| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 6/1/1951 |
Update or Other Action |
The site was selected in June 1951 to close a gap in the radar coverage of interior Alaska.
Construction of the station was begun in June 1951 by the 813th Engineer Aviation Battalion,
which was airlifted to the site. The Sparrevohn Mountain Horizontal Control Map, dated
January 22, 1952, shows the location of a seaplane dock on Tundra Lake, about 7 miles north-northwest of the station, which was used as a staging area to transport materials to the station.
The initial runway (2,400 feet) and temporary living and operating facilities at the Upper and
Lower Camps were constructed in 1951. The first switchback road to Upper Camp was
constructed in 1952, with the first aerial tram constructed in 1953. In 1954, the runway was
lengthened to about 4,200 feet and widened.
Construction of the facilities was effectively completed in 1952 and the station was activated on
December 5, 1952. Initially, a search radar system was operated at Upper Camp. Height finding
radar was added in 1957. An experimental VHF communications link was established in 1952, and is believed to have been constructed at the Opportunity Site on the ridge top about 1 mile east of Upper Camp. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/3/1957 |
Update or Other Action |
A second phase of construction occurred between 1957 and 1962 to provide more permanent facilities at both camps. A second tramway to Upper Camp was constructed in 1957, as was the White Alice facility. A second road connecting Lower Camp to White Alice and Upper Camp was completed in 1962 along Weasel Ridge. This road replaced the original switchback road. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/1/1977 |
Update or Other Action |
The Air Force initiated transfer of the station to contractor operation in 1977. After the transfer, the number of onsite personnel was reduced from about 130 to about 30. The White Alice
facility was phased out in 1979 and replaced by an ALASCOM satellite earth terminal.
Dismantling of the White Alice facility was initiated in 1980 and the aerial tram was dismantled
in 1981. In 1982, the Air Force initiated implementation of a Joint Surveillance System and
Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) operation. |
Louis Howard |
| 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. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/29/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
Empty drums, drums of waste, garbage, and refuse were disposed of in the valleys beneath the dump areas and the White Alice site. Drums of unused material also fell or were blown off the mountains into the surrounding valleys. The valleys were cleaned up in 1984. Approximately seventy-five to eighty 55-gallon drums or 85-gallon overpacks of liquid and hazardous wastes were reportedly transported off site and turned into the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office at Fort Wainwright. Scrap metal, empty drums, and other debris were buried in the active Landfill No. 1 or No. 2.
The 1984 inventory listed approximately 1,900 visible drums, with up to 2,000 drums possibly buried under the snow. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 7/2/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
A double-domed Composite Building was constructed in 1984 west of Lower Camp to house personnel and equipment. At that time, approximately ten personnel were based at the station.
Dismantling and removal of the abandoned structures was begun in 1984. The structures at the
White Alice site were demolished in 1985. Demolition of some structures at Lower Camp was
also begun in 1985. The majority of the Lower Camp structures and all facilities at Upper
Camp except one radome were demolished in 1986. Most of the metal and structural material
from the cleanup and demolition was buried onsite in burial pits or asbestos landfills. Debris
and drum removal from the station and the adjacent valleys was conducted in 1984 and 1988.
The existing facilities at Sparrevohn are currently operated and maintained by four to five
personnel on a year-round basis. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/29/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
1985 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Records Search discussed fourteen (14) potential areas of concern, as well as three (3) undocumented spills. Of these locations, 8 of the 14 were identified as sites for further evaluation under the IRP and the remaining 6 sites were eliminated from further evaluation. The valleys beneath the Upper Camp and the White Alice slte have received wastes over the years. Empty drums, drums of waste and garbage and refuse were disposed of in these valleys. Drums of unused material also fell or were blown off of the mountains and into the surrounding valleys. The valleys were cleaned up in 1984. Drums of materials and remaining wastes found in the vallys were shipped off base for disposal through DPDO. Scrap metal, empty drums, and other debris were buried in the active base landfill (Landfill No. I) or Landfill No. 2.
The discharge of fuel from the diesel overflow line from the day tanks at Upper Camp was considered evaluated as part of the dump areas (Site DP08). A report on waste disposal practices at Sparrevohn AFS (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration FWPCA), 1969, indicated that diesel fuel was discharged through a pipe near the Upper Camp septic tank outfall on the northern side of the mountain. Discharges from the flow drains of the vehicle maintenance shop were considered "insignificant compared to the 12,000 to 42,000 gallon fuel spill) (Spill/Leak No. 1 a.k.a. ST05) at Lower Camp. No reasons were provided for the elimnation of the leaks from MOGAS tanks 10 and 11.
Sparrevohn AFS (Air Force Station) uses a gallery to obtain its needed water supplies. A second gallery, located near Building 128, is not used due to petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) contamination. The first gallery, designated "well number 1" on installation documents, is 18' deep, 26' long and 12' wide (Feulner 1966). The second gallery, is reported to be 14' deep and has a single lateral of undetermined length resting on bedrock. The second gallery is identified as "well number 2" on base drawings. The second gallery has not been in use for several years.
Sparrevohn AFS is a relatively large installation dlvlded into an Upper Camp and a Lower Camp. The Whlte Allce site occupies the west central corner of the site; its dump area extends beyond the installation boundary. Eight disposal sites have been identified for further Phase II IRP study. Three dlsposal sltes (Dump Area, Transmitter Pad and Spill/Leak No. 2) are clustered together at the Upper Camp. Two sites (Spill/Leak Nos. I and 3 and the Waste Accumulation Area) are similarly located in close proxlmlty at the Lower Camp. Three additional sites (Landfill No. I, white Allce and Road 0111ng) are set apart in the vicinity of the Lower Camp.
It is recommended that an intensive environmental study be conducted at the Upper and Lower Camps for the sltes identlfled there. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/23/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Executive Order (E.O.) 12580 delegates presidential authorities under CERCLA to the heads of various Executive Branch agencies under certain circumstances. The E.O. delegates the lead response authorities to EPA and the Coast Guard. Generally, the head of the federal agency has the delegated authority to address releases at federal facilities within that federal agency’s jurisdiction.
In addition, E.O. 12580 requires federal agencies to assume certain duties, such as participating on national and regional response teams. The 1996 amendment to E.O. 12580 delegates CERCLA abatement and settlement authorities to the Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Defense, and Energy, to be exercised in concurrence with EPA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/30/1988 |
Update or Other Action |
Removal actions involved cleanup of valleys surrounding Upper Camp. During these removal actions, solid wastes were buried in at least one and possibly several dump areas excavated in the valleys to the north of Upper Camp. A June - September 1988 After Action Report by Mr. Michael Hostetter of the 611 CES/CEOR, contained a list of materials turned inot the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) at Ft. Wainwright.
The materials apparently were obtained during cleanup of the area over the north face of a four canyon area at Upper Camp. The recovered materials included PCB and non-PCB transformers, PCB and non-PCB insulating oil, malathion, diazinon, paint-related waste, calcium hypochloride, asphalt emulsion, waste oil, and radioactive materials (smoke detectors). NOTE to FILE: EPA defines "non-PCB" containing oil as containing less than 50 ppm PCBs. |
John Halverson |
| 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. |
John Halverson |
| 2/19/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:Permits and Permit "Equivalency" Processes for CERCLA On-site Response Actions
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
TO: Director, Waste Management Division, Regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII; Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II; Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Regions III, VI, and IX; Director, Hazardous Waste Division Region X
PURPOSE: The purpose of this directive is to clarify the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy with respect to attaining permits for activities at CERCLA sites. CERCLA response actions are exempted by law from the requirement to obtain Federal, State or local permits related to any activities conducted completely "on-site". It is our policy to assure all activities conducted "on site" are protective of human health and the environment. It is not Agency policy to allow surrogate or permit equivalency procedures to impact the progress or cost of CERCLA site remediation in any respect.
BACKGROUND: In implementing remedial actions, EPA has consistently taken the position that the acquisition of permits is not required for on-site remedial actions. However, this does not remove the requirement to meet (or waive) the substantive provisions of permitting regulations that are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). (For definitions of "substantive" and "administrative," see 55 FR 8756-S7 and the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I, pages 1-11-12.) The proposed and final 1982 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) made no mention of the permit issue. However, EPA addressed the issue in a memorandum entitled "CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental Statutes" which was attached as an appendix to the proposed 1985 NCP (50 FR 5928, February 12, 1985). The memorandum stated: "CERCLA procedural and administrative requirements will be modified to provide safeguards similar to those provided under other laws. Application for and receipt of permits is not required for on-site response actions taken under the Fund-financed or enforcement authorities of CERCLA."
EPA determined in the final rule [1985 NCP section 300.68 (a)(3)] that "Federal, State, and local permits are not required for Fund-financed action or remedial actions taken pursuant to Federal action under section 106 of CERCLA." The 1986 amendments to CERCLA codified section 300.68(a)(3) of the 1985 NCP with a statutory provision, section 121(e) (I). CERCLA section 121(e) (1) provides that no Federal, State, or local permit shall be required for the portion of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on-site, where such remedial action is selected and carried out in compliance with section 121.
The 1990 NCP [section 300.400(e)(1)] implements this permit exemption for "on-site" actions, defining "on-site" as "the areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for implementation of the response action." The preamble to the NCP (at 55 FR 8689, March 8, 1990) explains that "areal" refers both to the surface areas and the air above the site. EPA policy further defines "on-site" to include the soil and the groundwater plume that are to be remediated. On-site remedial actions may involve limited areas of noncontaminated land; for instance, an on-site treatment plant may need to be located above the plume or simply outside of the waste area itself.
As provided in NCP section 300.400(e)(I), response actions covered by CERCLA section 121(e)(l) include those conducted pursuant to CERCLA sections 104, 106, 120, 121, and 122. Thus response actions conducted by a lead agency, or by a potentially responsible party or other person under an order or consent decree with EPA, are covered under the ambit of CERCLA section 121(e)(1). Response actions by a lead agency include those response actions implemented by EPA, the Coast Guard, or another Federal agency. They also include response actions implemented by a State or political subdivision operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative agreement executed pursuant to CERCLA section 304(d)(1), under which EPA selects (or must approve) the remedy. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/2/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA Comments (Mark Ader Fed. Fac. Site Assessment Mgr.) on the Sparrevohn AFS, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
The primary problem with the report is that it does not provide the necessary information to
complete a HRS score on the site. There is incomplete information on targets, waste quantlty, and target distance from sources. The following are specific comments for the Sparrevohn site:
2.1.1 Description - Please provide the section, township, range and approximate geographical coordinates for the site. All on-site structures past and present should be identified
including their uses and locations.
4.1.2 History and Mission - More information on the history of site in regards to the changes in operation and types of waste that may have been produced during change outs.
2.1.3 Past Waste Management Practices - First paragraph- Were solvents every used as degreaser during vehicle maintenance operations. There are no estimates of waste quantity (monthly or
yearly). Second paragraph discuss tanks, provide sizes of all tanks. Thirdparagraph discusses landfills, provide dimensions of each. Need history on Upper Camp clean-up(waste quantity shipped off site and why it was cleaned-up.
2.2.1.2 Investigation and Results - What were the analytical parameters and detection limits of all sampling events? Was DCE the only analyte detected?
2.2.2.1 Description - Provide the dimensions of the waste accumulation area and the landfills. What were the years of operation of the dste accumulation area? Why was it graded and filled? What happened to the leaking 55 gallon drums?
2.2.1.1 Description - How far is water gallery from the
spill and is it downgradient of spill? Were soil samples
collected and was soil remediated. Were the 79/80 spills the
only ones in history of site? How much fuel was recovered? Why
was the recovery process stopped? Fuel was observed leaking into
creek in 1985. What is the creek's name? Who observed the
spill? |
John Halverson |
| 7/10/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Letter from Mark Ader EPA Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager to Patrick M. Coullahan 5099th CEOS.
This letter is to inform you that EPA, Region l0 has reviewed the Preliminary Assessment submitted for the Sparrevohn Long Range Radar Station, Alaska. The documents have been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 300, Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The reviewed documents indicate that the site could score high enough to be included on the NPL. Therefore, EPA requests that additional information be submitted in order to complete our evaluation. Specifically, all sources identified, excluding the 3 spill sites and the fire training area, in the PA should be sampled and measured. Sediment samples should be collected from all surface water located near sources and sediment samples should be collected from wetlands.
The on site water gallery system should also be sampled. Background samples should be collected to characterize natural soil conditions at the site and to determine natural conditions for surface water. All samples should be analyzed for the complete EPA target compound list (TCL) of analytes. Data generated should be equivalent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) level 4 data quality.
Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and reauthorization Act requires EPA to assure that a PA/SI is conducted for all facilities listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Executive Order 12580 (1/23/87) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an HRS evaluation. As such, EPA requests that you provide us with the above information within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
If your facility anticipates an inordinate amount of delay in compiling this information, please send us within 30 days of receipt of this letter, a schedule of when we may expect to receive the required information.
I would like to be involved in the development of the work plan for the AF sites and would be happy to meet with your representatives to discuss the additionally sampling at the earliest convenience. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please contact either Marcia Combes at (907) 271-3622 or me at (206) 553-1808. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/5/1993 |
CERCLA SI |
Mark Ader EPA sent 11th CEOS Patrick M. Coullahan LTC Commander a letter regarding the Site Inspection.
This letter is to inform you that EPA Region i0 has completed the review of the Site Inspection (SI) report for the U.S. Air Force Sparrevohn Long Range Radar site. The SI has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). From our evaluation, EPA has determined that additional information is necessary in order to complete the evaluation of the site.
Please provide documentation on the use of the on site tributary streams. EPA needs to
determine if on site personnel or local residents try to catch fish from the tributaries. EPA also, needs further documentation of on sate wetlands that may be associated with the tributaries. Please delineate wetlands along the tributary streams where samples were collected.
Please provide this information within 60 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding EPA's evaluation of this site, please contact me, at (206)553-1808. |
Louis Howard |
| 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: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY
SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION
Sec. 9620. Federal facilities
(a) Application of chapter 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 chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title.
(2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter 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 chapter.
(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 chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title 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) of this section 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. |
John Halverson |
| 8/3/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
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)
OTD4 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 |
| 2/6/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 7/27/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Management Action Plan (dated and received in July 1995).
While not listed on the NPL, Sparrevohn LRRS must follow CERCLA process per E.O. 12580 [e.g. CERCLA Sections 104(a), (b), and (c)(4), 113(k), 117(a), and (c), 119, and 121) with respect to releases or threatened releases where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of their departments. These functions must be exercised consistent with CERCLA Section 120 Federal Facilities.
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 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.]. |
Ray Burger |
| 9/20/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Final Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Sparrevohn LRRS prepared by the US COE Alaska District Environmental Technical Engineering Section. As parn of the Superfund Amendments Re-authorization Act (SARA] of 1986 the Secretary of Defense was authorized to perform environmental restoration at facilities under his jurisdiction in a program entitled the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). DERP directs the Secretary of Defense to cleanup coontamination and other environmental damage which creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment, and for the demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and structures. Remedial design for this project has been assigned
to the Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as part of the installation Restoration Program (IRP) authorized in accordance with DERP by the United States Air Force (USAF)(611 CES/CEVR).
Soils contaminated with PCB's were detected at the upper end 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 remediate 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. Concentraions are estimated to range from 5 to S00 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.
Chemical Specific ARAR,s: 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.
Exceedance of Standards: The contaminant level of the PCB's in the soil stockpile has been estimated at up to 500ppm. There are no Chemical Specific ARAR values. The recommended cleanup level is 15 ppm, based on previous negotiations with ADEC.
Solvent Extraction is selected as the preferred alternative for volume reduction of contaminated soil. The proposed soil cleanup level is 15 mg/kg. This cleanup level will be below TSCA restricted area level of 25 mg/kg. Treated soils meeting the cleanup level of 15 mg/kg 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 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. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/11/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Community Relations Plan, Remedial Investiation / Feasibility Study (draft dated August 1996, no final received). |
Ray Burger |
| 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.
Draft Work Plan: Figure 4-5 was referenced but not incorporated in the work plan. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 2/14/1997 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Final Remedial Action PCB Soil Remediation Report, ADEC comment letter dated February 14, 1997; 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 |
Site Visit |
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 |
| 7/28/1998 |
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 |
| 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 Remedial Investigation Report Revision no. 1 dated 9/22/1999 received. Groundwater was not observed at Upper Camp (a ridge-top IRP Site). Many of the test pits were excavated to the soil/bedrock interface. The absence of groundwater, according to the report, justifies the use of the less-stringent 18 AAC 75 Method Two, petroleum hydrocarbon soil cleanup levels (i.e. ingestion pathway). While none was observed, the potential for intermittently-saturated zones to be present (as a result of rainfall or snowmelt) may exist. In addition, the ridge & its southern flanks may be within the zone of contribution of the active Lower Camp drinking water supply system.
The ridge on which the White Alice site, Upper Camp, & Transmitter Pad are located is not a current or potential drinking water source, & contamination at these IRP sites has not adversely impacted the active drinking water supply system at Lower Camp. Therefore, the use of ingestion pathway cleanup levels is justified for these ridge-top sites (according to the report): GRO-1,400 mg/kg, DRO-10,250 mg/kg & RRO-10,000 mg/kg.
Analytical results: Surface Soil Samples exceedances: Hillside North of White Alice: DRO maximum detection 980 mg/kg- this sample was collected from the tundra area.
Conclusions: DRO & RRO concentrations in surface samples on the hillsides may at least partially reflect the presence of naturally-occurring biogenic material, since they are comparable to concentrations found in background samples from undisturbed locations. They may also reflect cap contamination in the lab, since these 1997 samples were not recollected. RRO concentrations do not exceed the most stringent ADEC cleanup levels, & the highest DRO concentrations were in samples collected from tundra soils, supporting a biogenic origin.
Hillside Sample Areas- Only three analytes (trichloroethene in four samples, tetrachloroethene in one sample, & 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane in one sample) exceeded ADEC cleanup standards. These occurrences represented a total of five samples, & do not indicate the presence of widespread contamination at the site.
Background samples conclusions: In general, the numbers of samples for each media, other than soil, were TOO SMALL to establish statistically valid background concentration ranges, so maximum detected values were used as background values. Two of the surface water background locations were located downgradient of the ridge-top sites, & PAH contamination found at SW-1 may reflect impacts from those sites. Metals reported at SW-39 were detected at concentrations lower than detection limits for the same metals in other background samples. DRO & RRO detected in background sediment samples is likely biogenic. Pesticides detected in sediment at SW-1 may reflect widespread application.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
| 10/28/1999 |
Site Added to Database |
Fuels, pesticides, paint wastes, and drums with unknown contents. |
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 |
| 6/16/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
All Around Alaska newsletter, Sparrevohn Edition - Results of Stream Sampling North of Sparrevohn (dated May 2000) received June 16, 2000. |
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 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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. Hillside Surface Soil Samples: DRO and RRO concentrations in surface samples on the hillsides maya t least partially reflect the presence of naturally-occurring biogenic material, since they are comparable to concentrations found in background samples from undisturbed locations. The concentrations of RRO did not exceed the most stringent ADECcl eanup level, and only four samples exceeded soil cleanup levels for DRO(all below the WACs Site).
The VOC and SVOC detected in samples from these hillsides were typically at very low
concentrations, and only three analytes (TCE, tetrachloroethene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane)
exceeded ADEC cleanup levels. These occurrences represent a total of four samples. In general,
samples exceeding the soil cleanup level for DRO did not exceed cleanup levels for VOC; only
one sample exceeded cleanup levels for DRO and TCE.
Risks to human health in the Hook Creek and Northern Hillside/Valley exposure areas was determined to exceed ADEC risk managemenst tandards based on ingestion of fish exposed to contaminated sediment. The probability of recreational users catching fish in these two exposure areas is low, and the implementation of corrective action would likely cause more damage to the streams than if none was conducted.
Current contaminant concentrations at the site are below levels of ecological concern. Therefore, the remedial alternatives described in this section may be considered protective of ecological receptors. This site will be recommended for NFA. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 9/16/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Feasibility Study Report - draft dated May 2002 and received on May 9, 2002; ADEC comment letter on draft report dated May 31, 2002; ADEC comments sent via e-mail for draft final report on August 8, 2002; final report dated and received in September 2002). |
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 |
| 12/31/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
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.
There are conflicting statements within the Studies section, where no contamination is migrating offsite, and that there are potential risks if fish are consumed from the streams. Based on the risk assessment and addendum there was only a concern about residual range organics (RRO) which was discussed and dismissed using risk management decisions. Please address. |
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 |
| 7/21/2004 |
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.
DP08 notes surface water sample collection, but should also note the sediment sample collection as well. |
Gretchen Pikul |
| 11/19/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
File number issued 2652.38.007 |
Aggie Blandford |
| 6/6/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
FYI entry: John Halverson (ADEC) denies 611 CES/CEVR request for waiver of the requirement that an "Impartial Third Party" conduct sampling.
We received your request for a waiver of the state requirement that a qualified, impartial third
party conduct sampling, analysis, interpretation and reporting of characterization and cleanup
data for work planned at Barter Island this summer. Specifically, the request was for the Civil
Engineering Squadron, Environmental Operations Section (CES/CEVO) staff to be approved
for collecting soil, sediment and concrete samples at Installation Restoration Program and
Clean Sweep sites.
However, ADEC has several concerns over past work conducted by the CES/CEVO, which lead to our denial on the request for a waiver. It has come to our attention that the CEVO work crew allegedly discovered releases of oil or other hazardous substances and failed to report the
releases to DEC in a timely manner as required by 18 AAC 75.300; assessment/cleanup reports
prepared by the CEVO lack detail and required information; the field crew has reportedly not
followed approved work plans. A few examples of this include:
- Point Lay where "gross petroleum contamination" was found during removal of bulk fuel tanks in 2005. We have found no record of a spill report being submitted, our contaminated sites staff working on the site was not informed, the draft report submitted this year failed to describe the release or extent of contamination clearly and instead described sampling in downgradient test pits and recommended natural attenuation for the area.
- Point Lonely, where several large fuel tanks, a pumphouse and associated piping, and petroleum contaminated soil were removed in 2005. The draft report does not adequately describe fieldwork that was conducted during the characterization and removal of the contaminated soil and lacks required information (no data quality review, lack oflaboratory data). DEC comments on the draft report have yet to be addressed and no final report has been submitted.
• North River RRS - Fieldwork was not conducted in accordance with the approved work plan (no field screening to guide excavation); the draft report lacked detail describing the field work and lacked laboratory reports and a quality assurance review, there were QA/QC problems. DEC comments on the draft report have only been partially addressed, and a final report has not been submitted. The excavation was left open with a liner placed in the bottom and rocks on it; the excavation was not properly backfilled and secured nor is it being inspected and maintained as requested by the department.
A survey of our project managers indicates there has a consistent problem with the CEVO
reporting information in a clear, understandable and complete manner.
Based on these issues, we regrettably must deny your request for a waiver ofthe impartial third
party sampler. As discussed with Mr. David Longtin of the 611 CES/CEVR, Air Force staff may conduct field screening and sampling to evaluate whether a release of oil or hazardous substances has occurred; however, a qualified impartial third party must conduct or oversee
sampling, data collection and interpretation and reporting for contaminated site characterization and cleanup work on sites where releases have been confirmed. |
John Halverson |
| 9/18/2007 |
Update or Other Action |
Workplan (WP) approval requirements & quality assurance oversight on Performance Based Contracts (PBCs) letter from John Halverson (ADEC) to Scott Hansen (611 CES). ADEC is writing to remind you of contaminated site WP approval requirements in AK’s oil & hazardous substance pollution control regulations & UST regulations. Additionally, ADEC is concerned over quality assurance on PBCs.
WP Approval-Several 611 CES environmental restoration projects were implemented this summer without obtaining prior WP approval from DEC. The site cleanup rules require ADEC approval on WPs before beginning interim removal actions (18 AAC 75.330), site characterization work (18 AAC 75.355), or cleanup operations (18 AAC 75.360). Similarly, the UST regulations specify ADEC may require a corrective action plan be submitted for approval prior to conducting corrective action at an UST release site (18 AAC 78.250).
ADEC staff strives to complete plan reviews & respond to responsible parties within thirty (30) days after receipt of plans, although this is not always possible nor is it a requirement. At times expedited plan reviews are feasible based on project manager work load, adequate up-front planning, & contractors providing complete, well written plans. However, if significant WP revisions are required, additional review & comment resolution time will be needed. To facilitate successful project implementation, I recommend DoD project managers & contracting staff:
• Coordinate schedules with DEC project managers in advance & throughout projects.
• Include DEC project managers in project planning meetings (DQO meetings, UFP QAPP development meetings, Triad & other Technical Project Planning team meetings, etc.).
• Plan & maintain project schedules that include a sixty (60) days for reviewing draft work plans, comment resolution, any necessary revisions & a final review & approval.
• Review contractor planning documents prior to submission to DEC to ensure compliance with state & federal regulations consistency with agreements made during project planning meetings.
Failure to obtain WP approval before implementing site work described above is considered a violation of AK regulations & may result in field work not being approved or additional work being required & may subject responsible parties &/or contractors to a Notice of Violation (NOV).
Independent QA oversight on PBCs-As DoD transitions more ER projects to PBC concerns have risen regarding the level of Quality Assurance (QA) oversight. The site cleanup rules require that “collection, interpretation, & reporting of data, & the required sampling & analysis is conducted or supervised by a qualified, impartial third party”.
Depending upon the specific terms in a PBC, a contractor may no longer be considered an impartial third party with respect to collecting, interpreting & reporting data. This should be taken into consideration when preparing scopes of work. DEC strongly recommends the Air Force provide an on-site Quality Assurance (QA) Representative or a third party QA oversight contractor to monitor fieldwork for consistency with approved plans & contract requirements.
DEC is beginning to conduct more frequent independent QA site inspections to evaluate conformance to approved work plans & regulatory compliance. Because we lack staff resources to conduct independent QA on all of the anticipated PBC projects, we intend to include contracting support for field QA oversight in the DSMOA Joint Execution Plans & budget. |
John Halverson |
| 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 which included the Hillside Disposal Areas site (DP008).
Previous Investigations: During a 1992 site investigation, three soil samples were collected from the Hillside Disposal Areas (two behind Upper Camp, one behind WACS). Concentrations of PCBs, pesticides, and VOCs were all below the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup screening criteria. During the 1998 Remedial Investigation (RI), soil, sediment, and surface water samples were collected from the site and downgradient areas to the north. Soil samples were collected on the steep slopes north of both Upper Camp and the WACS and analyzed for DRO, RRO, VOCs, PCBs, pesticides, SVOCs, and metals. Surface water samples were collected in the drainages north of the two sites. Surface water and sediment samples were also collected from Tundra Lake, which is about 8 miles downstream from Sparrevohn LRRS, at the request of locals from Lime Village.
The drainages from both Upper Camp and WACS empty into Tundra Lake. Surface water samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. Sediment samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. The maximum DRO concentration in the soil was 980 mg/Kg. Because groundwater water is not present at this location, the ADEC Method Two soil cleanup level of 10,250 mg/Kg for ingestion and inhalation exposure was used for screening. No PCBs, pesticides, VOCs, or SVOCs exceeded screening criteria for the sediment or stream surface water samples.
Risk Evaluation Summary: No compounds exceeded screening criteria at the Hillside Disposal Areas; therefore, no COCs were identified. The Hillside Disposal Areas is one part of the Upper Camp Exposure Area, where the baseline risk assessment indicated that no cumulative risks exceeded ADEC risk management standards. No additional investigation or remediation is proposed for this site.
Proposed Action: Because no CERCLA hazardous substances exceeded the screening criteria, the Hillside Disposal Area ERP site is proposed for no further action (NFA)* under CERCLA. (NOTE to File: NFA under CERCLA does not relieve the 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). Additionally, no petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., DRO), regulated under 18 AAC 75, were detected above screening criteria. Therefore, sampling and remediation of the Hillside Disposal Area ERP site at Sparrevohn LRRS is complete and no future activities are planned. This decision is consistent with Alaska state laws and regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/3/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Final Proposed Plan Seven Sites at Sparrevohn LRRS August 2008 received electronically on August 22, 2008. Summary Page 1: The text in the last sentence states: “Finally, ADEC approval will be obtained prior to moving or disposal of soil contaminated above the appropriate cleanup level.” In accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i), ADEC requests the Air Force rephrase the text that states “Finally, ADEC approval will be obtained prior to moving or disposal of soil or groundwater which were subject to site cleanup rules (18 AAC 75.325).”
Specifically, 18 AAC 75.325(i) states: “A responsible person shall obtain approval before moving or disposing of soil or groundwater from a site (1) that is subject to the site cleanup rules; or (2) for which the responsible person has received a written determination from the department.”
This notification requirement applies to soil and groundwater at sites which were subject to 18 AAC 75.325 as well as those sites which do not meet the “appropriate” cleanup levels.
Figure 1 ERP Site Locations Page 2 and Page 7: ADEC requests clarifying text be included in the document regarding who owns the surrounding land and whether or not wastes and contaminants off the Air Force controlled land.
Hillside Disposal Areas DP008-Proposed Action Page 27: The text states: “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.”
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/24/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Record of Decision received from 611 CES for DP008 Hillside Disposal Areas. DP008 also includes Tundra Lake, located 8 miles northwest of Sparrevohn LRRS. The Hillside Disposal Areas (DP008) are part of Northern Hillside/Valley exposure area. No CERCLA hazardous substances were identified as contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at DP008. As a result, this ROD presents a No Action* remedy for DP008 at Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, in accordance with CERCLA as amended by SARA, and the NCP. (*NOTE to file: No Further Action decision will not relieve the 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.) 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 DP008. The selected remedy for this site is No Further Action, resulting in closure under CERCLA and cleanup complete under Alaska State statutes and regulations. Under the No Further Action alternative, no further investigation, sampling or remedial actions are necessary at DP008. Based on low concentrations of detected compounds, as well as the low frequency of detection and the isolated nature of the detection (i.e., not contiguous) in all site media (i.e., soil, sediment, and surface water), the site does not pose a risk to human health or the environment.
Drinking water is currently supplied by a collection gallery located west of the Lower Camp on a tributary of Sparrevohn Creek. The gallery was installed approximately 20 feet below the streambed, and provides drinking water to the residential facility year-round. No drinking water is currently provided to the Upper Camp. No groundwater exists beneath the Hillside Disposal Areas (DP008), and surface water only occurs as runoff from precipitation; there are no sources of drinking water at DP008. An evaluation of groundwater at the ridge-top and hillside ERP sites, including DP008, was completed as part of the 2002 FS (USAF 2002b). The evaluation concluded that there was no potential current or future water use for these sites in accordance with Alaska State regulation 18 AAC 75.350. Although no formal notice of a determination based on 18 AAC 75.350 was issued by ADEC, ADEC did concur with the FS and approved the document in a letter to the USAF dated September 11, 2002.
The findings presented in the BLRA and Addendum indicate no human health or ecological risk
associated with DP008. As a result, no remedial action is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Therefore, No Further Action is recommended under CERCLA. This recommendation is also compliant with State of Alaska laws and regulations for a cleanup complete designation. The following sections provide a summary of the BLRA and Addendum, which are the basis for the No Further Action decision. Although a variety of chemicals were detected at DP008, none exceeded one-tenth the applicable human health screening levels in 18 AAC 75.341(c), or the Sparrevohn background concentrations.
The Proposed Plan for DP008 was released for public comment on October 6, 2008. The Proposed Plan identified No Further Action and closure under Alaska State laws and regulations as the preferred alternative for the site. The USAF reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Although public comments were received for the Proposed Plan, none were applicable to DP008. It was determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/22/2009 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft ROD for DP008. 1.1 Site Name and Location Page 1-1
ADEC requests the Air Force replace the reference to the Record Key (Reckey) Number with the Hazard ID: 696. Reckey numbers are no longer used as a specific site identification in the ADEC Contaminated Sites database.
2.1.1 Site Name and Location Page 2-1: ADEC requests the Air Force include text clarifying that ADEC is the lead regulatory agency for petroleum and non-CERCLA contaminants at the facility.
2.7.3 Basis for Action Page 2-28: ADEC concurs with the Air Force that no further remedial action under State of Alaska regulations or CERCLA is required. However, ADEC requests the Air Force add an additional text:
Prior approval from ADEC will be obtained for any disturbance, movement or disposal of soil which were subject to site cleanup rules (per 18 AAC 75.325(i)). Placement of the soil in environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland or waters which causes a violation of water quality standards (i.e. sheening) is prohibited.
Please note, ADEC’s review and comment on this decision document is to ensure it was 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 review of the document does not relieve the Air Force, its contractors, agents or other persons acting on its behalf from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/18/2009 |
Record of Decision |
John Halverson (ADEC) signed the record of decision (ROD) for DP008 Hillside Disposal Areas at Sparrevohn LRRS. No CERCLA hazardous substances were identified as contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) at DP008. As a result, this ROD presents a No Action remedy for DP008 at
Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska, in accordance with CERCLA as amended by SARA, and the NCP. 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
DP008. The State of Alaska concurs with the selected remedy (No Further Action). The ADEC agrees that based on site conditions, the selected soil remedy of No Further Action
will meet state regulatory requirements.
Because of low contaminant concentrations and minimal estimated risk, no remedial action
under CERCLA is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from
actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances. DRO was detected in 1999 at 980 mg/kg; RRO was detected in 1999 at a maximum concentration of 2,900 mg/Kg.
Prior approval from ADEC will be obtained for any disturbance, movement, or disposal of soil
which was subject to site cleanup rules (per 18 AAC 75.325(i)). Placement of soils in
environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands or waters, which could cause a violation of
water quality standards (i.e., sheening) is prohibited. |
John Halverson |
| 8/18/2009 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Institutional Controls established and entered into the database. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/18/2009 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
The ROD documented the USAF and ADEC approval of the remedy selected in this Record of Decision for the Hillside Disposal Areas (DP008), Sparrevohn LRRS, Alaska. 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.
Because of low contaminant concentrations and minimal estimated risk, no remedial action under CERCLA is necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/21/2014 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71675 name: Dump |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
