fines was NOT sufficient to reduce levels in the gravel to below any regulatory level (i.e. 1 mg/kg).
Solvent extraction studies indicate that treating the soil will lower the PCB concentration to less than 25 mg/kg, the cut-off for "industrial sites". Separated fines from the soil could also be treated to less than 25 mg/kg (BUT not less than 1 mg/kg). Separated gravel could be treated to less than 1 mg/kg, the cut-off cleanup level for "residential sites".
Solvent extraction technology has been successfully used in the lower 48 states to clean PCB contaminated soil The technology has great promise to be used effectively at remote sites in Alaska and overseas because of it's low operational cost and smaller mobilization fees. The use of the technology could potentially reduce remedial costs at remote sites by 50% Based on the treatability study, it is recommended that the soils at Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska be treated with the Terra-Kleen solvent extraction technology, and that information from the remedial efforts at this site be used to assess the technology for other remote sites.
On sites where the soil type is gravel, sand or silt, treatment levels of 1-2 mg/kg can be achieved. Unfortunately, Sparrevohn has a clay content that will resist attempts to achieve 1-2 mg/kg levels The soils can be treated to below 25 mg/kg and covered with a clean cap in accordance with PCB clean-up criteria for industrial areas. |
Ray Burger |
| 5/28/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
The project site is located at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) 200 miles west of
Anchorage, Alaska. The station, a US Air Force facility, has been in operation since 1952.
Sampling conducted in 1986 detected PCBs in soils. In 1989 the contaminated soils were
excavated and stockpiled.
This project is comprised of two phases:
Phase 1: to conduct soil sampling and analysis, with surveying to determine the concentration
extent of PCB contamination, and the volume of soil to be excavated and treated.
Phase 2: treatment and disposal of PCB contaminated soil stockpiled at Sparrevohn LRRS under United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) contract no DACA85-94-0-0014, delivery order no 9404-05. The stockpiled soil is assumed to contain PCB Aroclor 1260 (transformer oil) at a concentration range of 5 to 500 ppm. Action levels for PCB contamination are _>15 ppm.
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was written to assure that the details of chemical
quality management as specified in the contract document would be adhered to and satisfied in
the Sparrevohn LRRS PCB Soil Remediation Project. This SAP deals with sampling, procedures, and analytical methods in Phase 1. Appendiced to the SAP is the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) which outlines standard operating procedures set by and approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) with regards to investigative, analytical and remedial actions in the field. The QAPP is presented as Appendix I.
Samples will be collected from the PCB soil stockpile to determine the level of contamination
prior to Phase 2 of the project (Figure I). One sample will be collected each fifty yards of
stockpile. Based on estimates of the stockpile size of 250-300 yards, 6 samples will be
collected. Sampling regimens for stockpiles are discussed in Section 4.5.1 of the QAPP.
By auger boring through the stockpile in the above locations, samples will be collected from
under the stockpile liner to determine if PCB contamination has leached through the liner into
soils below. With these 6 additional primary samples will be 1 field duplicate and 1 QA/QC
for a total of 12 samples collected from the stockpile.
In addition, two samples will be taken from each side of the stock pile 10 feet from the base to
determine if there has been any horizontal migration of PCB contamination. Two additional
samples will be collected for the FD and QA/QC.
The total samples for Phase 1:20 primary + 2 FD + 2 QA/QC = 24. |
Ray Burger |
| 9/20/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
FINAL Engineering Evaluation & Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station (LRRS) Alaska by the US Army CORPS of Engineers AK District Env. Tech. Engin. Section. The site consists of a lower camp at an elevation of 1700 feet that includes support facilities and an upper camp located on top of the mountain at an elevation of 3300 feet that houses radar equipment. Soils contaminated with PCB's were detected at the upper and lower camps during sampling conducted in the summer of 1986. During the summer and fall of 1989, the PCB contaminated soils were excavated and stockpiled at the lower camp. Some of the soil was overpacked and shipped off site for disposal.
The remaining soil is stockpiled on site. The purpose of this project is to remediaue the remaining PCB contaminated soil stockpile. The amount of PCB contaminated soil remaining in the containment area is estimated at approximately 600 tons. No sampling results are available for the soil pile. Concantrations are estimated to range from 5 to 500 ppm, based on the assumption that the levels are comparable to PCB levels in the soil which was shipped off site for which analytical data is available.
The options which meet the overall objectives of the project are soil washing and solvent extraction. Of these, solvent extraction requires less on-site logistical support (water) and provides a greater reduction in volume. As such, solvent extraction is selected as the preferred alternative for volume reduction of the contaminated soil. The proposed cleanup level is 15 ppm. This cleanup level is below the TSCA restricted area level of 25 ppm. Treated soils meeting the cleanup level of 15 ppm will be placed in an excavation on site.
The treated soil will be covered with a minimum of two feet of fill. Process residuals (solvent, fines, wastewater) with concentrated PCB levels will be shipped off site for disposal.
Due to the cost of uncertainty associated with on site volume reduction, off site disposal without volume reduction will be included as a contractor option. Solvent extraction's effectiveness on the soils at Sparrevohn has been demonstrated by a treatability study conducted by one supplier of the process. However, if this contractor is not selected for the remedial action at this site, a treatability study will be required as part of the proposed remedial action. If solvent extraction fails in the treatability study, or proves to be more costly than off site disposal, then off site disposal without volume reduction will be used.
Chemical Specific ARARs: The values found in 40 CFR 761 are applicable to spills which occurred after 4 May 1987. The spilled PCB material was first detected on site in 1986. As such, these regulations are considered by the Air Force to be not applicable, relevant, or appropriate. For spills occurrlng before 4 May 1987, 40 CFR 761 states that cleanup levels may be negotiated at the discretion of the EPA based on a site specific evaluation.
A value of 15 ppm was proposed by the Air Force to the ADEC as the soil cleanup level for this site. This value was acceptable to the ADEC based on previous negotiations (March 23, 1995 AF memo to the file P. Striebich). |
Ray Burger |
| 2/8/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
USAF Decision Document Declaration received. Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) Transmitter Pad Area (SD-03). Statement of Basis and Purpose: This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action (IRA) for the former Transmitter Pad (SD-03) area at Sparrevohn LRRS, located near Lime Village, Alaska. SD-03 is a site under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 211 and Executive Order 12580 require that the IRP be conducted consistent with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
This decision is based upon information in the administrative record for Sparrevohn LRRS. The relevant information from the administrative record is summarized, along with an analysis of potential alternatives in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). The draft EE/CA was released for public review and comments; none were received. The final EE/CA is now part of the formal Administrative Record and a copy has been sent to the Information Repository in Lime Village.
The United States Air Force (USAF) is the lead agency for this decision, and as such has authority to choose the removal action (CERCLA, 42 USC 9604(a); Executive Order 12580, Section 2(d), 52 F.R. 2923, 23 Jan 87). This IRA is in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP 40 CFR 300.415), which states the lead agency may take any appropriate removal action to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or the threat of release.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has participated in the scoping of the Interim Remedial Action (IRA) and was sent a copy of the draft EE/CA for review. Formal work plans for the IRA are being developed and will be sent to ADEC for review and
approval. The final EE/CA indicated that solvent extraction was the most protective of human health and the environment of the alternatives considered and is also the most cost
effective. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/8/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Work plan received from the USAF for PCB Soil Remediation.
The Project site is located at Sparrevohn Long-range Radar Station (LRRS), Alaska. The project consists of two phases, Phase I, and Phase II. Phase 1 was completed during the summer of 1995 and consisted of characterizing a 220 cubic yard stockpile of PCB contaminated soil to estabhsh PCB and other contaminant concentrations. The stockpile was generated as the result of a previous cleanup project.
Phase I occurred during the summer of 1995. On July 18 and 19, 1995, the 220 cy stockpile of contaminated soil was surveyed and characterized. Analysis was performed for PCB by EPA method 8080. Additional sampling was performed on August 31, 1995. Grab samples were taken, and a full suite of analyticals were performed including. Total Metals (EPA 6010), Pb (EPA 7420), As (EPA 7061), Volatile Organ(cs (EPA 8260), Semivolatde Organtcs (EPA 8270). PCB concentrations ranged from 13 to 68 ppm. Volatile Organic Compounds were not detected. 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene (Semi-Volatile Orgamc Compounds) was detected.at 0.6 mg/kg and 2.4 mg/kg. 17 different metals were detected ranging from Arsenic at 11 mg/kg to Iron at 39,600. These results were reported in detail to the government in Sampling and Analysis Reports dated August 23, 1995 and
October 3, 1995.
Phase II of the project will be implemented dunng the summer of 1996. The first activity will consist of field screening and sampling of up to four sites around the Sparrevohn facility. The goal of this effort is to identify additional soil that can be treated/remediated during the 1996 season. This effort is detailed in section 2.3 of the Sampling and Analysis Plan (Appendix A).
The primary effort of Phase II will be to remediate PCB contaminated soil by the solvent extraction process. Linder Construction evaluated two options for treatment and disposal of the PCB contaminated soils. These were 1) treatment of the soils on-site by solvent extraction and 2) off-site turn in of the contaminated soils at the Elmendorf AFB Hazardous Waste Storage facility. Based on these two options, the government selected on-site solvent extraction
as the most cost effective option for this site.
Soil to be treated includes the 220 cy stockpile characterized during Phase I, and additional soil, up to 150 cy, identified as a result of the site screening/sampling mentioned above Solvent extraction treatment includes constructing treatment cells and loading the contaminated soil into the cells. The solvent is used to extract the PCBs from the soil The PCBs are removed from the solvent by passing the solvent though molecular sieves. The sieve material containing the PCBs is disposed of at a permitted, off-site facility The soil, remediated to below 15 mg/kg, is disposed of in place, by capping the former treatment cells.
The pnmary objectives of this project are to:
1) Treat soil stockpile contaminated with PCBs The stockpile has been previously sampled for PCB's with results ranging from non-detect up to 68.0 mg/kg. Solvent extraction cells will be constructed to treat the soil. The treated soil will be placed in an approved area adjacent to the existing landfill.
2) Characterize potentially PCB contaminated soils by field screening methods and confirmation laboratory analysis (EPA 8080).
PCB contaminated samples from the site were treated with a bench-scale test apparatus to determine if the Terra-Kleen solvent extraction technology could be used at the site to achieve significant PCB reductions Based on the bench scale tests, it was determined that PCB concentrations in the soils could be reduced to less than 15 mg/kg. This 15 mg/kg treatment level was set as a goal for this site after a series of meetings with LJnder Construction, the Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Air Force, and the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 4/5/1996 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft Work Plan, PCB Soil Remediation, Sparrevohn LRRS, on March 5, 1996. This work plan outlines further sampling to identify PCB contaminated soil at the site and the treatment of up to 400 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil by solvent extraction. The Department has reviewed the plan and will approve the plan if the following items are addressed: The constituents of the Terra-Kleen Solvent Blend will need to be specified. Depending on the solvent constituents, tests should be specified for the solvent remaining in the soil.
All workers and site visitors need to be provided with information on PCBs. MSDSs and a briefing procedure should be specified in the work plan.
The solvent disposal should be as specified in the March 20, 1996 letter from Alan Cash to Dave Rein, with the further caveats of :
in the fuel burner there should be a 1.5 second dwell time per 40 CFR 761.70; emissions should meet the standards in 18 AAC 50.050.
Appendix A, Page 1, Section 1.1 Project Overview In the list of four sampling events: field screening and confirmation analysis should be done to the 10 mg/kg PCB level; number 3 is missing from the list.
Appendix A, Section 2.0 Sampling and Analysis a) The precision, accuracy, and completeness parameters listed on Page 3 should be corrected to match those in Table 1 of Attachment 1. b) The sampling density of two samples for the first 250 sq. ft. and one per 250 sq. ft. thereafter applies to the fixed lab samples, but the field screening should be more numerous and include areas of heavier staining.
Appendix A, Section 2.4 Post Remediation Sampling Strategy The composite sample of the upper soil layer at 13 points is not adequate for confirmation. Confirmation sampling for each stockpile should include screening the pile at these points at various depths (including the geotextile) then confirming the maximum results with a fixed lab sample.
Appendix A, Attachment 1, Quality Assurance Program Plan a) Table 2 holding times should be 14 days to extract/ 40 days to analyze. b) References to petroleum sampling are incorrect. This plan should be dealing with PCB sampling (eg. Tables 3 and 4).
Appendix B, Waste Management Plan Packaging and labeling of wastes should be specified (eg. Section 2.5 only talks about the microfiltration bag filters being "collected on site, and transported by the contractor..." These are PCB wastes that require proper packaging and labeling.)
Appendix B, Waste Management Plan, Section 2.1 Site Characterization/Sampling Non hazardous rinsate is not defined. Water must meet the criteria in 18 AAC 70 prior to on site disposal.
While the Department cannot approve the plan as submitted, once the comments noted above are satisfactorily addressed, approval will be granted. In order to expedite approval of the final plan, we are available to meet with you to discuss any of the above items. |
Ray Burger |
| 5/6/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Public notice in Anchorage Daily News re: Final work plans for a project to treat approximately 300 cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated soil at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar
Station, AK are now available in the Administrative Record and Information Repository.
The only substantive change from the previously released (Sept. 95) Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis(EE/CA) involves the level of PCBs in a nonhazardous solvent, which will be burned on site after being purified to less than 2 parts per million (mg/L).
This work will be performed as part of the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and is expected to commence in June 1996. The workplans have been approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The Administrative Record is located at Bldg 9-824, 8th and L Streets (2nd Floor), Elmendorf AFB, AK. The Information Repository is located in the Lime Village AK Community Hall. |
Ray Burger |
| 9/11/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Community Relations Plan, Remedial Investiation / Feasibility Study (draft dated August 1996, no final received). |
Ray Burger |
| 11/19/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Summary Report for Stained Area Sampling (dated October 1996 and received November 19, 1996); sampled for PCBs. The purpose of the stained area sampling was to identify and delineate four on-site areas ldentified as follows: 1) Transmitter Pad SD-03 (Area A), 2) Spill/Leak #2 ST-06 (Area B), 3) White Alice Dump OT-04, and 4)Spill/Leak #1 ST-05.
Once site locations have been established, sampling is to be conducted of soil possibly contaminated by PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls) Results of this investigation will assist site closure of select area(s) and/or determine soil volumes for excavation and treatment.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS- PCB compounds were detected in the soil samples collected from the hand excavations and test pits at concentrations from 0.0156 mg/kg to 147 mg/kg. Soil samples collected at Areas B and C were found to have PCB concentrations that were below the ADEC closure standard
designated for the site. However, soil samples collected at nine of the 62 hand excavations in Area A were found to have PCB concentrations that exceeded the site's closure standard.
Additionally, soil samples collected at three of the 11 backhoe test plts in Area A exceeded this closure standard as well.
Assuming the gravel pad fill section at Area A is 1.0 to 3.0 feet thick, we estimate that approximately 16 cubic yards of soil beneath the northwest site section will require excavation
and treatment. Additionally, we estimate that at least 244 cubic yards of sod beneath the southsoutheast site section will require excavation and treatment. This soil volume estimate could be 244 cubic yards of soil beneath the south-southeast site section will require excavation and treatment. This soil volume could be larger for the south section of Area A if additional test pits were excavated and to greater depth. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/8/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) received the Draft RI/FS Management Plan on September 11, 1996. We received the Draft Remedial Action Report, PCB Soil Remediation, and the Summary Report for Stained Area Sampling on November 19, 1996. We also received copies of letters from the Air Force (P. Striebich) and the Army Corps of Engineers (P. Roth, White and Ferrell) commenting on the Draft RI/FS Management Plan. DEC comments on the document referenced above and the other reviewer's comments are incorporated into separate sections below.
Based on the numerous concurrent reviews and the potential for substantial changes in the documents, DEC requests a red line/strike out version of the final document or a review conference to discuss the proposed changes. This would simplify review of the final plan.
Please note, the Draft Baseline Risk Assessment Work Plan, included in the Draft RI/FS Management Plan, is currently under review. A separate comment letter will be forwarded upon completion of the review.
Work Plan-Comment #21 (Ferrell review comments) suggests reducing the number of surface soil samples proposed on the north hill slope from 30 samples to 4 samples. In addition, along the east and south hill slopes, it is expressed to reduce the sampling amount from 20 to 6 samples. The department does not concur with this reduction in sampling, and suggests a combination of field screening and laboratory analysis to appropriately delineate the extent of the contamination within a reasonable budget.
The portion of the comment regarding collecting a sample approximately 30 feet below any disturbed area on each hill slope is a valuable suggestion.
Comment #9 (P. Striebich review comments) questions why samples are proposed at the Opportunity site. As stated in the draft Work Plan, no previous investigations have been conducted at Opportunity, and the site is believed to have been used for VHF radio communications (1952 to 1958) and recreational activities (after 1958). DEC concurs with the proposed test pits in the former Quonset huts location and the surface soil samples on the slopes. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/30/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
All Around Alaska-An Environmental Update & Service of the USAF published by the 611th Air Support Group, Elmendorf AFB, AK. Sparrevohn Edition. In 1989, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated soil was excavated from the former transmitter pad at Upper Camp (IRP Site SD003). Some soil which could not be excavated because of the steep terrain was left in place. About half the excavated soil was drummed and shipped off site for disposal before winter set in; the remainder was placed in a covered stockpile at Lower Campl.
During the summer of 1996, a contractor cleaned the PCBs from the stockpiled soil using a solvent extraction process. The removed PCBs were shipped off site for disposal, and the cleaned soils were buired in lined cells near the station landfill. Any remaining PCB contamination at the transmitter pad will be investigated during the RI/FS. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/7/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Remedial Action PCB Soil Remediation Report. Phase II of the project was implemented during the spring, summer, & fall of 1996. The first activity consisted of field screening & around the Sparrevohn facility. The goal of this effort was to identify & quantify PCB contamination at different locations. Field work for this effort took place from May 28, 1996, to June 3, 1996.
The primary objective of this project was to use Solvent Extraction to treat the stockpile characterized during Phase I. This objective was met. The soil from the stockpile was remediated to below 15 mg/kg.
ImmunoAssay field screening,& lab analysis were used to evaluate the extent of PCB contamination at different locations. The results of this investigation were published separately, & are not within the scope of this remedial action report. The primary effort of Phase II was to remediate PCB contaminated soil by the solvent extraction process. Linder Construction had previously evaluated two options for treatment & disposal of the PCB contaminated soils. These were: 1) treatment of the soils on-site by solvent extraction & off-site turn in of the contaminated soils at the Elmendorf AFB Hazardous Waste Storage facility. Based on these two options, the government selected on-site solvent extraction as the most cost effective option for this site.
Prior to field work, PCB contaminated samples from the site were treated with a bench-scale test apparatus to determine if the Terra-Kleen solvent extraction technology could be used at the site to achieve significant PCB reductions. Based on the bench scale tests, it was determined that PCB concentrations in the soils could be reduced to less than 15 mg/kg. During this project, Solvent Extraction was effective in treating 272 c.y. of contaminated soil to an average PCB level of 3.27 mg/kg (See Table 6 Page 31 for treatment cell sampling results). This level was well below the 15 mg/kg target level. The process started on 6/20/96 when solvent was loaded into the Clean Solvent Cell. Solvent extraction of the first two cells proceeded concurrently with construction & loading of the remaining three.
Sub-Stockpile Sampling
Ten soil samples & on blind field duplicate were taken on a sampling grid established over the sub-stockpile area. Two samples,as directed by the QAR were taken near a surface oil sheen. The remainderwere taken at approximately 6 in. below the surface by hand excavation Subsequent lab analysis EPA method 8080 yielded results ranging from 1.46 mg/kg to 5.7 mg/kg for Aroclor-1260. With all results below required levels, approval was given to grade the berms, & restore the site.
Soil Treatment Confirmation Sampling
Subsequent analysis by EPA method 8080 found all samples to be well below the treatment goal of 15 mg/kg. Aroclor-1260 concentrations for treated soil ranged form a low of 0.554 mg/kg to a high of 7.88 mg/kg. Cells #1 & #2 contained the consistently lowest concentrations, while Cell #5 contained the highest. Analysis of the geotextile revealed PCB concentrations of only 1.54 mg/kg & comparison between surface & bottom composite samples indicated less than 20 % difference. This indicates that the Solvent Extraction process did not cause contamination to be concentrated in the lower portions of the cells or the geotextile.
It was noted that cells treated later in the process had higher residual PCB contamination after treatment that the first two cells. This could be because dilution with soil moisture had weakened the solvent. Also, soil loaded in later cells came from lower Strata in the source stockpile. This soil could have had higher starting PCB concentrations.
Solvent Destruction 8/12/96-9/11/96
All contaminated solvent was passed through the punflcation process repeatedly & samples taken of the clean, regenerated solvent. The limit for PCB concentration for the solvent destruction process approved in the Work Plan was 2.0 mg/kg or 1.7 mg/L. Filtering the solvent dropped the PCB concentrations from 10 mg/Kg for dirty solvent (DS) to below the detection limit of 0 1 mg/L for clean solvent (CS) as shown in the analysis by CT&E (Appendix C).
The initial solvent burning apparatus consisted of propane burners, igniter system, & a pipe & orifice through which solvent was pumped. The object was to create a mist of the solvent now diluted with water leached from the treated soil, within the propane flame.
This initial system did not perform up to expectations. Combustion was not complete, flameouts were frequent, & winds would blow the solvent/water mix out of the propane flame. On 8/18/96, after successive attempts failed to improve the performance of the system, solvent incineration was halted.
For additional information see site file. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/14/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Remedial Action PCB Soil Remediation Report, ADEC comment letter dated February 14, 1997. An average of 3.27 mg/kg PCB was the reported concentration for the treated soil, please also state the concentration range or refer to Table 5 on page 30.
Amended pages for final report received on March 4, 1997 |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/30/1997 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Remedial Investigation Workplan and associated plans, ADEC comment letter dated January 7, 1997; teleconferences on workplan comments during week of March 18, 1997; ADEC received final workplans dated May 1997 on August 11, 1998 |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/10/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC participated in a facility-wide site visit |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/5/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Memorandum of Intent to Evaluate Risks Associated with Subsistence Hunting near Sparrevohn LRRS (dated August 6, 1997); received Response to ADEC Comments on the Approach for Evaluating Subsistence hunting (dated September 3, 1997) on September 11, 1997; and ADEC reviewed and commented on the Approach on September 12, 1997 |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/23/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Property Disposal (draft dated July 1997, no final version received); ADEC comment letter dated September 23, 1997. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/17/1997 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
ADEC participated in teleconferences regarding the LAS Laboratory suspension and site samples awaiting analyses |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/12/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Management Action Plan (dated and received in January 1998). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/24/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Status of Laboratory Data Problems from the 1997 Remedial Investigation (dated February 2, 1998; Update on Status of Laboratory Data Problems from the 1997 Remedial Investigation, and Progress Report on Other Activities (dated February 26, 1998) |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/14/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Shannon & Wilson propose recollection of the samples proposed is planned to take place in early August 1998. Sample recollection will take place under the same conditions for the volatile samples that were recollected in August 1997:
• Samples will be recollected only for the analyses specified in this letter; this will result in the samples for the other analyses not being precisely collocated with the recollected samples, & having been collected a year earlier than the recollected samples. This latter issue is not expected to be a concern at Sparrevohn, since any releases from the site facilities would have occurred long enough in the past that concentrations would not be expected to change significantly during the intervening year.
• Surface water & sediment samples will be collected from the same staked sampling location from which the previous sample was collected.
• Surface soil samples will be collected from undisturbed soil immediately adjacent to the hole from which the previous sample was collected.
• Test pit samples will be collected from the appropriate depths from new test pits excavated in previously-undisturbed soils adjacent to the backfilled original test pits.
• Since no drill rig will be remobilized to Sparrevohn, any samples that need to be recollected from borings will be collected from the appropriate depth from test pits excavated adjacent to the previous boring location.
Since the LAS lab has ceased operations, it will be necessary to analyze the recollected samples at a different lab. We propose to use CTE Environmental Services in Anchorage as the project lab. CTE was the project lab for the IRP site ST05 Site Characterization sampling conducted in 1996, & was the QA lab for the 1997 RI.
Field duplicate samples will be collected & analyzed at a 10% rate for each analysis & media that is recollected. To the extent possible, the locations of duplicate samples will be the same as those from which duplicate samples were originally collected. A field QA triplicate sample will be collected from the same location as each field duplicate. We propose to use CAS (Columbia Analytical Services) in Anchorage as the QA lab. They were the QA lab for the IRP site ST05 Site Characterization sampling conducted in 1996.
This information has been presented to: 1) Document our understanding of the details of the problems experienced by the lab; 2) Present an objective discussion of the known or possible impacts of these problems on data quality; 3) Present the results of S&W's evaluation of the quality & usability of the data; 4) Present S&W's proposed approach to the use of the data, & plans for recollection & reanalysis of samples; & 5) To solicit approval &/or comments from the involved parties (the Corps, Air Force, & ADEC) for this proposed approach.
With respect to review & comments or approval, we specifically request that the review address whether or not the reviewers agree that:
• Except as otherwise noted, the data from LAS is usable
• The flagging protocol proposed for the DRO, RRO, SVOC, & PAH SIM analyses potentially impacted by cap contamination is appropriate
• The rationale for the selection of samples to be recollected is reasonable
• The number & type of samples proposed for recollection is sufficient to provide additional evidence supporting the usability of the remainder of the data
• The proposed lab choices for the project & QA samples are appropriate.
Therefore, if any reviewers feel the sample recollection program outlined in this letter is overly conservative, we would appreciate suggestions for a less extensive recollection program that would still result in a final data set that is usable for the Remedial Investigation & risk assessment. Shannon & Wilson wishes to express its thanks in advance to those individuals & agencies that review & provide comments on this document. Once again, we regret that this project has been beset by so many difficulties. We are attempting to do what we can to make use of the effort that has been expended to date, without compromising quality, so that this project can be brought to a successful completion.
Reviewers will note that we have not provided raw data from the 1997 sampling program, a list of the actual samples proposed for recollection, or maps showing sample locations. If any reviewers need such information in order to complete their review, we will provide whatever additional information that would be helpful.
Since field work to recollect samples is planned to begin the first or second week of August, it is imperative that this document be reviewed by all necessary parties, & that agreement is reached on our approach, prior to that time. We request that reviewers provide their comments to S&W no later than July 31, 1998. We apologize for the short time available for review, but the delay has been caused by the continued lack of responsiveness on the part of the lab. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/28/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Baseline Risk Assessment workplan (draft dated August 1996; staff position at ADEC started in November 1996; ADEC comment letter dated February 25, 1997; comment resolution meeting March 6, 1997; response to comments March 26, 1997; and Addendum to Baseline Risk Assessment Workplan - Approach to Evaluating a Subsistence Hunting Scenario (dated July 28, 1998) |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/5/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Evaluation of the Usability of Laboratory Data from the 1997 Remedial Investigation (dated and received in July 1998); ADEC memorandum sent out on August 5, 1998. Dr. Alan Love of the DEC laboratory in Juneau reviewed this evaluation report. His comments are provided below. Please contact me at 269-3077 if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter.
As to the volatiles results which lack the required data quality. The quality is known and the errors are estimated. Are the levels of contaminants in these samples high enough to warrant re-sampling and analysis which has not as its objective to confirm the levels but rather to confirm the quality of the data? As I am ignorant of both the agreed upon cleanup levels and the actual Calibration Verification Standard recoveries, I can't answer this question. Are the results biased high or biased low?
As to the problem of contamination due to the use of the wrong autosampler vial caps, I do not concur with estimating the level of "cap contamination" and subtracting this from the diesel range organics (DRO) or residual range organics (RRO) value. Any samples not flagged "3N", "1Ay", or "3Y" from the decision tree should be flagged "J" and the value reported.
Any DRO and RRO samples not flagged "3N" and which have levels above the agreed upon action levels should be re-sampled. These are the analytes about which I would be the most concerned.
As to those analytes which are impacted by evaporation of solvent due to the improper vial caps, it seems to me that there should be a way to accurately calculate the actual error sample by sample. As part of the sample extraction procedure the volume of the sample aliquot extracted and the final volume of the extract should be recorded. Without this data, no concentrations can be calculated. The extracts could have been quantitatively transferred from the vials to the appropriate measuring device and the volumes adjusted to 1.0 ml. This would certainly not, in my opinion, create a plus or minus 25% error in the extract volume.
Being aware of the incompleteness of the picture that I have, and given the exceptions mentioned above, I would endorse Shannon and Wilson's plan. I pretty much concur with the comments made by the Corps of Engineers, except for the matter of re-sampling for a few RRO analyses. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/14/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Remedial Investigation Report (dated April 1999) received. Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at Sparrevohn LRRS to investigate the potential for contamination to be present at its eight Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites. The site characterization work was conducted in two primary phases, an accelerated investigation in 1996 of one IRP site known to have fuel contamination (ST05, Lower Camp Spilt/Leak No. 1), and investigation of the remaining IRP sites in 1997 and 1998. Water and sediment samples were also collected from Tundra Lake, located 8 miles northwest of Sparrevohn. The results of the RI work presented in this report provide a comprehensive evaluation of the extent of contamination at each of the IRP sites, and their impact on the Sparrevohn facility as a whole. Upper Camp includes the: ridgetop IRP sites-SD03, OT04 and ST06, as well as the roads leading from the Lower Camp to the ridgetop and between the White Alice and Upper Camp IRP sites.
Four IRP sites were found to have contamination exceeding human health-based regulatory
comparison criteria: SD03 (Transmitter Pad), OT04 (White Alice Communications System), ST05, and ST06 (Upper Camp Spill/Leak No. 2). the Transmitter Pad, PCB contamination was found in soils on the hillside immediately below the north edge of the pad. This finding confirmed previous field screening for PCBs conducted in this area by the Air Force in 1989 following a PCB-contaminated soil removal action. Several areas of surface soft staining were observed at the Opportunity site, characterized by elevated concentrations of residual range organics (RRO).
Groundwater was not observed at any of the ridge-top IRP sites during this RI. No drinking water sources have been located at these sites and none are likely to be located there in the future. The highest concentrations of RRO were reported in samples collected from native soils rather than from fill materials, suggesting that these results represent naturally-occurring biogenic material. The highest two RRO occurrences were 1,600 mg/kg and 570 mg/kg, which are below the most stringent cleanup level for RRO.
PCBs are present at the Transmitter Pad in areas that were previously known to be contaminated
(in the northern portion of the pad and on the slope north of the pad), and are present only at low concentrations on the slopes on the east and south sides of the pad. PCB concentrations on the itself exceed residential cleanup levels in eight test pit locations but are below ADEC action levels for industrial sites. Results of the sampling conducted for the current RI also confirm the presence of PCBs at concentrations exceeding action levels on the hillside north of the pad. This area was inaccessible to the excavating equipment used during the 1989 remaval action.
4.3.5.2 Opportunity Site: RRO concentrations at the Opportunity Site are below cleanup levels with the exception of the three sample locations where oil-stained soil was observed. Stained soil was observed at only a few isolated locations, and is not believed to represent a widespread problem at this site. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples collected at Opportunity.
Conclusions: RRO reported in most of the samples collected from around the Transmitter Pad and
Opportunity sites suggests that these results represent naturally-occurring biogenic
material. PCB concentrations on the level surface of the Transmitter Pad itself exceed residential cleanup levels in eight test pits, but are all below ADEC action levels for
industrial sites. PCBs remain at concentrations exceeding action levels on the hillside north of the pad. Concentrations of RRO exceeding ADEC soil cleanup levels at the Opportunity Site
were associated with small areas of soil staining, presumably by used oil. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples collected at Opportumty. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/19/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment received. This baseline human health and ecological risk assessment was conducted to assess the potential for human health and ecological effects due to chemicals released into the environment during past activities at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station. To conduct this assessment the site was divided into five exposure areas based on site activities, habitat, and predicted human and ecological exposure patterns. The exposure areas include Upper Camp, Lower Camp (on-site), Lower Camp (off-site), Hook Creek, and the Northern Hillside/Valley. A Tier II ecological risk assessment was also conducted to more thoroughly characterize the potential for ecological risks posed to sediment dwelling invertebrates within the Lower Camp (on-site) and Lower Camp (off-site) exposure areas.
Current and potential future human receptors at the site include worker residents, recreational receptors, and subsistence hunters. Exposure media for the worker resident include on-site soil, sediment, gallery water, and groundwater. Exposure media for the recreational receptor include off-site soil, surface water, and sediment. Both the recreational and subsistence receptors are assumed to consume moose and caribou that forage on and around the site.
No unacceptable risks are predicted for humans under current conditions at the site. Unacceptable future risks are predicted for the worker resident due to hypothetical future use of groundwater at the Lower Camp (on-site) exposure area. Additional unacceptable future risks were predicted within the Lower Camp (on-site) exposure area due to the possibility of contaminants volatilizing from soil to indoor am if buildings are placed within the exposure area, and due to presence of contaminants within groundwater seeps. Finally, concentrations of petroleum compounds above the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's maximum allowable concentrations were noted at the Upper Camp and Lower Camp (on-sate) exposure areas and may require further assessment with regard to the potential for product migration.
The ecological receptors selected for assessment included terrestrial plants, soil invertebrates, aquatic species, sediment dwelling invertebrates, snowshoe hares, beavers, caribou, moose, rock ptarmigan, mallards, masked shrews, Lapland longspurs, American dippers, wolves, mink, and bald eagles. Exposure media for these receptors are surface soil, surface water, and sediment. At least a slight potential for risks (i.e., hazard quotients greater than 1 are predicted for one or more ecological receptors at each exposure area. No potential for risks is predicted at any of the exposure areas for beavers, moose, caribou, wolves, mallards, or bald eagles. Potentially significant risks are suggested for masked shrews within the Lower Camp (on-site) and Northern Hillside/Valley exposure areas due primarily to PCBs, diesel-range petroleum compounds, and residual-range petroleum compounds. However, after examination of the limited contribution of PCBs to the predicted risks, the small aerial extent of contamination within each exposure area relative to the large amount of uncontaminated regional habitat and the uncertainties of the assessment, potentially significant risks predicted for the masked shrew are considered ecologically insignificant.
Since a previous screening level ecological assessment and the baseline ecological risk assessment indicate that sediment dwelling invertebrates within the Lower Camp (on-site) exposure area have the potential for significant adverse effects, a more detailed Tier II assessment was conducted. The Tier II ecological risk assessment consisted of a triad sediment investigation designed to provide further evidence as to whether site-related sediment contamination is resulting in significant adverse ecological effects on sediment dwelling invertebrates. While the sediment dwelling invertebrate community appeared disrupted in streams within the Lower Camp (on-site) exposure area, this disruption could not be directly linked to site-related chemical contamination. Rather, anthropogenic physical disturbances and/or a combination of physical and chemical impacts are suggested for streams immediately west and east of the runway, respectively. Disruption of the sediment dwelling invertebrate community is not apparent downstream of these two stream segments. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/22/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (dated April 1999) on May 14, 1999. We appreciate the extended review period, have completed our review, and provided comments below.
4.3.3 Observations and Characterization Activities: Provide an explanation for the rationale of not conducting test pits within the vicinity of the pre-1960 site building as outlined in the approved workplan.
The approved workplan proposed 6 test pits to extend to unweathered bedrock with 2 soil samples for analysis per test pit, unless the test pit was continued to greater than 2 feet bgs, then more soil samples would be collected. However, it appears that only surface soil samples were collected. Include the rationale for this deviation from the approved workplan.
4.3.5.1 Transmitter Pad: As stated above in the general comments, the industrial land use scenario is not appropriate for this site. Under the unrestricted land use scenario, the residential cleanup levels for PCBs is 1 mg/kg for surface soil, and 10 mg/kg for subsurface soil. Please make this correction within this section, and throughout this document. It should be noted that the PCB exceedences would need to be addressed prior to closure of this site.
4.3.5.2 Opportunity Site: It should be noted that the oil-stained soil and RRO sample locations with soil cleanup level exceedences will need to be addressed prior to closure of this site. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/29/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Addendum to Evaluation of the Usability of Laboratory Data from the 1997 Remedial Investigation, Comparison of Collocated 1997 and 1998 Sample Results (document not dated) |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/13/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Screening-Level Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (draft dated July 1999, received on July 19, 1999); ADEC comment letter dated August 18, 1999; comment resolution meeting dated August 26, 1999; response to comments September 13, 1999 |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/22/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Final RI Report revision no. 1 received. North of Transmitter Pad: 20 near-surface soil samples were collected on the hillside immediately below the northern edge of the Transmitter Pad. This sampling area overlapped the area subjected to PCB screening conducted by the Air Force in 1989. RRO levels ranged from 42 mg/kg to 460 mg/kg in the fill materials & 110 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg in the vegetated soils on this slope. PCB levels ranged from non-detect to 2,200 mg/kg in the fill soils & non-detect to 38 mg/kg in the native soils PCBs were generally detected at higher levels in the fill soils on the western half of this slope Sample location SS-24, with the 2,200 mg/kg PCB level, was recollected in 1998 with a result of 620 mg/kg, still the location with the highest level.
East of Transmitter Pad: RRO results were higher in the native material (440 mg/kg & 570 mg/kg) than in the fill material (52 mg/kg to 99 mg/kg). PCB levels ranged from non-detect to 0.039 mg/kg in these samples.
South of Transmitter Pad: RRO levels ranged from 130 mg/kg to 1,600 mg/kg, with the higher levels reported in the native material. PCB levels ranged from 0.02 mg/kg to 1.7 mg/kg. Only 1 sample (SS-45) exceeded the ADEC resident a soil cleanup level for PCBs.
Transmitter Pad Test Pits: Near-surface samples collected from these test pits had levels of RRO ranging from non-detect to 133 mg/kg, & PCB levels ranging from 0.059 mg/kg to 3.1 mg/kg (6 of these exceeded residential PCB soil cleanup levels). Subsurface samples collected from these test pits ranged in depth from 1½ feet to 8 feet. RRO levels in these samples ranged from non-detect to 176 mg/kg, & PCB levels ranged from non-detect to 20 mg/kg. Only two of the subsurface test pit samples exceeded 10 mg/kg PCBs; one from TP-112 at 2½ feet deep (14 mg/kg) & one from TP-117 at 8 feet (20 mg/kg).
Opportunity Site Surface Samples: The 6 surface soil samples collected from in & around the former locations of the Quonset huts had RRO levels ranging from non-detect to 1,600 mg/kg. 3 lines of 5 samples each were collected downslope of the Opportunity Site, generally to the east, southwest, & northwest of the Quonset area. Samples SS-64, SS-69, & SS-70 were collected from oil stained soils, which explains the *high RRO levels reported in those samples (ranging from 24,000 mg/kg to 100,000 mg/kg).
*NOTE TO FILE-18 AAC 75.380 (c)(1) states: “...applicable soil cleanup levels, [are] based on sampling results from onsite contaminated soil & from contaminated soil moved offsite for treatment or disposal, & based on the maximum level detected,....” Therefore, ADEC required the Air Force to sample from the stained area to determine compliance with soil cleanup levels since ADEC regulates on the maximum level & not on the overall average levels in soil.
Soil staining was observed in isolated, limited areas around the Opportunity Site, as if the result of spills or releases of small quantities of oil rather than a large "dumping" area. Debris such as old radio tubes, tin cans, miscellaneous metal pieces, & other solid waste was present on the eastern slope. The line of soil samples there (SS-72 tkrough SS-76) was located downslope from the major level of this debris. All of the samples collected from the Opportunity Site were analyzed for PCBs but none were detected.
Conclusions: Transmitter Pad-The highest levels of RRO were reported in samples collected from native soils rather than from fill materials, suggesting that these results represent naturally-occurring biogenic material. The highest two RRO occurrences were 1,600 mg/kg & 570 mg/kg, which are below the most stringent cleanup level for RRO. PCBs are present at the Transmitter Pad in areas that were previously known to be contaminated (in the northern portion of the pad & on the slope north of the pad), & are present only at low levels on the slopes on the east & south sides of the pad. PCB levels exceed residential cleanup levels (1 mg/kg) in eight test pit locations but are below ADEC action levels for industrial sites (25 mg/kg). Results of the sampling conducted for the current RI also confirm the presence of PCBs at levels exceeding action levels on the hillside north of the pad. This area was inaccessible to the excavating equipment used during the 1989 remaval action.
Opportunity Site-RRO levels at the Opportunity Site are below cleanup levels with the exception of the 3 sample locations where oil-stained soil was observed. Stained soil was observed at only a few isolated locations, & is not believed to represent a widespread problem at this site. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples collected at Opportunity. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/13/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force Fact Sheet on Quality of Drinking Water Supply (dated January 1999) received on October 13, 1999 |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/26/1999 |
Site Added to Database |
Fuels and PCBs. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 11/2/1999 |
Site Characterization Report Approved |
Remedial Investigation Report Volumes 1 and 2 (draft dated April 1999, draft final dated September 1999, final replacement pages dated October 27, 1999); ADEC comment letter dated July 22, 1999; comment resolution meeting on July 29, 1999; ADEC approval letter dated October 9, 2003. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 11/26/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Baseline Risk Assessment received. For the purposes of this risk assessment, several of these IRP sites were combined to create larger exposure areas that are considered more representative of typical exposure patterns at Sparrevohn LRRS. These exposure areas include Lower Camp (consisting of LF01, portions of SD02, ST05, & SS07) & Upper Camp (consisting of all the ridgetop IRP sites OT04, SD03, ST06, & the remaining portion of SD02). Potential risks were predicted for plants due to PCBs & for soil invertebrates due to arsenic, nickel, & selenium. The majority of the most elevated detections of PCBs were limited to a small area in the Transmitter Pad site (IRP Site SD03). This significantly limits the area of exposure & decreases the potential for significant ecological risks due to PCBs at Upper Camp. If ecological risks due to PCBs are significantly overestimated at Upper Camp, then it is unlikely that risks are posed to soil invertebrates in this exposure area. The only remaining predicted risks at Upper Camp are for plants due to metals. The HQs associated with these risks are all less than 3. The calculated EPC for arsenic was below the background level.
At Upper Camp the only predicted ecological risks (i.e. HIs or THIs > 1) were for plants & soil invertebrates due to PCBs in soil. Given the documented lack of vegetation & soil invertebrates under the naturally harsh ecological conditions, & the limited distribution of PCBs near the Transmitter Pad site, the predicted ecological risks for Upper Camp likely are de minimis. Potential risks from PCBs in soil are likely to be significantly overestimated due to their limited aerial extent (primarily found near the Transmitter Pad site at Upper Camp.
The only human receptors potentially exposed to soil in this exposure area are the worker residents. While the recreational receptor & subsistence hunter may be exposed to game animals that have passed through this area, they do not hunt in this area & therefore are not directly exposed to soil. Ecological receptors potentially exposed to contaminants in soil via direct contact or ingestion include plants, soil invertebrates, & possibly mammalian herbivores & carnivores. Since fine grained soil is not present on the ridgetops & vegetation is extremely limited (lichens & grass clumps), direct contact with or ingestion of soil is not expected for any other receptors. Groundwater is not present at the Upper Camp exposure area, so it was not evaluated there. The Upper Camp exposure area contains no surface water & sediment, therefore was not assessed for this exposure medium.
Risks were evaluated using EPCs. In some instances, the calculated EPC (i.e., the UCL) was sigmficantly less than the maximum detected level. Because of this, in cases where preferential exposure may occur m the most contaminated portions of the site, use of a UCL as the EPC can result in an underestimation of risks. For instance, the maximum detected level for Aroclor 1260 in the Upper Camp exposure area was 620 mg/kg, while the UCL was 14 mg/kg. Had risks been calculated using the maximum detected level, the cancer risk for the worker resident would have been unacceptable. Instead, using the UCL, the predicted risk was below levels of concern. This lower risk level is appropriate for the BLRA because it is unlikely that the worker resident would have preferential exposure to the location at Upper Camp where the maximum detected level was collected. Therefore, in cases where preferential exposure is not expected, the UCL is more representative of the level that receptors would be exposed to over time.
Current Risks-Worker Resident: No unacceptable current risks are posed to the worker resident exposed to soil, sediment, & gallery water. The total current cancer risk estimates across all COPCs, media, & pathways are below the ADEC risk management standard of 1 x 10-5, & the total non-cancer risk estimates are below an HI of 1. The maximum cumulative risk to worker residents exposed to gallery water at Lower Camp (on-site) & to either soil at Upper Camp or to soil & sediment at Lower Camp (on-site) is 4.8x10-6 for carcinogens. A maximum HI of 0.25 was estimated for non-carcinogens.
Recreational Receptor: No unacceptable current risks are posed to the recreational receptor exposed to off-site soil, sediment, surface water, fish tissue, or game meat. The total current cancer risk estimates across all COPCs, media, & pathways are below the ADEC risk management standard of 1 x 10 -5, & the total non-cancer risk estimates are below an HI of 1. The maximum cumulative risk to these receptors exposed to fish, game & either Lower Camp (off-site) (sediment & surface water) or Northern Hillside/Valley (soil, sediment, surface water) is 2.7 x 10-6 for carcinogens. A maximum HI of 0.42 is predicted for non-carcinogens. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/19/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan (dated May 2000 and received on July 19, 2000). |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/29/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (draft dated November 1999 and received November 26; ADEC comment letter dated February 28, 2000; comment resolution meeting on April 13, 2000 - outstanding issues on residential vs. industrial scenarios; final report dated June 2000 and received July 13, 2000 - several issues still not resolved in final report; ADEC comment letter on unresolved issues dated August 4, 2000; comment resolution meeting on September 29, 2000; ADEC conditional approval letter dated October 9, 2003. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/1/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Addendum Workplan for the Baseline Risk Assessment (draft dated and received on December 13, 2000); ADEC comment letter dated January 16, 2001; comment resolution meeting on February 1, 2001; final addendum workplan not issue. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 3/5/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Background Screening Process for the Addendum to the Baseline Risk Assessment (dated January 29, 2001 and received February 2, 2001); ADEC comment letter dated March 5, 2001. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/13/2001 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Sparrevohn LRRS site, Reckey 198925X106002, was disseminated into eight component sites and this is one of them. |
Former Staff |
| 10/16/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Year 2000 Clean Sweep Environmental Survey Report (dated August 14, 2001) and the Administrative Record on CD (dated April 2001) received by ADEC on October 16, 2001. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 1/15/2002 |
Risk Assessment Report Approved |
Baseline Risk Assessment Addendum report - draft dated and received in June 2001; ADEC comment letter dated July 10, 2001; comment resolution meeting on October 31, 2001; final addendum report datedand received in January 2002; ADEC approval letter dated October 9, 2003. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/9/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Feasibility Study received. At the Transmitter Pad, the highest concentrations of residual range organics (RRO) were reported in samples collected from native soils, rather than from the fill materials. PCB were present in surface soils on the steep hillside north of the Transmitter Pad. On the northwestern portion of the Transmitter Pad, PCB were present at concentrations exceeding residential levels in the surface and subsurface soils. PCB were present only at low concentrations on the steep slopes east and south of the pad. At the Opportunity Site, RRO were detected at concentrations exceeding ADEC Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) here oil-stained soil was observed. Stained soil was observed at only a few isolated locations. PCB were not detected in any of the samples collected at the Opportunity site.
RRO below the most stringent cleanup level were reported in samples collected from native soils, suggesting that these results represent naturally-occurring biogenic material. These
soils will be left in place. PCBs are present on the Transmitter Pad and on the hillside north of the pad but do not exceed ADEC risk management standards. The hillslope area is inaccessible
and will remain without corrective action. An NFRAP with institutional controls will be
recommended for the Transmitter Pad. The 1993 survey of construction debris buried at the
Transmitter Pad will be entered into the site’s land record.
Stained soil was observed at the Opportunity Site where RRO concentrations exceeded cleanup
levels at a few isolated locations. These concentrations were below ADEC risk management
standards, and are in soil characterized as fractured bedrock with little interstitial fine-grained material. Risk management decisions and the physical soil characteristics will be used to support the recommendation for NFRAP at the Opportunity Site. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 5/31/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group, received the Draft Feasibility Study Report (dated May 2002) on May 9, 2002. We have completed our review and provide the comments below.
General Comments
1. The report transition from the background section introducing all the remaining IRP sites and contaminant exceedences, to the specific remedial actions proposed for only the Lower Camp contaminated soil and groundwater IRP sites is not complete; there are IRP sites with contaminant exceedences that are not being addressed within this FS. One example is SD03 where PCB has been detected in the site soil as high as 620 mg/kg. Another example is LF01 where Section 2.0 Background states that based on the results of analytical testing of these soil, rock, sediment, and water samples, various hydrocarbon, volatile organic compounds, PCB, pesticide, and metals compounds were detected. However, there is no further mention of this site or proposed action. A clear transition from contaminant exceedences to proposed remedial action or supporting information to warrant ACLs, NFRAP or site closure is necessary.
2. The final RI report shows PCB sample results above 50 mg/kg, which requires EPA involvement. The Department strongly encourages the 611 CES/CEVR to inform EPA about the PCB contaminated soil at SD03 and Lower Camp Power House, if this has not been accomplished earlier.
40 CFR 761.61 regulates PCB remediation waste. In most cases, contaminated soil in Alaska is the result of spills or releases from transformers. Soil contaminated with PCBs from spills from such things as transformers may be considered PCB remediation waste and EPA involvement may be required. To determine this the 611 CES/CEVR needs to look at the definition of PCB remediation waste under The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976).
40 CFR 761.3 Definitions- PCB remediation waste means waste containing PCBs as a result of a spill, release, or other unauthorized disposal, at the following concentrations:
• Materials disposed of prior to April 18, 1978, that are currently at concentrations >50 ppm PCBs, regardless of the concentration of the original spill;
• materials which are currently at any volume or concentration where the original source was >500 ppm PCBs beginning on April 18, 1978, or >50 ppm PCBs beginning on July 2, 1979; and,
• materials which are currently at any concentration if the PCBs are spilled or released from a source not authorized for use under this part. PCB remediation waste means soil, rags, and other debris generated as a result of any PCB spill cleanup, including, but not limited to:
1. Environmental media containing PCBs, such as soil and gravel; dredged materials, such as sediments, settled sediment fines, and aqueous decantate from sediment.
2. Sewage sludge containing <50 ppm PCBs and not in use according to § 761.20(a)(4); PCB sewage sludge; commercial or industrial sludge contaminated as the result of a spill of PCBs including sludges located in or removed from any pollution control device; aqueous decantate from an industrial sludge.
3. Buildings and other man-made structures (such as concrete floors, wood floors, or walls contaminated from a leaking PCB or PCB-Contaminated Transformer), porous surfaces, and non-porous surfaces. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 8/13/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force response to ADEC comments on draft RI/FS.
The draft FS presented a discussion of the IRP sites identified at Sparrovohn and provides
a brief discussion of findings from the RI and BLRA reports. The draft FS did not carry
those IRP sites forward into the diseuasion for corrective measures where the risk
assessment did not identify these sites as having a risk factor. The final FS includes each
of the eight/RP sites in the subsequent chapters for discussion as to their applicability in
corrective measures required.
Coordination with the EPA will commence during the course of implementation of corrective actions. The anticipated effort and costs involved in agency coordination are considered within the evaluations of the proposed corrective measures.
Sediment and water quality sampling is included as part of long-term monitoring for
Alternative # 7 - Monitored Natural Attenuation. Long-term monitoring of sediment and
water quality could also be insluded as a condition in Alternative #2 - Institutional
Controls. Long-term monitoring would be consistent with the current monitoring program at Sparrevohn. Sampling locations include the seven monitoring wells as described. In addition, monitoring will included the three seeps, two surface water loeations, and two samples from the drinking water supply. At least two consecutive sampling events will be documented to establish the sampling end point.
We understand that institutional controls alone may not meet the requirements of the department. ICs were presented as a stand-alone alternative for clarity. Instead of offering a full range of potential scenarios within the IC alternative, we acknowledge that ICs could be incorporated in combination with any of the other described alternatives.
The state historic preservation office was contacted to inquire about areheological sites at
Sparrevohn. The question mark left on the statement was a reminder to fill in this block. The
SHPO has determined the site to be eligible, but it has not actually been placed on the national
registry. The SHPO should be contacted prior to conducting work at the WACS. The text has
been revised accordingly. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/11/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC (G. Pikul) sent 611 ASG (S. Tarbox) letter re: Draft Feasibility Study Report, Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study, Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group received the Draft Feasibility Study Report (dated May 2002) on May 9, 2002, an ADEC comment letter was submitted on May 31, 2002, a comment resolution meeting was held on June 10, 2002, a response to comments were received on July 22, 2002, ADEC sent e-mails on July 25 and August 8, 2002 regarding the response to comments, a final response to comments was received on August 19, 2002, and a second comment resolution meeting was held on August 21, 2002; all issues were resolved within the last meeting. Based on the above noted reviews, meetings, and documentation, ADEC concurs with the feasibility study, and therefore approves this document based on the incorporation of these responses, as stated, within the final document. The inclusion of agency review comment letters, the Air Force response to comments, and this approval letter within in the final document appendices is requested.
Please note ADEC review and concurrence on this document is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on this document does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 11/4/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed Plan – 1st draft received October 30, 2002; ADEC comments submitted to Air Force and comment resolution meeting on November 4, 2002. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/10/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
A HQ PACAF Peer Review Team (PRT) performed a peer review of proposed remedial actions and alternatives for Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites SD003 Transmitter Pad and
Opportunity Site, ST005 Spill/Leak No.1 and Lower Camp Area, ST006 Upper Camp Spill/Leak No. 2, OT 004 White Alice Communications System, DP008 Hillside Disposal Areas, and SS007 Waste Accumulatmn Area.
Site SD003 includes both the Transmitter Pad and the Opportunity Site. The Transmitter Pad was designated an IRP site due to the detection of PCBs. The site consists of a gravel pad
approximately 100 by 250 square feet. Highest concentration at the sloped periphery of the transmitter pad was 680 mg/kg. The Opportunity Site is located on the ridge top approximately one
mile east of Upper Camp. No PCBs were found at the Opportunity Site. Currently no structures or foundations are present at either site. No further investigation is needed at the Opportunity site,
institutional controls may be required at the Transmitter Pad.
Review of the risk assessment documents and information provided by the RPM indicate that future risks to human and ecological receptors from contamination at Sparrevohn is negligible. There are no viable groundwater resources readily available at Upper Camp. The reasonably anticipated future land use of the site, using factors in EPA's Land Use in the
CERCLA Remedy Selection Process, is that land use will remain restricted for its current activity.
Based on the limited review of available risk assessment information at Sparrevolm LRRS, current and future risk to human and ecological receptors is acceptable at all reviewed sites with
the exception of ST005. Site ST005 Lower Camp Spill/Leak No. 1 recommended cleanup alternatives are limited removal
and offsite disposal of PCB-contaminated soil at the former Power House and restrictions placed on soil excavation and construction. Review of controls and should be conducted in five years (and every 5 years until the contamination is removed completely to an approved treatment, storage, disposal-TSD facility) to confirm that actions remain protective of human health and the environment. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 12/31/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff provided comments on the second Draft Proposed Plan for Cleanup at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site, Alaska. Although the second draft uses more easily understood language for people that are not specifically involved in environmental investigation and remediation of contaminated sites, the elimination of the newspaper style text, aerial photos, figures, tables, and bullets make this proposed plan less easily understood and readable, and the location of sites unclear.
According to the Final Baseline Risk Assessment Addendum Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (dated January 2002) page 8-2: Further refinement of alternate cleanup levels (ACLs) is planned for the next phase of the project. At that point, ACLs will be adjusted, if necessary, to account for cumulative risks across chemicals, media, and receptors. Please supply the location of these refinements within the response to comments.
It is stated that no PCBs exceed industrial cleanup levels. Please note that risk-based cleanup levels were used and approved at this site, if industrial cleanup levels are desired then 18 AAC 75.340(e)(3) will need to be met prior to ADEC approval.
It is stated that institutional controls (ICs) will consist of restricting excavation of soil and documentation of the presence of contamination within the land records. Since the 18 AAC 75.350 groundwater use determination is being applied at this site, then installation of drinking water wells should also be noted as a restriction. The buried debris from the site demolition present on site should also be noted within the land records. The notation of drinking water well restrictions should also be recorded within the OT04 section.
Feasibility Study:
• It is stated within the capping of PCB-contaminated soil section that the alternative is a low-cost means to reduce exposure, however, the Feasibility Study notes this alternative as moderate.
• Some of the alternatives provide explanations of the alternative, others only cost or implementability information; these descriptions should be consistent and have similar information so that the reader can comparison the alternatives appropriately.
• DRO should be spelled out the first time it is used within the plan. DRO is spelled out on page 4 of 8 after it is used for the first time.
• The ‘a’ in the title of Monitored Natural Attenuation alternative should be capitalized.
• The last alternative is confusing stating that it would be more costly to implement than natural attenuation, but would yield little improvement in cleanup rates. Please clarify.
Since the typical proposed plan audience would not know the site identification or where these sites are situated, a figure or site photos should accompany this section. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/9/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC sent USAF a letter re: Final Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and Addendum, Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group
received the Final Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (dated June 2000)
on July 13, 2000, and the Final Baseline Risk Assessment Addendum (dated January 2002) on
January 15, 2002. The ADEC concurs with the contents of the Final Baseline Human Health
and Ecological Risk Assessment used in conjunction with the Final Baseline Risk Assessment
Addendum.
Please note that the ADEC review and concurrence on this document is to ensure that the work
is done in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations.
While the ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our
concurrence on this document does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply
with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 10/9/2003 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC letter to USAF re: Remedial Investigation Report, Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), DoD Oversight group received the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (dated April 1999) on May 14, 1999, received the Air Force Comment Response on July 29, 1999, and participated in the comment resolution meeting on July 29, 1999; the ADEC comment letter is dated July 22, 1999. No ADEC approval letter was issued in 1999. For clarification purposes, this letter is bemg issued stating that ADEC concurs with the contents of the Final Remedial Investigation Report (dated September 1999) and received on September 24, 1999.
Please note that the ADEC review and concurrence on this document is to ensure that the work
is done m accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations.
While the ADEC may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on this document does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/12/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed Plan – 2nd draft (prepared by Air Force project manager) received on December 7, 2002; ADEC comments dated December 31, 2002; ADEC internal briefing and final comments submitted on January 8, 2003; e-mails and calls from ADEC to Air Force on finalizing Proposed Plan from January to October 2003; several comment resolution meetings from January to September 2003; October 9 received final Proposed Plan and ADEC submitted conditional approval letter; Final Proposed Plan sent to PACAF for review in October 2003; ADEC called/e-mailed from October 2003 through May 2004 on Plan status - no progress. PACAF comments on the 2nd draft Proposed Plan were received by Air Force on March 19, 2004 and were forwarded to ADEC on July 12, 2004. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 7/12/2004 |
Meeting or Teleconference Held |
Proposed Plan – Meeting with EPA on June 10, 2004; Air Force and ADEC met with EPA on Proposed Plan and general remedial direction; EPA agreed to plan and submitted a letter of non-objection dated June 21, 2004 and received by ADEC on July 21, 2004. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/3/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Proposed Plan – 3rd draft received on July 29, 2004; August 12, 2004, ADEC staff participated in a teleconference with Air Force 611th project managers, Air Staff, and PACAF on the Air Force direction for the review and content of Proposed Plans and RODs; September 3, 2004, ADEC sent a comment letter on the 3rd draft Proposed Plan.
Description for removal or previous remedial actions conducted under CERCLA or other authorities: Several removal or previous remedial actions that have occurred at the facility have not been listed in this section. Based on the RI, PCB contaminated soil was removed from the Power House (page 4-49), fuel-contaminated snow was removed at ST06 (page 4-56), in 1989 contaminated soil was removed from SD03 (page 4-14), and in 1984 and 1988 debris was removed at DP08 (page 2-5 and -6, and 4-62). Please include these removal/remedial actions within the section.
Please include that SD03 and ST05 soil was treated on-site using a solvent extraction treatment process.
The words “in the future” and “future” should be added to the SD03 statement, “It is unlikely that humans will reside at SD03…” and to the ST06 statement “It is unlikely that ST06 will be used for residential purposes…” respectively, since these sites have had residential occupancy in the past.
It should be noted that demolition debris and fill are present at SD03 (RI page 4-14 and 4-17), and OT04 (RI page 4-19) and should be noted in the Institutional Controls.
|
Gretchen Pikul |
| 11/19/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2652.38.004 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 5/31/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
Work Plan for Water Sampling and Sign Installation for Sites ST005, SD003, and OT004; draft dated May 2006 received May 31. This Work Plan describes the approaches for conducting groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis, the installation of four semi-permanent warning signs, and documentation of current conditions of several U.S. Air Force (USAF) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site (LRRS). Sign installation will occur as follows: • Spill/Leak No.1 and Lower Camp Area (ST005) – 2 signs
• Transmitter Pad / Opportunity Site (SD003) – 1 sign • White Alice Communications System (OT004) – 1 sign.
Site conditions will be noted and photographs taken at the following seven sites:
• Runway & Road Oiling (SD002)
• Transmitter Pad / Opportunity Site (SD003)
• White Alice Communications System (OT004)
• Spill/Leak No.1 and Lower Camp Area (ST005)
• Spill/Leak No. 2 (ST006)
• Waste Accumulation Area (SS007)
• Hillside Disposal Areas (DP008)
The purpose of this project is to collect information that will aid in the completion of Proposed Plans (PPs) and Records of Decision (RODs) for the seven sites being addressed under this project. Specific objectives include the following:
• Conducting groundwater and surface water sampling at ST005 for diesel range organics
(DRO) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to determine the current concentrations of these fuel–related compounds, and quantify the degree of natural attenuation since the previous sampling events.
• Posting signs at ST005, SD003, and OT004 to warn site personnel and visitors of
potentially contaminated soil and / or water in the area;
• Providing a report to document the results of the ST005 water sampling and analysis, and
demonstrate that available information is sufficient to select a cleanup alternative or
determine that no cleanup is needed (if that is not possible data gaps will be identified);
and
• Performing photo documentation of current site conditions at the seven sites that will be
addressed in future PPs and RODs.
Site Background-The Transmitter Pad is located approximately 500 feet northeast of Upper Camp. It consists of a gravel pad approximately 100 feet wide by 250 feet long, which slopes downward
on three sides. The Opportunity Site is located on the ridge top approximately one mile east of
the Transmitter Pad. No structures or facilities currently exist at either location. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level (1 mg/Kg) were present in both surface (0 to 0.5 feet below ground surface) and subsurface soils on the northwestern portion of the Transmitter Pad during the 1999 RI. PCB concentrations exceeded the cleanup level at 22 locations and had a maximum concentration of 620 mg/Kg at a location approximately 50 feet northwest of the pad. At the Opportunity Site, residual range organics (RRO) were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two cleanup level for RRO in the “Under 40-inch Zone” (10,000 mg/Kg for Ingestion and 11,000 mg/Kg for Migration to
Groundwater) in oil-stained soils (USAF 1999). RRO concentrations exceeded the cleanup levels
at three locations and had a maximum concentration of 100,000 mg/Kg at a location approximately 100 feet northwest of the pad.
SD003 Field Activities-A sign will be posted to warn site personnel and visitors of the potential contaminated soil in the area. The sign will be posted at the entrance to the Transmitter Pad area on the road approaching from Lower Camp SD003. This is the most likely access route to SD003. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 9/5/2006 |
Site Visit |
A site visit was conducted in 2006. No samples were collected, and no stained soil was observed
at either the Transmitter Pad or the Opportunity Site. In addition, native tundra and grasses had reclaimed the site, rendering backfilled areas indistinguishable from undisturbed areas. (NOTE: instrumental or analytical methods of detection must be used, not olfactory or visual screening methods for determining whether or not a site has achieved cleanup levels). |
Jeff Norberg |
| 9/18/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Work plan, ADEC comment letter dated July 12; Air Force Comment Response on August 15; August 18 ADEC submitted email to Air Force re-emphasizing importance of collecting sediment samples as well as the proposed surface water samples from the groundwater seeps day-lighting into creek downgradient of Site ST005; September 11, 2006 ADEC received correspondence which confirmed the revised Air Force plan to collect five sediment samples along creek downgradient of Site ST005; ADEC approval letter dated September 11; final Work Plan dated September 2006 received September 18, 2006.
A sign will be posted to warn site personnel and visitors of the potential contaminated soil in the area. The sign will be posted at the entrance to the Transmitter Pad area on the road approaching
from Lower Camp SD003. This is the most likely access route to SD003. |
Jeff Norberg |
| 2/19/2008 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/22/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
The Air Force sent a copy of the draft Proposed Plan to ADEC for Review. The Proposed Plan presents the Preferred Alternatives for remediation at seven United States Air Force (USAF) Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) contaminated sites at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site (LRRS), Alaska. The sites addressed in this plan include the Transmitter Pad/Opportunity site (SD003) and six other sites.
Risk Evaluation: The 2000 baseline risk assessment for the Upper Camp exposure area
included the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site. The cumulative cancer risk to a worker resident at Upper Camp was calculated to be 4.16 x 10-6 and the non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) was 0.07, both of which are below ADEC risk management standards. PCBs, which were detected at the Transmitter Pad, are stable compounds with the ability to bioaccumulate in the food chain. However, PCBs are relatively immobile and are not soluble in water. As a result, they are unlikely to migrate. Although PCBs remain at the site above the 1 mg/Kg Method Two cleanup level, they are located on a steep slope that is virtually inaccessible to heavy equipment or for industrial or residential purposes. The area has limited access and the USAF intends to retain control of the site for the foreseeable future. Therefore, removal is not proposed.
The highest levels of residual range organics (RRO) detected at the Opportunity Site in 1998 were in oil stained areas, which were no longer evident in 2006. Outside the stained areas, the concentrations of RRO were below the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level for this site. RRO concentrations will likely decrease over time through natural volatilization and degradation.
Proposed Action: Although the results of the risk assessment indicate that ADEC risk management standards are not exceeded in the Upper Camp exposure area, the Transmitter Pad does contain soil that exceed the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level for PCBs. As a result, this site is proposed for remedial action under CERCLA. The Preferred Alternative is institutional controls. The Preferred Alternative was selected based on a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives following CERCLA guidance. The three alternatives considered for this site included no action, institutional controls, and excavation and offsite disposal.
The area of PCB-impacted soil with concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level of 1 mg/Kg is limited to a steep and virtually inaccessible area on the northwest side of the Transmitter Pad. As a result of the low risk to human health and the environment, and the impracticalities of accessing the area with equipment, institutional controls consisting of signage identifying the compounds present at the site and updates to the Base Master Plan documenting site conditions at the Transmitter Pad is the Preferred Alternative.
Excavating and disposing of the soil to an offsite landfill is more expensive than institutional controls, and would not provide significantly better protection of human health and the environment. Excavation and offsite removal was not selected, as the costs are excessive. The no action alternative fails to satisfy the threshold criteria and therefore was not evaluated further. Section 121 of CERCLA requires that remedial actions which result in any hazardous substances remaining at the site above concentrations that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure are subject to a Five-Year Review. The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to assess the remedy’s performance and protectiveness. Because PCBs exceeding ADEC soil cleanup levels will remain on site, a CERCLA Five-Year Review will be part of the remedy. Additionally, ADEC approval will be obtained prior to moving or disposal of soil contaminated above the appropriate cleanup level. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/5/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Final Proposed Plan Seven Sites at Sparrevohn LRRS August 2008 received via electronic mail on August 22, 2008 for Road and Runway Oiling (SD002), Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003), White Alice Communication System (OT004), Spill/Leak No 1 and Lower Camp (ST005), Spill/Leak No. 2 (ST006), Waste Accumulation Area (SS007), and the Hillside Disposal Areas (DP008).
SD003 Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site Proposed Action Page 11: The risk evaluation section describes potential human health risks, but not ecological risk. It states the feasibility study (FS) evaluated no action, institutional controls (ICs) and excavation as remedial alternatives and that ICs are the preferred alternative. Table 5 lists “IC (Capping)” as an alternative. ADEC requests the Air Force to clarify whether capping was included as a alternative in the FS. If not, there should be a good explanation in the proposed plan on why the capping alternative was not chosen. Without more information on the site listing the impracticability for capping, the alternative for capping and ICs would be required. The capping could be as simple as shot rock or clean fill material from the site dumped over onto the SD003 to “cap” it and remove the direct contact pathway for ecological and human receptors at the site.
The text in the fourth paragraph refers to updates to the Base Master Plan documenting site conditions at the Transmitter Pad. ADEC requests the Air Force provide a copy of the Base Master Plan with all the updates outlining institutional controls placed on sites at Sparrevohn LRRS. Additionally, ADEC is assuming the Air Force will meet the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 761(a)(8) in its updates to the Base Master Plan.
40 CFR 761(a) (8) Deed restrictions for caps, fences and low occupancy areas.
When a cleanup activity conducted under this section includes the use of a fence or a cap, the owner of the site must maintain the fence or cap, in perpetuity. In addition, whenever a cap, or the procedures and requirements for a low occupancy area, is used, the owner of the site must meet the following conditions:
(i) Within 60 days of completion of a cleanup activity under this section, the owner of the property shall:
(A) Record, in accordance with State law, a notation on the deed to the property, or on some other instrument which is normally examined during a title search, that will in perpetuity notify any potential purchaser of the property:
(1) That the land has been used for PCB remediation waste disposal and is restricted to use as a low occupancy area as defined in § 761.3.
The text in the last paragraph states: “Additionally, ADEC approval will be obtained prior to moving or disposal of soil contaminated above the appropriate cleanup level.” In accordance with 18 AAC 75.355(i), ADEC requests the Air Force change the text to read “ADEC approval shall be obtained before moving or disposing of soil which was subject to the site cleanup rules.” ADEC requests the Air Force add clarifying text stating the requirement of 40 CFR 761.61 for fencing or installation of a cap is not practicable due to existing site conditions (steepness of the slope that is inaccessible to heavy equipment, limited site access, etc..).
Table 4—Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003) Summary Page 11: ADEC requests the Air Force delete reference to the heading: Regulatory Standard & Proposed Cleanup Level and simply change the table heading to “Cleanup Standard”.
Table 5 — Comparison of Remedial Alternatives Addressing Transmitter Pad (SD003) Page 12: ADEC requests the * footnote be changed to read: ADEC has participated in the development of this plan. Final state acceptance will be evaluated following public comment. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/4/2008 |
Proposed Plan |
Final Proposed Plan for seven source areas including SD003. The 2000 baseline risk assessment for the Upper Camp exposure area included the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site. The cumulative cancer risk to a worker resident at Upper Camp was calculated to be 4.16 x 10-6 and the non-cancer HI was 0.07, both of which are below ADEC risk management standards.
PCBs, which were detected at the Transmitter Pad, are stable compounds with the ability to bioaccumulate in the food chain. However, PCBs are relatively immobile and are not soluble in water. As a result, they are unlikely to migrate. Although PCBs remain at the site above the 1 mg/Kg Method Two cleanup level, they are located on a steep slope that is virtually inaccessible to heavy equipment or for industrial or residential purposes. The area has
limited access and the USAF intends to retain control of the site for the foreseeable future. Therefore, removal is not proposed.
Although the results of the risk assessment indicate that ADEC risk management standards are not exceeded in the Upper Camp exposure area, the Transmitter Pad does contain soil that exceed the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level for PCBs. As a result, this site is proposed for remedial action under CERCLA. The Preferred Alternative is institutional controls.
The Preferred Alternative was selected based on a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives following CERCLA guidance. The three alternatives considered for this site included no action, institutional controls, and excavation and offsite disposal. The area of PCB-impacted soil with concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level of 1 mg/Kg is limited to a steep and virtually inaccessible area on the northwest side of the Transmitter Pad. As a result of the low risk to human health and the environment, and the impracticalities of accessing the area with equipment necessary to limit exposure via capping or fencing, institutional controls consisting of signage identifying the compounds present at the site and updates to the Base Master Plan documenting site conditions at the Transmitter Pad is the Preferred Alternative. The USAF will provide copies of the updated Base Master Plan to ADEC. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/9/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Record of Decision received. The ERP site SD003 consists of two areas known as the Transmitter Pad and the Opportunity Site. The Transmitter Pad is located approximately 500 feet northeast of Upper Camp and consists of a gravel pad with steeply sloping sides to the north, south, and east. An antenna array and two buildings were known to have occupied the Transmitter Pad site. The Opportunity Site is located approximately 1 mile east of the Transmitter Pad, and was used for Very High Frequency (VHF) radio communications in the 1950s. No buildings or structures are presently located at either location. Groundwater does not occur in the
bedrock beneath the ridges and Upper Camp area where SD003 is located.
There is one CERCLA hazardous substance identified as a contaminant of potential concern
(COPC) at SD003. The soil COPC at this site consists of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been consulted consistent with
the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2705, and has chosen to defer to ADEC for regulatory oversight of
SD003. The State of Alaska concurs with the selected soil remedy (signage on the property
noting the presence of PCBs in excess of ADEC cleanup levels, Base Master Plan and other land
records updated to indicate PCBs remain in the soil, and prior ADEC approval obtained before
moving/disposing of soil which was subject to site cleanup rules).
Because PCBs are a COPC under State of Alaska laws and regulations, the subject site is being
addressed consistent with those applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to Title 46 of the Alaska Statutes promulgated there under.
RRO has been identified as a COPC at SD003 Opportunity Site under 18 AAC 75. However, no
action is required with regard to RRO based on existing and future land use at the Opportunity
Site. RRO was not a COPC at the Transmitter Pad. This ROD is issued by the USAF in accordance with and in satisfaction of the requirements of the Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Act, 18 AAC 75, revised as of October 9, 2008.
At the Transmitter Pad, 12 of 23 soil samples with PCB concentrations greater than 1 mg/Kg
occurred on the hillside north of the gravel pad. The highest PCB concentrations of 620 mg/Kg occurred at SS-14 in gravel fill that had been pushed over the north edge of pad. At the Opportunity Site had RRO concentrations exceeding the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level of 10,000 mg/Kg. At the time of collection, theses three samples were noted to have visible staining. The highest level reported was 100,000 mg/kg. PCBs were below 1 mg/kg.
Although PCBs remain at the site above the 1 mg/Kg Method Two cleanup level, they are located on a steep slope that is virtually inaccessible to heavy equipment or for industrial or residential purposes. The area has limited access and the USAF intends to retain control of the site for the foreseeable future. Therefore, removal is not proposed.
Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy will
result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be required at least
every five years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, the USAF will submit an Institutional Control Performance Report to the ADEC on
an annual basis for the first five years. The frequency of the Institutional Control Performance
Report will be evaluated with the Five-Year Review under 42 U.S.C. 9621(c). |
Louis Howard |
| 6/22/2009 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Record of Decision for SD003 Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site at Sparrevohn LRRS.
1.4 Description of Selected Remedy Pages 1-7 and 1-8
The first bullet states: “Implementation of institutional controls to identify areas of contamination and restrict land use at the SD003 to achieve remedial action objectives listed on page 2-28. The institutional control area is shown on Figure 1-2 and is limited to the Transmitter Pad.” The figure identifies the exposure area which goes off of the page which gives the reader the impression this brown shaded area is the ICs area. If the Air Force intends to limit the institutional control area to the Transmitter Pad then there either needs to be a new figure with the ICs delineated for the Transmitter Pad boundary or an additional page for showing the larger ICs area (the entire exposure area).
The third bullet states: “The USAF will provide an annual report regarding institutional control monitoring to ADEC, with copies filed in the administrative record and information repository.” On the very next page (1-8) it states: “The USAF will submit an Institutional Control Performance Report to the ADEC on an annual basis for the first five years. The frequency of the Institutional Control Performance Report will be evaluated with the Five-Year Review under 42 U.S.C. 9621(c).” ADEC requests the Air Force state in the third bullet that the annual report will be sent to ADEC for the first five years and it frequency evaluated with the Five-Year Review.
The text states: “It provides the best balance or trade-offs in terms of balancing criteria while also considering the bias against offsite treatment and disposal and considering state and community acceptance.” ADEC wishes to inform the Air Force that there is no bias against offsite treatment and disposal.
Regarding the offsite disposal of wastes, note that CERCLA §121(b)(1) states: “The offsite transport and disposal of hazardous substances or contaminated materials without such treatment should be the least favored alternative remedial action where practicable treatment technologies are available.” NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(E) also states: “The balancing shall also consider the preference for treatment as a principal element and the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste.”
The text states: “Based on the evaluation of alternatives discussed in the FS, institutional controls consisting of signage are the most cost-effective and readily implementable approach to reduce the risk posed by PCBs exceeding the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level of 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/Kg).” ADEC requests the Air Force add text to this sentence as follows: “ ...institutional controls consisting of signage and other measures are the most....”
1.5 Statutory Determinations Page 1-9
The text states: “The selected remedy for SD003 is protective of human health and the environment, complies with promulgated requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and provides an overall cost benefit to the USAF.” ADEC is unaware of any portion of the nine criteria which states a remedy be selected for an overall cost benefit to the responsible party.
The text states: “The selected remedy for SD003 consists of an indefinite-notice type institutional control on residual PCB-contaminated soil.” ADEC requests the Air Force delete the word “indefinite”
2.5.7 Nature and Extent of Contamination Page 2-10
Opportunity Site
The text states: “At the time of collection, theses three samples were noted to have visible staining (Shannon and Wilson 1999). Sampling the stained soil likely high-biased the RRO results and therefore might not be representative of the overall RRO concentration in soil.” That may be the case, however 18 AAC 75.380 (c)(1) states: “...applicable soil cleanup levels, [are] based on sampling results from onsite contaminated soil and from contaminated soil moved offsite for treatment or disposal, and based on the maximum concentration detected,....”
Therefore, ADEC required the Air Force to sample from the stained area to determine compliance with soil cleanup levels since ADEC regulates on the maximum concentration and not on the overall average concentrations in soil. ADEC requests the Air Force delete the sentence: “Sampling the stained soil likely high-biased the RRO results and therefore might not be representative of the overall RRO concentration in soil.” |
Louis Howard |
| 9/23/2009 |
Record of Decision |
John Halverson signed the Record of Decision for the Transmitter/Opportunity Site (SD003)at the Sparrevohn LRRS. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been consulted consistent with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2705, and has chosen to defer to ADEC for regulatory oversight of SD003. The State of Alaska concurs with the selected soil remedy (signage on the property noting the presence of PCBs in excess of ADEC cleanup levels, base general plan and other land records updated to indicate PCBs remain in the soil, and prior ADEC approval obtained before moving/disposing of soil which was subject to site cleanup rules).
The USAF selects the following remedy for SD003:
* Implementation of institutional controls (ICs) to identify areas of contamination and restrict land use at SD003 to achieve remedial action objectives. The ICs will include:
* Installation of signs warning of the presence of soil contamination exceeding ADEC residential cleanup levels;
* Restriction on residential land use;
* Restrictions on digging that could disturb soil acting as a cover to PCB-contaminated areas; and
* Requirement for all operators to utilize USAF construction review and dig permit systems or similar systems to prevent uses or activities inconsistent with the remedial action objectives.
Notations regarding residual contamination and land use restrictions will be recorded in the appropriate Sparrevohn LRRS land records, including the base general plan. As part of the update to the base general plan, the USAF will produce maps showing locations of residual contamination, and will provide these maps to ADEC.
ICs will remain in effect for as long as the contaminated media exceeds ADEC unrestricted residential use criteria. The USAF is responsible for enforcing ICs and the USAF will monitor the effectiveness of the ICs.
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 alter-natives:
(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 sub-stances, 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.
The USAF will provide an annual report regarding IC monitoring to ADEC, with copies filed in the administrative record and information repository. Reports will be submitted to ADEC for the first five years and its frequency evaluated with the Five-Year Review under 42 U.S.C. 9621 (c).
The USAF will provide prompt notification to the ADEC of IC deficiency/failure, along with corrective measures taken. The USAF will obtain regulatory concurrence of significant changes to use and activity restrictions.
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for SD003 are:
-To prevent human exposure to PCB-contaminated soil exceeding 1 mg/Kg;
- To prevent migration of PCBs;
- Protect human health and the environment; and
- Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
Five-Year Review Requirements-Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be required at least every five years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. In addition, the USAF will submit an IC Performance Report to the ADEC on an annual basis for the first five years. The frequency of the IC Performance Report will be evaluated with the Five-Year Review under 42 U.S.C. 9621(c). |
John Halverson |
| 9/23/2009 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Implementation of institutional controls to identify areas of contamination and restrict
land use at the SD003 to achieve remedial action objectives listed on page 2-28. The
Institutional control area is shown on Figure 1-2. Institutional controls will include:
- Installation of signs warning of the presence of soil contamination exceeding
ADEC residential cleanup levels;
- Restriction on residential land use;
- Restrictions on digging that could disturb soil acting as a cover to PCBcontaminated
areas; and
- Requirement for all operators to utilize USAF construction review and dig permit
systems or similar systems to prevent uses or activities inconsistent with the
remedial action objectives.
- Notations regarding residual contamination and land use restrictions will be recorded in
the appropriate Sparrevohn LRRS land records, including the base general plan. As part
of the update to the base general plan, the USAF will produce maps showing locations of
residual contamination, and will provide these maps to ADEC.
- Institutional controls will remain in effect for as long as the contaminated media exceeds
ADEC unrestricted residential use criteria. The USAF is responsible for enforcing
institutional controls and the USAF will monitor the effectiveness of the institutional
controls. The USAF will provide an annual report regarding institutional control
monitoring to ADEC, with copies filed in the administrative record and information
repository. Reports will be submitted to ADEC for the first five years and its frequency
evaluated with the Five-Year Review under 42 U.S.C. 9621 (c).
- The USAF will provide prompt notification to the ADEC of institutional control
deficiency/failure, along with corrective measures taken. The USAF will obtain
regulatory concurrence of significant changes to use and activity restrictions. The USAF |
Louis Howard |
| 9/23/2009 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
The State of Alaska concurs with the selected soil remedy (signage on the property
noting the presence of PCBs in excess of ADEC cleanup levels, base general plan and other land
records updated to indicate PCBs remain in the soil, and prior ADEC approval obtained before
moving/disposing of soil which was subject to site cleanup rules).
The ROD documents the USAF and ADEC approval of the remedy selected in this Record of Decision for the Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003) at the Sparrevohn LRRS. This decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, the USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil cleanup actions. |
John Halverson |
| 2/23/2010 |
Update or Other Action |
Environmental Site Summary Report received. The purpose of this project was to implement the selected remedies approved in each Record of Decision (ROD) for the following ERP sites:
Transmitter Pad / Opportunity Site (SD003)
White Alice Communications System (OT004)
Spill/Leak No.1 and Lower Camp Facility (ST005)
Spill/Leak No. 2 (ST006)
Waste Accumulation Area (SS007)
Specific objectives of the October 2009 field event included:
Installation of warning signs at five ERP sites as part of implementation of Institutional Controls;
Initiation of long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface water to evaluate natural attenuation of dissolved phase petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated compounds at Spill/Leak No. 1 and Lower Camp Facility (ST005); and
Survey boundaries of Institutional Controls at each ERP site.
3.3 Warning Sign Installation: Signs were installed at ERP sites ST005, SD003 (Transmitter Pad only), OT004, ST006, and SS007 to alert site workers and visitors that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding State cleanup levels as per 18 AAC 75. Signs were installed
in the general locations shown in the QPP; however, final locations were determined in the field. Sign locations were discussed with and approved by the facility operations manager to ensure that the signs would not interfere with facility operations. Each sign location was surveyed and coordinates are provided in Appendix C. The sign locations for each site are shown on Figure 3-2.
Signs were constructed of 3-feet by 5-feet aluminum panels with reflective print. Each sign was affixed to a galvanized steel post set in concrete. The concrete supports were built by digging a hole approximately 3-feet deep, pouring concrete, and setting a receiver post. The metal sign posts were attached to the receiver posts and secured with appropriate hardware. Sign height ranged from approximately 8-feet in the Lower Camp Facility to 5-feet at the Upper Camp sites. Sign height varied to accommodate site activities and climate conditions.
3.4 Land Surveying: F. Robert Bell and Associates, an Alaska-licensed surveyor, was contracted to survey the boundaries of the Institutional Control areas at each ERP site. Survey activities were completed October 9 to 11, 2009. The corners of Institutional Control areas were staked
by HCG personnel prior to surveying. In addition to the Institutional Control areas, the
survey crew also surveyed the locations of each sign after installation. Surveying was completed in Alaska State Plane Zone 5, NAD 83 coordinate system, and NAVD 88 (Geoid 06) vertical datum. Surveyed Institutional control boundaries for each ERP site are shown on Figures 3-3 through 3-8 and all survey data is provided in Appendix C. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/5/2010 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has the following comments regarding the Draft Environmental Site Monitoring Summary Report for the ADEC CS Database Hazard IDs: 689 (ST005), 688 (ST006), 697 (SS007), 693 (SD003), and 694 (OT004) at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar site.
6. Summary and Conclusions Page 6-1
ADEC concurs with the conclusions in this section. It appears the 2009 field work for this project was successful at implementing the selected remedies approved in each of the Record of Decisions for the ERP sites listed above. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/2/2011 |
Institutional Control Compliance Review |
Draft Sparrevohn LRRS Annual Institutional Controls Inspection Summary Report Contract No. FA8903-10-D-8593, Project No: VYLK20118888 received. This Annual Institutional Controls Inspection Summary Report presents the results of field activities conducted September 6 and September 7, 2011 at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Alaska. Visual inspections were conducted at the Transmitter Pad I Opportunity Site (SD003), White Alice Communications System (OT004), Spill/Leak No. 1 and Lower Camp Facility (ST005), Spill/Leak No. 2 (ST006), and Waste Accumulation Area (SS007) on September 6 and September 7, 2011. The purpose of these inspections is to verify the effectiveness of Institutional Controls (ICs) as the selected remedies approved in each site’s Record of Decision (ROD).
SD003
One Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil, was identified as a contaminant of concern (COC) at the Transmitter Pad area. No other COCs were identified at SD003 under Title 18, Chapter 75, Article 3, of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 18 AAC 75. PCBs were addressed in the “Final Record of Decision Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003), Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, June 2009” and Institutional Controls (ICs) were selected as the remedy in accordance with CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) to prevent exposure and alert site workers and residents to hazardous substances in the area. The ICs at SD003 are the restriction of land use to commercial and industrial activities which include digging that could disturb soil acting as a cover to PCB contaminated areas. Existing ICs require all operators to utilize USAF construction review and dig permit systems or similar systems to prevent uses or activities inconsistent with the remedial action objectives. In October 2009, a survey was performed of the IC area boundary. Additionally, a sign was installed at the Transmitter Pad to alert site workers and visitors that contaminants are present at concentrations exceeding State cleanup levels as per 18 AAC 75.
No further action was the proposed action recommended and the remedy implemented for the Opportunity Site.
Summary and Conclusions
SD003
During the inspection in September 2011, there were no indications of a change in land use in this area. No residential construction had occurred at the site. Signage remains intact and legible at the SD003 Transmitter Pad. There were no indications of excavation activities, and no excavation notifications had been filed the previous year for this site. Minor debris has been documented on the ground surface consisting of scrap metal and construction materials. Therefore, ICs appear to be functioning as intended to protect human receptors from exposure to soil. At this time, no additional actions are necessary to improve and/or correct ICs at SD003. The Opportunity Site was not inspected; the selected remedy for this sub-site was no further action and no further sampling or remediation will occur at the Opportunity Site. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/29/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) received the above document for review and comment electronically on February 20, 2012. ADEC has the following comments regarding the document for the ADEC CS Database Hazard IDs: 689 (ST005), 688 (ST006), 697 (SS007), 693 (SD003), and 694 (OT004) at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar site.
1.0 Background Information Page 2, 3, and 4
ADEC requests the Air Force reference the document which includes the October 2009 survey for the IC area boundaries at each of the sites located at Sparrevohn LRRS. ADEC suggests the Air Force change the text to state: “In October 2009, a survey was performed of the soil and groundwater IC area boundary as required by the Record of Decision.”
|
Louis Howard |
| 10/4/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) received the Draft Sparrevohn LRRS Annual Institutional Controls Inspection Summary Report dated September 27, 2012 for review and comment on September 28, 2012. The document applies to the following ADEC CS Database Hazard IDs: 689 (ST005), 688 (ST006), 697 (SS007), 693 (SD003), and 694 (OT004) at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar site. ADEC has reviewed the document and concurs with the summary and recommendations in the report. The document may be f111alized. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/5/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Annual ICs report received. SD003 consists of two areas, the Transmitter Pad and the Opportunity Site. The Transmitter Pad is located approximately 500 feet northeast of Upper Camp and consists of a gravel pad with steeply sloping sides to the north, south, and east. An antenna array and two buildings were known to have occupied the Transmitter Pad site. The Opportunity Site is located approximately a quarter mile east of the Transmitter Pad, and was used for VHF radio communications in the 1950s. Presently, no buildings or other structures are located at either location.
One Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil, was identified as a contaminant of concern (COC) at the Transmitter Pad area. No other COCs were identified at SD003 under Title 18, Chapter 75, Article 3, of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 18 AAC 75. PCBs were addressed in the “Final Record of Decision Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003), Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, June 2009” and Institutional Controls (ICs) were selected as the remedy in accordance with CERCLA as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) to prevent exposure and alert site workers and residents to hazardous substances in the area.
The ICs at SD003 are the restriction of land use to commercial and industrial activities which include digging that could disturb soil acting as a cover to PCB contaminated areas. Existing ICs require all operators to utilize USAF construction review and dig permit systems or similar systems to prevent uses or activities inconsistent with the remedial action objectives. This review process is in place to avoid ground-disturbing construction activities, or to ensure safe soil management procedures, in the areas with residual contamination.
During the July 18, 2012 inspection, there were no indications of a change in land use in this area. No residential construction had occurred at the site. Signage remains intact and legible at the SD003 Site, between the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site areas. There were no indications of excavation activities, and no excavation notifications had been filed the previous year for this site. Minor debris has been documented on the ground surface consisting of scrap metal and construction materials. Therefore, ICs appear to be functioning as intended to protect human receptors from exposure to contaminated soil. At this time, no additional actions are necessary to improve and/or correct ICs at SD003. It is important to note that the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Sites are not accessible by standard, four-wheel-drive motor vehicle. A more narrow, all-terrain vehicle such as a four wheeler will be required for future visual inspections. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/26/2012 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and approved the final Annual ICs inspection report which included SD003 OT004, ST005, ST006 snd SS007. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/24/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Work Plan addendum draft received for review and comment
Visual inspections will be performed for Sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006 and SS007 as part of the 2013 field activities. BEM conducted the previous IC inspection of these sites in July 2012. The findings from the 2012 inspections noted that there was no evidence of a change in land use in this area that conflicted with the ICs identified in each site’s ROD. The only recommendation associated with the 2012 inspection was to re-install notification signage at ST006 to alert site workers and visitors of the presence of the soil contaminants.
Visual Inspection Approach
Field activities will include the visual inspections of the five project sites and the areas immediately adjacent to each site to verify the ICs remain protective and are functioning as indicated in each site’s ROD. Field personnel will complete a Visual Inspection Checklist for each site (Attachment A) during the site inspection. Any damage, evidence of erosion, or incompatible land use will be noted on the Visual Inspection Checklist and will be communicated readily to the USAF (who will in turn notify ADEC). Photo documentation will be conducted for each site to visually document the current status of the ICs, as observed during the annual inspection event. Specific evaluation criteria will include:
? evidence of settling on surface of the soil cap;
? pooled or standing water containing a petroleum sheen on or adjacent to the surface of the soil cap;
? evidence of surface erosion or damage to the integrity of the erosion control;
? discoloration of vegetation surrounding the project site;
? condition of vegetation on cap surface or side slopes;
? evidence of escape of impacted materials from soil cap;
? evidence of excavation activities;
? evidence of wildlife present (to include number and types);
? odors;
? waste drums or storage of petroleum products; and
? unauthorized landuse, site access or site development.
REPORTING
Upon completion of field activities, an Annual Institutional Control Inspection Summary Letter Report will be prepared documenting field observations. The report will include a summary visual observations, |
Louis Howard |
| 6/13/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
ADEC has received the final version of the work plan addendum for Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station dated May 2013. ADEC has reviewed it and has no further comments on it. The document is approved. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/11/2013 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft ICs report received for ST005, SS007, OT004, SD003, & ST006.
This Annual Institutional Controls Inspection Summary Report presents the results of field activities conducted June 25, 2013 at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Alaska. Visual inspections were conducted at the following sites in the order inspected: Spill/Leak No. 1 and Lower Camp Facility (ST005), Waste Accumulation Area (SS007), White Alice Communications System (OT004), Transmitter Pad Opportunity Site (SD003) and Spill/Leak No. 2 (ST006). The purpose of these site inspections was to verify the effectiveness of Institutional Controls (ICs) as per the selected remedies approved in each site’s Record of Decision (ROD).
During the 25 June 2013 inspection, there were no indications of a change in land use in this area. No residential construction had occurred at the site. Signage remains intact and legible at the SD003 Site, between the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site areas. There were no indications of excavation activities, and no excavation notifications had been filed the previous year for this site.
Some vegetation was observed in and around the extents of IC. Minimal debris was observed on the ground surface consisting of scrap metal and construction materials. It was deemed that the debris posed no threat to human health or the integrity of the IC. Therefore, ICs appear to be functioning as intended to protect human receptors from exposure to contaminated soil. At this time, no additional actions are necessary to improve and/or correct ICs at SD003. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/9/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
1st draft 5YR Review received for review and comment.
The remedies selected for Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) [formerly Installation Restoration Program] Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 located at the Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, are described in separate Record of Decision (ROD) documents that were completed in 2009. The selected remedy for ERP Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 is institutional controls (ICs) for all sites, and ICs and monitored natural attenuation for ERP Site ST005.
Two issues were noted during this first five-year review. First, a site-specific operation and maintenance plan has not been prepared for the site to provide the specific methods and reporting requirements for the annual inspections. Secondly, the RODs for ERP Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 require that site inspections and inspection reports should be completed annually; however, only two inspections have been documented since the 2009 RODs were finalized.
This first five-year report concludes that the remedial actions at ERP Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 are protective of human health in the short-term because all known soil exposure pathways have been restricted, the remedial action objectives have been met, and there is no indication of current exposure.
For the remedies to remain protective in the long term, a site-specific operation and maintenance manual should be prepared to provide the methods and reporting requirements for annual inspections, and site inspections should be conducted and documented annually. In addition, the 2009 Draft Quality Program Plan should be reviewed and revised as needed prior to the next groundwater sampling event at the site, which should occur by October 2014. Implementation of these requirements and other routine O&M activities, such as review and approval of the 2009 Draft Quality Program Plan in anticipation of the next groundwater sampling event (scheduled for 2014), will ensure continued protectiveness.
During the June 25, 2013, site inspection, there were no indications of a change in land use in this area. No residential construction had occurred at the site. Signage remains intact and legible at Site SD003, between the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site areas. There were no indications of excavation activities, and no excavation notifications had been filed the previous year for this site. Some vegetation was observed in and around the extents of IC. Minimal debris was observed on the ground surface consisting of scrap metal and construction materials (BEM, 2013).
The site inspection report concluded that the debris posed no threat to human health or the integrity of the IC; and therefore, ICs appear to be functioning as intended to protect human receptors from exposure to contaminated soil. The site inspection report recommended that no additional actions are necessary to improve and/or correct ICs at SD003 (BEM, 2013).
The RODs for ERP Sites SD003 and SS007 indicate that the need for annual reporting will be evaluated during the first five-year review. Based on the documents reviewed, and recommendation from the 611th Remedial Project Manager, it is recommended that annual inspections continue to be conducted in accordance with each ROD and documented in annual inspection reports. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/17/2014 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft work plan received for review and comment.
This Letter Work Plan has been prepared to address the proposed visual inspection activities associated with the 2014 Long Term Management (LTM) of five impacted sites at the Sparrevohn LRRS that include the Transmitter Pad/Opportunity Site (SD003), White Alice Communications System (OT004), Spill/Leak Site No. 1 and Lower Camp Facility (ST005), Spill/Leak Site No. 2 (ST006), and Waste Accumulation Area (SS007); and collection of six groundwater samples at Site ST005. BEM-Bay West Joint Venture, LLC. (BEM-Bay West) shall implement the proposed Institutional Control (IC) inspections and groundwater sampling in accordance with the United States Air Force’s (USAF) Revised Performance Work Statement dated 1 November 2012 and as authorized under contract FA8903-10-D-8593, Task Order 0027.
The IC inspections and groundwater sampling will be conducted to verify that the selected remedies continue to remain protective of preventing potential exposure to impacted media, as indicated in each site’s specific 2009 Record of Decision (ROD) document. Field work for this project is anticipated to commence in June 2014 as a part of the phased mobilization approach that will be conducted in conjunction with other remote USAF installations.
Visual inspections will be performed for Sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006 and SS007 as part of the 2014 field activities. Field activities will include the visual inspections of the five project sites and the areas immediately adjacent to each site to verify the ICs remain protective and are functioning as indicated in each site’s ROD. Field personnel will complete a Visual Inspection Checklist for each site (Attachment A) during the site inspection.
Any damage, evidence of erosion, or incompatible land use will be noted on the Visual Inspection Checklist and will be communicated readily to the USAF (who will in turn notify ADEC). Photo documentation will be conducted for each site to visually document the current status of the ICs, as observed during the annual inspection event.
During groundwater sampling, a photo ionization detector and other appropriate equipment will be utilized to monitor environmental conditions for health and safety purposes. Environmental monitoring will be documented in field logbooks. Water level and product (if applicable) measurements will be collected from MW-5, MW-11, MW-22, MW-37, MW-38, and MW-6 using an interface probe. Any observed presence of sheen would be noted and documented. In the event NAPL is observed in measurable amounts the monitoring well would not be purged or sampled unless otherwise directed by Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC)/Operating Location Alaska Remote (OLAR) and ADEC.
Measurements of free product, if present, will be recorded to the nearest 0.01 foot. Monitoring wells will be purged and sampled using low-flow (minimal drawdown) sampling procedures to obtain groundwater samples. Purging will be performed using a low flow submersible pump (e.g., bladder pump). The pump will be operated at a flow rate of 0.1 to 0.5 liter per minute and will be adjusted to ensure minimum drawdown (less than 0.3 foot below initial water level).
The ADEC Laboratory Certification Program certifies Accutest Northern California though 30 April 2014 (Certificate UST-092) in accordance with Title 18, Chapter 78 Underground Storage Tanks of 18 AAC 78, Article 8, Underground Storage Tank Laboratory Approval. Analysis of the samples to be collected pursuant to this Work Plan will occur prior to the certification/accreditation expiration dates listed herein.
|
Louis Howard |
| 3/21/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided review comments on the draft work plan.
General Comment
ADEC is requesting that 1,4-dioxane be sampled for in groundwater where trichloroethylene (TCE) or 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA) contamination exists or was previously above cleanup levels at any site at Sparrevohn LRRS.
AFCEE research has found 1,4-dioxane at Air Force sites contaminated with TCE. The study, titled "Co-Occurrence of 1,4-Dioxane with Trichloroethylene in Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plumes at US Air Force Installations: Fact or Fiction," found detections of 1,4-dioxane at sites with TCE, independent of TCA.
Since 2008, ADEC has had promulgated enforceable cleanup levels (not advisories) for 1,4-Dioxane in soil and groundwater (latest version 18 AAC 75 April 2012 Table B1 and Table C) which has remained unchanged in current (2012) regulations.
Soil Under 40 inch Zone
540 mg/kg direct contact
0.21 mg/kg migration to groundwater
0.077 mg/L (77 µg/L) Table C groundwater cleanup level
1,4-Dioxane readily leaches to groundwater, is not expected to adsorb significantly to soil particles, and is difficult to biodegrade. Due to these properties, a 1,4-Dioxane plume typically proceeds ahead of the chlorinated solvent plume, and will tend to impact an aquifer system to a much larger extent.
Suggested laboratory methods: SW-846 Method 5030C, SW-846 Method 5021, SW-846 Method 8261A, SW-846 Method 5031, SW-846 8270C SIM, LVI and isotope dilution (1.0 µg/L or 2.0 µg/kg reporting limits). Dioxane can be detected using EPA 8260; however, its high water solubility causes relatively high reporting limits.
Routine organic extraction procedures like those traditionally used for EPA 8270 analyses produce low recoveries (approximately 50% or less). Whatever laboratory method is proposed for 1,4-Dioxane, the laboratory method must be able to detect at or below the ADEC promulgated groundwater cleanup level in Table C.
Finally, the EPA November 2013 Regional Screening Levels for tapwater lists a lower screening level of 0.67 ug/L which equates to a 1x10-6 total risk.
EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) has updated information on an assessment of 1,4-dioxane (as of 09/20/2013).
Carcinogenity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure
Drinking Water Unit Risk: 2.9 × 10-6 per µg/L (assumes water consumption of 2L/day by a 70 kg human)
Risk Level and Lower Bound on Concentration Estimate
1 x 10-4 (1 in 10,000) 35 µg/L
1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000) 3.5 µg/L
1 x 10-6 (1 in 1,000,000) 0.35 µg/L
ADEC Record Key Number
ADEC no longer uses record key numbers to track sites. Pleas change the title to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Contaminated Site Hazard ID number: 693, 694, 689, 688, and 697.
Sample Management
The table refers to groundwater samples being collected for DRO (AK102 analysis). ADEC’s Draft Field Sampling Guidance (May 2010) states in Appendix E “Sample Collection Reference Guide – Groundwater, Surface Water, Marine Water, Drinking Water, Wastewater” requires that for DRO [AK102 as described in the UST Procedure Manual (2002) starting on page 116] the container be a minimum 100 ml to 1 L amber glass (1 L is preferred), Teflon lined screw caps (TLC).
Minimum (100 ml) is listed for the modified “small volume” method. This requires a separate laboratory approval and is designated AK102-SV or AK103-SV. The Air Force must verify the laboratory approval status for this method (small-volume).
ADEC requests the Air Force supply a copy of the ADEC approval letter for Accutest (UST-092) which shows that they are approved after April 30, 2014. The letter will detail the methods, matrices, and dates for which the lab has approval. Labs must renew their approval and pass performance evaluation samples annually. Failure to do so results in the revocation of a lab's approval. Accutest must renew their approval prior to the field season starting or the Air Force much choose a laboratory which has ADEC approval for the time the field season work will be conducted as part of this project.
|
Louis Howard |
| 10/2/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has received the Draft Institutional Controls Report Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska dated September 2014 on September 30, 2014 for review and comment for sites OT004 (CS DB HazID 694), SD003 (CS DB HazID 693), SS007 (CS DB HazID 697), ST005 (CS DB HazID 689) and ST006 (CS DB HazID 688). The document is well written and ADEC has no significant comments on it. One minor editorial comment: The “raw” analytical data, e.g. bench sheets, chromatograms, calibration data, etc., are not required submittals, however, must be retained on file by the laboratory for at least ten [10] years after the analysis date (“Environmental Laboratory Data and Quality Assurance Requirements” Technical Memorandum March 2009). Please finalize the document. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/17/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station Supplemental Work Plan 2015 Environmental Long Term Management and Remedial Action Operation at Multiple 611 CES Locations Contract/Delivery Order FA8903-10-D-8593-0027 received for review and comment. It covers Sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006 and SS007. Field work for this project is anticipated to commence in June 2015 as a part of the phased mobilization approach that will be conducted in conjunction with other remote USAF installations.
BEM-Bay West previously prepared and submitted the May 2013 Sparrevohn Long Range
Radar Station Work Plan Addendum for this site, which was approved by the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in May 2013. As previously discussed with the Air
Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and as specified within our technical proposal, the 2013
Work Plan would be utilized as the planning document for the three-year LTM contract for this
site. Supplemental documentation would be provided to the AFCEC and ADEC on an annual
basis to update and revise as necessary the original 2013 work plan for the subsequent years of
this task orders. As such, BEM-Bay West shall implement the 2015 LTM activities as presented
in the 2013 ADEC-approved Work Plan.
The IC inspections will be conducted to verify that the selected remedies continue to remain
protective of preventing potential exposure to impacted media, as indicated in each site’s specific 2009 Record of Decision (ROD) document. Field work for this project is anticipated to
commence in June 2015 as a part of the phased mobilization approach that will be conducted in
conjunction with other remote USAF installations. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/18/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
One of several sites with Land Use Controls in effect (LUC Mgt Plan 2015 Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center Installations, JBER, AK) March 13, 2015.
In addition to ICs established as part of LUCs of the ERP for landfill sites with LUCs in effect, both ERP landfill and non-ERP landfill sites in Alaska under the management of PRSC must also comply with regulations set forth by the ADEC solid waste regulations in 18 AAC 60. Furthermore, landfill sites under the management of PRSC but not categorized as an ERP site must also comply with ADEC 18 AAC 60. Table 1-3 describes PRSC non-ERP landfill sites.
Landfills are defined in 18 AAC 60 as “an area of land, or an excavation in which solid wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not an application site, injection well, reserve pit, or waste pile.” This definition applies to most PRSC ERP and non-ERP sites in Alaska designated as landfills, dumps, or caches. Small PRSC ERP and non-ERP landfill sites at remote installations, such as the long-range radar stations, are regulated as Class III landfills as defined by ADEC.
General requirements to manage landfills in place are established by ADEC and included in Table 2-2. However, alternative criteria can and often are adopted through negotiation with ADEC (see 18 AAC 60.900, Waivers). Post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills, including notifications to ADEC and to potential future landowners, are summarized in Table 2-3. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 both generally assume the subject landfill is closed, has been reasonably well characterized, and a monitoring program for media of concern has been established and approved by ADEC.
Sparrevohn LRRS WACS OT004
Sparrevohn LRRS Transmitter Pad SD003
Sparrevohn LRRS WAA SS007
Sparrevohn LRRS Spill/Leak No.1 ST005
Sparrevohn LRRS Spill/Leak No. 2 ST006
LUC_RESTRICTION * Installation of signs warning of the presence of soil contamination exceeding
ADEC residential cleanup levels;
* Restriction on residential land use;
* Restrictions on digging that could disturb soil acting as a cover to PCB contaminated areas; and`
* Requirement for all operators to utilize USAF construction review and dig permit systems or similar systems to prevent uses or activities inconsistent with the
remedial action objectives. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/24/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft work plan addendum for Long-term monitoring. Main comment was requesting additional information regarding field staff qualifications and experience to demonstrate that they meet the definition of a "qualified person" as defined by 18 AAC 75.990(100). |
Louis Howard |
| 4/15/2015 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff received the Final Supplemental Work Plan 2015 Environmental LTM & RA Operations at Multiple 611 CES Locations dated April 2015 and will approve it with no further comments.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/6/2015 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the draft Annual Institutional Controls (ICs) Inspection Summary Report for review and comment.
During the 15 June 2015 inspection, there were no indications of a change in land use in this area. No residential construction had occurred at the site. Signage remains intact and legible at the SD003 Site, between the Transmitter Pad and Opportunity Site areas. There were no indications of excavation activities, and no excavation notifications had been filed the previous year for this site.
ICs appear to be functioning as intended to protect human receptors from exposure to contaminated soil. At this time, no additional actions are necessary to improve and/or correct ICs at SD003.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/19/2016 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed the Draft Supplemental Work Plan for the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station on August 16, 2016 and will approve it as a final version. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/17/2018 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft RAO LUC/ICs report received for review and comment.
ADEC concurs with the statements that ICs appear to be functioning as intended and annual inspections be conducted in accordance with the ROD. The second Five-Year Review (2019) will evaluate revising the frequency of the inspection as referenced in the ROD. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/4/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Draft supplemental work plan received. Main comments were to update references to the current versions of 18 AAC 75 and the UST Procedure Manual. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/28/2019 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
2nd 5YR for OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005 and ST006 approved by ADEC. 3rd 5YR is due approximately January 2024. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/24/2019 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff approved the 2019 revised Final Work Plan at Sparrevohn LRRS. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/5/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft 2021 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Work Plan, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006, April 2021. The document was received on April 15, 2021. The Work Plan describes the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Sparrevohn long-range radar site, including a single groundwater sampling event at site ST005. The WP covers work being performed over a 5-year period and will be reviewed on an annual basis between field seasons. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/13/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft 2020 Remedial Action-Operation Institutional Control/Land Use Control Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006, and SS007, April 2021. The report was received April 13, 2021 and presents the results of the 2020 Environmental Long-Term Management (LTM) program at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. The 2020 LTM activities included the annual inspection of institutional controls/land use controls implemented at sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006, and SS007. |
Axl LeVan |
| 7/30/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC approved the Final 2021 Remedial Action-Operation and Long-Term Management Work Plan, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006, July 2021. The document was received on July 22, 2021. The Work Plan describes the approach and procedures for site-specific long-term management and remedial action-operation activities at Sparrevohn long-range radar site, including a single groundwater sampling event at site ST005. The WP covers work being performed over a 5-year period and will be reviewed on an annual basis between field seasons. |
Axl LeVan |
| 10/6/2021 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff approved the Final 2020 Remedial Action-Operation Institutional Control/Land Use Control Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006, and SS007, August 2021. The report was received October 5, 2021 and presents the results of the 2020 Environmental Long-Term Management (LTM) program at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. The 2020 LTM activities included the annual inspection of institutional controls/land use controls implemented at sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006, and SS007. |
Axl LeVan |
| 2/11/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the Draft-Final 2021 Long-Term Management Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, January 2021. The report was received February 10, 2021 and presents the results of the 2021 Environmental Long-Term Management (LTM) program at the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. The 2021 LTM activities included the annual inspection of institutional controls/land use controls implemented at sites SD003, OT004, ST005, ST006, and SS007. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/17/2022 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program reviewed and approved the "Final 2021 Long-Term Management Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2022" that was received on May 4, 2022. The report presents the work performed during long-term management activities at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site under the 611 Civil Engineer Squadron North Group Optimized Remediation Contract during the 2022 field season. The work was performed on September 13, 2021 and included institutional control and land use control inspections. No groundwater sampling was performed during this event. |
Axl LeVan |
| 9/13/2022 |
CERCLA SI |
On 9/13/2022 ADEC approved the FINAL Quality Assurance Project Plan, Off-Base Drinking Water Site Inspections and Miscellaneous Tasks, Three U.S. AF Long Range Radar Stations, Alaska, Dated September 2022. The objective of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to provide a response action for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted drinking water for areas surrounding three remote U.S. Air Force (USAF) Installations, Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station (LRRS), Indian Mountain LRRS and Sparrevohn LRRS. The project goals are to determine if off-site migration of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has potentially impacted off-site groundwater and surface water used as drinking water used by residences or commercial businesses, and if a response action will be needed and required for applicable PFAS impacted drinking water sources. The USEPA Lifetime Health Advisory levels for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and the sum of the concentrations (PFOS+PFOA) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) will be used as the action level for drinking water sources (both groundwater and surface water). |
Axl LeVan |
| 1/25/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Program received a copy of "Draft-Final 2022 Long-Term Management Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, December 2022" on January 11, 2022. The report presents the work performed during long-term management activities at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. The work was performed on August 9, 2022 and included both institutional controls and land use control inspections. DEC provided comments on January 25, 2023 |
Axl LeVan |
| 3/29/2023 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program reviewed and approved the "Final 2022 Long-Term Management Report, Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, March 2023" on March 29, 2023. The report presents the work performed during long-term management activities at Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Site. The work was performed on August 9, 2022 and included both institutional controls and land use control inspections. |
Axl LeVan |
| 5/16/2023 |
CERCLA SI |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final Site Inspection and No Further Response Action Planned Report for Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Station, Alaska, May 2023". The report recommends a Remedial Investigation (RI) be performed at the General Lower Camp area, FTA #1 – Lower Camp, and Non-FTA #1 – Soil Stockpiles at lower camp based on exceedances of PFAS compounds. The report recommended No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) at FTA #2 – Upper Camp based on all results indicated concentrations of non-detect. DEC agrees with the recommendations for NFRAP or RI for all sites. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/26/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviews and provided comments on the "Draft Third CERCLA Five-Year Review for Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 at Sparrevohn LRRS Alaska, July 2024." This Five-Year Review (FYR) exists to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy for the site to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR. |
Axl LeVan |
| 8/28/2024 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2023 Long-Term Management Report, Sparrevohn LRRS Alaska, August 2024" based on updates from USAF. Field activities included institutional control (IC)/land use control (LUC) inspections at all five sites, groundwater monitoring at ST005, monitoring well inspections, LUC
and sign replacement. |
Axl LeVan |
| 10/24/2024 |
CERCLA ROD Periodic Review |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Draft-Final Third CERCLA Five-Year Review for Sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006 at Sparrevohn LRRS Alaska, October 2024" This Five Year Review (FYR) exists to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy for the
site to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the
environment. |
Axl LeVan |
| 4/16/2025 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
DEC reviewed and approved the "Final 2024 Long Term Management Report, Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, April 2025." The report presented the long term management activities performed at sites OT004, SD003, SS007, ST005, and ST006. Field activities included groundwater monitoring at ST005. |
Axl LeVan |
