| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/26/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Phase I Hazardous waste study Number 37-26-0725-87 conducted at the Fire Training pits located at the old landfill. Surface contamination was detected at 54 mg/kg 2-methylnaphthalene in pit P18301, 270 mg/kg in P1S2 and sample P1S3 at 47 mg/kg. This particular contaminant was not detected in 1 of the 3 subsurface samples taken from five feet. 207 mg/kg of toluene and 107 mg/kg of ethylbenzene was detected in sample P1S2 which exceeded holding times for volatile organics (this means that the contaminant levels are underestimated). FTP2 in operation prior to 1985. No contaminants detected in any samples from surface to 20 feet below ground surface. However, the holding times for volatile organic samples was exceeded. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/15/1989 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Groundwater sampling has been conducted in wells located around the perimeter of the landfill since 1989. Annual report on groundwater monitoring is provided to ADEC by the Army. Monitoring program is expected to continue for at least thirty years.
Previous investigations have revealed three aquifers at the old landfill. A perched unconfined aquifer was encountered at 35 feet below ground surface (bgs), a second aquifer was encountered at 170 and 178 feet at mean sea level (AMSL) in glacial till. Finally, a third aquifer was found to the south of the landfill at a depth of 204 feet AMSL. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/15/1989 |
Update or Other Action |
Ecology and Environment prepared a work plan for addressing prior landfill practices, soil types, groundwater (GW) regime, characterizing contamination and its horizontal and vertical extent. This information will be used to develop activities necessary to remediate and close the facility. ADEC returned comments on 2/5/90. Requested (3) new monitoring wells, because existing wells would provide questionable data. Expanded seasonal sampling. Soil samples to accurately identify metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and other parameters that photo-ionization detector (PID) will not-detect. A total of (12) comments were directed towards the Work Plan. A QA/QC plan was received on 1/4/90. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/29/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Colonel Edwin Ruff letter response to Notice of Violation (NOV) 89-21-05-208-01 for Fort Richardson landfill received by Jennifer Roberts. The exposed friable asbestos was removed and properly disposed of on the date of Henry Friedman's (DEC staff solid waste program) September 14, 1989. The human waste pit had been properly closed by the time of the third inspection as mentioned in the NOV letter. The sludge pit has been identified on the site plan, but has since been closed to all further use. The junk vehicles and debris in the fire training area has been buried. The three access points have been secured as well as possible, but routine inspections of the landfill will be added to the operations and maintenance (O and M) plan to discourage further illegal dumping, and to remedy violations in a more timely manner. The Army requested that this (9/25/89) NOV be considered resolved. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/1/1990 |
Site Added to Database |
Human wastes, cooking grease, other oils from field training exercises, ethylene glycol and petroleum contaminants suspected to be in soils. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/5/1990 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
J. Roberts sent Colonel Edwin Ruff a letter regarding Fort Richardson Landfill Work Plan December 1989. Section 2 of the report states there are currently three monitoring wells (FR-1, FR-2 & FR-3) on site. These wells were installed in 1984 and there is little construction information on them. On Page 2-5 the following information is given: "The depth of the monitoring wells and the depth to groundwater in each well have not been determined. A drilling log was located for only one of the monitoring wells (FR-1). "
It is my concern that the information gained from these wells is not accurate or representative. To obtain accurate information from monitoring wells it is vital that the construction (including the screen type and screened interval) and development data be known. Since this information is not known, I request that new monitoring wells be install in place of the three wells under strict QA/QC installation guidelines. Until these wells have accurate construction or development histories the sampling data collected from them will remain suspect and questionable.
The department requests that an expanded seasonal sampling schedule be established for selected monitoring wells. I am concerned that accurate data can not be collected based on a once a year sampling schedule. Seasonal water fluctuations can easily dilute or mask the contamination level of a contaminant. Determinations on site status and remedial actions will be based on incomplete information.
In Section 5 Table 5-1 shows the sample analytical methods. I am assuming that these are the methods proposed to run on samples from the base drinking water wells and public wells. Since these wells are used for drinking water, the department requests analysis for base drinking wells and public wells to be done by EPA drinking water method 502.2 or 524.2.
Table 5-1 also shows that Volatile Organic Compounds in water are to be analyzed by EPA 8240. EPA 8240. EPA 8240 is developed for solid waste, the corresponding method for VOCs in water is EPA 624. In general, the department requests that all water samples be sampled using analytical methods developed specifically for water. Please alter your analysis program or explain your choice in using method 8240. The workplan makes no mention of sampling for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). There were numerous references (i.e. waste fuel spills in the landfill, and the drum storage area where unlabeld waste drums were stored) to potential sources for TPH in the workplan. The department requests that the workplan be revised to include TPH using EPA method 418.1 for analysis. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/3/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Fort Richardson Landfill Work Plan contract# DACA85-88-D-0014 Delivery Order# 18 by E&E inc. The workplan addresses the field investigation phase. Sampling/Analysis QC/QAP presents the objectives for the field investigation and describes the methods by which these will be accomplished. The subsurface exploration plan addresses the detailed aspects of the monitoring well installation. The main objective of this workplan is to obtain information necessary to develop the project report; and to determine if and what kind of remedial measures are necessary.
Disposal areas 1, 2, and 3 are known as the "old landfill". The dates of operation are unknown. Disposal area 2 was opened with the closure of disposal area 1. It accepted over 400,000 cubic meters of sanitary waste into trenches and was closed in 1973. Disposal area 3 was opened in 1973 and closed in 1977. Disposal area 4 was opened in 1976. The amount of refuse disposed and the date of closure are unknown.
Disposal area 5, which opened in 1982, was the first of the disposal areas to actually be permitted by the State of Alaska.
This disposal area includes an open pit for disposal of construction and demolition debris, disposal piles for metal and wood, and an area for asbestos material. Small amounts of |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/3/1990 |
Site Visit |
Henry Friedman filled out a solid waste disposal site inspection report dated May 3, 1990. Permit No. 8421-BA005 (expired). The only active disposal cell was the human waste pit. A large pile of oily soil, covered with visqueen was located near the main entrance. Oil soaked sorbent pads and stained soil was located at the edge of the pile. All other old disposal areas were inactive and covered. |
John Halverson |
| 5/23/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
Oil & Hazardous Substances Material Incident Report Form dated 5/23/1990 spill# 90-2-1-5-143-4. Contaminated soil from spill sites is improperly stored in landfill area - visible contamination around storage area Fort Richardson Landfill. Petroleum products and unknown product types. Soild Waste Disposal Site Inspection Report Permit No. 8421-B4005 (expired). Contaminated soils from remedial action at spill sites is improperly stored and appears to be contributing to soil contamination in the landfill area. Free petroleum product on ground in front of stockpiled contaminated soils appears to have been dumped illegally. Access to the landfill area is not restricted. |
John Halverson |
| 9/26/1990 |
Update or Other Action |
INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
Interim cleanup guidance for contaminated surface and groundwater remediation is necessary to ensure that consistent cleanup levels are being applied by district and regional program staff. The following guidelines should be implemented under 18 AAC 75.140 which specifies that a "discharge must be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor or his designee.
Final cleanup levels shall be determined by the Regional Supervisor or his designee based on site-specific conditions. Staff should be aware that if a facility is regulated under RCRA, that RCRA corrective action and cleanup standards should enter into development of final site cleanup levels.
Groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the more stringent of the final State or Federal Maximum Contaminant levels (MCLs) for Organic and Inorganic Chemicals. If final MCLs have not been adopted for a contaminant, then groundwater should be cleaned up to levels not exceeding proposed Federal MCLs. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned, up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Final State MCLs are specified in 18 AAC 80.050 and final Federal MCLs are specified in 40 CFR 141 and 142. Proposed Federal MCLs are specified in the May 22, 1989, Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 97, pages 22155 - 22157 and the July 25, 1990, Federal Register Vol. 55, No. 143, pages 30408 - 30448. Appendix I provides a summary listing of State and Federal Final and Proposed MCLs for selected organic and inorganic contaminants.
For organic and in organic contaminants that have not been assigned a final or proposed MCL, cleanup levels should be based on criteria cited in EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986 using a health risk factor of 10-6. EPA's water quality criteria identify concentrations of elements and compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms or toxic and carcinogenic effects on humans.
If groundwater is being used as a drinking water source and alternative water supplies or point of use water treatment cannot be provided, then final or proposed secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) may be used as cleanup target levels. SMCLs are based on aesthetic properties such as taste and odor, whereas MCLs are based on human health risks. For compounds such as xylenes, the SMCL maybe several hundred times lower than the MCL.
Surface waters used for drinking water should also be cleaned up to levels not exceeding the final or proposed MCLs for organic and inorganic chemicals, as specified above. Under the authority of 18 AAC 70.020, surface waters important to the growth and propagation of aquatic life should be cleaned up to the listed criteria which includes EPA's Water Quality Criteria. 1986. These criteria identify concentrations of specific elements or compounds which have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. The group of compounds collectively identified as total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) should be cleaned up to non-detectable levels as measured by EPA Method 418.1.
Alternative Cleanup Levels (ACLs) may be adopted for a site if a risk assessment approved by the department is performed and cleanup to levels identified above is technically infeasible. Risk assessments will not by themselves establish ACLs. Determination of cleanup levels is a risk management decision that the department must make based on results of a quantitative risk assessment and other pertinent information.
The responsible party (RP) may prepare at its own expense a risk assessment which shall include an assessment of both human health and environmental risks. Specific components of the risk assessment should include an exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, risk characterization, and justification of ACLs. A general description of these risk assessment components is provided in Appendix II.
General technical requirements for risk assessments should be based on EPA risk assessment guidance for superfund sites. A site specific risk assessment procedure must be prepared by the RP and submitted to the department for review and approval prior to conducting a risk assessment. The RP, at the department's discretion, must agree to reimburse the department for expenses incurred by the department if it chooses to contract for a risk assessment review. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/4/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
The only organic contamination detected in the groundwater samples was oil in total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis FR-1 5,600 ug/L and FR-3 5,600 ug/L. No other sampling for inorganic parameters since TPH was only performed on samples that were a part of the basewide groundwater sampling program. Recommendations are to install 2 downgradient and 1 upgradient monitoring wells with annual and quarterly elevation surveys of all wells at landfill, incorporate all monitoring wells at the landfill into the basewide groundwater monitoring program. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/15/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from the US Army Col. Robert J. Wrentmore RE: Letter of February 4, 1992 Solid Waste Disposal Site on Fort Richardson. Enclosed is a copy of the report the maintenance shop provided concerning the materials placed in the landfill since February. Also enclosed are the landfill monitoring well reports from 27 May 1992. Point of Contact is Karen Klocke ERD. |
Kevin Kleweno |
| 1/27/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Memorandum ENSR GW results for FRA & Greely MW Network Sampling to Jane Smith 6th ID DPW APVR-DE-PSE.
FR-3 November 1992 Gasoline range organics (GRO) detected at 11 mg/L. AP-2983 October 1992
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/6/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Keven Kleweno sent Col. Robert Wrentmore letter RE: Fort Richardson Landfill Closure Plan ADEC Project # 9321-SWM-004. This is in response to your submittal received in this office on April 6, and June 2, 1993. I have reviewed the submitted information, notes taken during the March 5, 1993 meeting with your staff, this office's files on the existing landfill and other pertinent data. In regards to your April 6, 1993 submittal: Review of this office's file reveals a history of non-action by the Army to the Department's concerns when dealing with the landfill.
There has been no response to the Department's June 2, 1989 letter that notified your office that the existing permit was to expire on August 31, 1989. IN addition there has not been a written response by the Army to my February 4, 1992 letter covering the last inspection of the landfill.
Failure to follow monioring as required by the permit (permit number 8421-BA005). Failure to follow site closure requirements in the permit (permit no. 8421-BA005) and as required by 18 AAC 60.410, Solid Waste Mangement regulations.
The landfill closure plan submittal (Ecology and Environmental February 1992 report) received by the regional office in 1992 and the additional information was submitted to this office does not constitute a complete closure plan. During the March meeting, we agreed that the Ecology & Environment report was a starting point on the landfill closure plan. I agreed that the Army had the option to use remediated POL soils, but it appears that your staff failed to inform you that they had to be completely clean prior to use.
At this time no information has been submitted to me so that I can determine which areas of the landfill needs new or additional cover. Again, the Army has violated the expired permit regarding the monitoring requirements. The E&E reports do cover the existing monitoring programs with great detail which does assist in the review. However, the first report I reviewed stated that only 3 monitoring wells would be needed to address the Department's solid waste management regarding monitoring for closure. While in a different section of the report, it stated that the groundwater hydrology was very complex and that due to the size of the landfill, groundwater gradient could change from one section to another. This is not sufficient information to be accepted as the long term monitoring portion of a closure plan.
Two different capping methods were listed. Thus, to work up a closure plan for the landfill in sections, the items that will need to be addressed first are: 1) an accurate top map of the landfill as it now exists; 2) provide inventory of existing vegetation to include detailed mapping of herbaceous ground cover/wood-stemmed under story and over story (trees) vegetation information will need speciees specific; 3) information on the depth of the existing cover through out the landfill (recommend that this information be collected using geophysical methods); 4) specifications on the final cover to be used through out the closure of the landfill, and; 5) storm water pollution prevention plan that will be used during closure and after closure.
Groundwater monitoring for either closure plan will treat the landfill as one unit unless the information E&E February 1992 report is correct in regards to the groundwater gradient through out the landfill. If there are several changes in the groundwater gradient we could look at designing long term monitoring programs around the hydro-geological data instead of the surface closure plan. |
Kevin Kleweno |
| 7/8/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter for June 17, 1993 inspection sent to US Army Col. Robert Wrentmore by Keven Kleweno as part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Multi-media inspection. There are several active sites in the landfill. In Area B we located asphalt and concrete that was being stockpiled for later recyling. However, the asphalt and concrete are being contaminated with sections of metal and plastic pipe and fine grained material which is unusable for resuse. However, any material that can not be used will need to be disposed as covered in the closure plan that is currently being discussed.
In Area C, we located a pond of water where waterfowl had evidently been using. Waste material was protruding from the cover material around the pond. With staff of both parties working on a closure plan for the landfill which will cover runoff control, the lack of runoff control that the pond represents will be resolved in the closure plan when it is approved.
Throughout the inspection, waste was found protruding from the existing cover material. I believe that the way to resolve this concern is in the closure plan.
The storage of contaminated soils in lined cells on a landfill that was not properly closed increases the possibility that the leachate from the landfill will be contaminated. Instead of requesting that all contaminated soils be removed or have engineering plans of each cell be submitted to this office for review and approval, this issue will be covered in the closure plan. |
Kevin Kleweno |
| 9/21/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
A.G. letter (Breck Tostevin) to Tamela J. Tobia OS Judge Advocate for the Army. Letter states that a separate petroleum site compliance agreement should be separate from the CERCLA federal facility agreement. The petroleum site restoration agreement would function as a "two-party agreement" under the FFA. It would track the basic provisions of the UST Agreement but be tailored to the State's contaminated site regulations and would interface with the FFA. All petroleum sites addressed under the Two Party agreement would be reviewed in the final operable unit of the FFA and actions taken would be memorialized in a Record of Decision (ROD) under the FFA. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/19/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Chemical data report for GW monitoring received. Reusable bailers were used to collect volatile organic compounds, gasoline range organics samples. The results for these contaminants should be biased low due to sampling method and loss of volatiles with bailers.
April 1994
FR-1 DRO 8.06 mg/L
FR-2 DRO 3.14 mg/L
FR-3 DRO 4.02 mg/L
Samples were collected with tygon tubing. Sample tubing should be selected carefully, as some flexible sample tubing (e.g., silicone and tygon) may leach plasticizers or adsorb or desorb organic compounds. Teflon or Teflon-lined polyethylene tubing to collect samples for
organic analysis. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/31/1995 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed workplan to "X9" from "X5" to maintain existence on database. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/15/1997 |
Cleanup Plan Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RAPA - Remedial Action Plan Approval). |
Louis Howard |
| 12/2/1997 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Site reranked based on new information. Appears groundwater is not impacted above MCLs and soils minimally impacted by DRO. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/7/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Benzene detected in Well number AP-3220 at 7.7 ug/L for the first time above the MCL of 5 ug/L. Previous samples in 10/95, 6/96, 11/96, 5/97 were non-detectable or well below the cleanup level of 5 ug/L. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/14/1998 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
Presumptive remedy of capping as a part of the RCRA subtitle D landfill closure was conducted during the summer of 1997. Monitoring wells in place around landfill for thirty years of monitoring. Integrity of cap to be maintained and inspected regularly by the Army. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/2/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Updated USARAK institutional control policies and procedures received. The draft USARAK Command Policy Memorandum, ICs standard operating procedure and revised excavation clearance request have been finalized. To ensure the effectiveness of institutional controls, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of the institutional controls on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect on USARAK property. Where institutional controls are applicable to any organization, tenant, or activity, land use restrictions shall be incorporated into either a lease or Memorandum of Agreement, as appropriate. Costs for any and all remedial actions and fines and/or stipulated penalties levied as a result of a violation of an established institutional control shall be funded by the violating activity or organization. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/16/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
April 9, 1999 Landfill Closure Study Fall 1998 by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Gasoline range organics detected below 1.3 mg/L at 0.46 mg/L in AP 3010 and benzene below the 5 ug/L MCL at 0.31 ug/L in AP 3220. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Research Results of Chemical Materiel at PACAF Bases Installations in Alaska (Contract No. DACA85-95-D-0010 Deliv. Order No. 30 A-8534: "Although no disposal records have been found showing that these agents or kits were intentionally landfilled, the CAIS kits may be found in pre-1970 landfills. One should be prepared for the possible occurrence of CAIS discovery when 3 excavating landfill of that era. The personnel performing the excavation should be familiarized with the kits, their hazards, and appropriate protection against them. "Empty" cylinders or containers formerly containing H also may be found in pre-1970 military landfills." |
Louis Howard |
| 8/1/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
April 2000 Landfill Closure study final chemical report received for Fall 1999 work. MCL or cleanup levels exceeded as follows: AP-3010 Lead 23.9 ug/L (MCL 15 ug/L), cadmium and chromium 2200 ug/L, 31 ug/L respectively for FR-3.
Previous sampling for chromium has detected it above the MCL of 100 ug/L in Well FR-3: May 1997 575 ug/l, December 1997 increased to 670 ug/L, June 1998 decreased to 160 ug/L and in December 1999 increased to 2,200 ug/L. Lead in FR-3 also has seen levels above the MCL of 15 ug/L: May 1997 17 ug/L, December 1997 increased to 65 ug/L, December 1999 decreased to 31 ug/L. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
1. All organizations conducting activities on United States Army Alaska (USARAK) controlled land are responsible for complying with established institutional controls (ICs). ICs are administrative, procedural, and regulatory measures to control human access to and usage of property. They are applicable to all known or suspected contaminated sites where contamination has been left in place.
2. These controls have been established to implement the selected remedial actions agreed upon by the U.S. Army (Army), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA). These controls also apply to remedial actions agreed upon under Two-Party Compliance Agreements. These agreements are concluded between USARAK and ADEC and apply to petroleum/oil/lubricants- (POL) contaminated sites.
3. ICs such as limitations on access, water use, excavations, and property transfers will supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short-term and long-term management to prevent or limit human and environmental exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Specific ICs include, among other things: limitations on the depth and location of excavations, prohibition of or restrictions on well drilling and use of ground water, requirements for worker use of personal protective equipment, site monitoring, and prohibition of certain land uses, types of vehicles, etc.
4. Organizational units, tenants, and support/contractor organizations must obtain an Excavation Clearance Request (ECR) for all soil disturbing activities impacting soils six inches or more below the ground surface. The review process for approval of an ECR begins with the identification of the current status (known or suspected hazardous waste site or “clean” site) of a work location. ECR’s for work in known or suspected hazardous waste sites:
a. will include specific limitations and controls on such work;
b. will include specific IC procedures, and notification, monitoring, reporting, and stop work requirements;
c. may include procedures for management, characterization, and disposal of any soil or groundwater encountered or removed;
d. will identify “project managers” for both the unit/contractor requesting the work and DPW Environment Resources.
5. The DPW project manager will conduct on-site inspections of each work site (at which ICs apply) to determine continued compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved ECR. DPW has the authority to revoke ECR approval if the specified terms and conditions are not being met. ECR forms are available at the Customer Service Desks at: a. Building 730 at Fort Richardson; b. Building 3015 at Fort Wainwright; c. Building 605 at Fort Greely.
6. USARAK has negotiated (with USEPA and/or ADEC) decision documents and/or Records of Decision (RODs) that mandate the implementation of ICs USARAK Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Resources Department (PWE), maintains copies of all decision documents and RODs requiring ICs in its real property files. PWE provides regularly updated post maps showing all areas affected by ICs. These maps can easily be accessed by using an approved intranet mapping interface application. Copies of these maps will be available to each directorate, activity, and tenant organization. To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, all organizational units and tenant activities will be informed on an annual basis of ICs on contaminated soils and groundwater in effect near their facilities.
7. ICs are enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). Failure to comply with an IC mandated in a decision document or ROD will violate the USARAK Federal Facility Agreement and may result in stipulated fines and penalties. This does not include the costs of corrective actions required due to violation of an established IC.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/7/2003 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the groundwater monitoring report. Staff concurs with the recommendations with this section and requests the Army consider establishing a post-wide monitoring program to include this operable unit when such a program is developed for all two-party agreement sites, CERCLA source areas, compliance agreement sites and any other site where groundwater monitoring is conducted. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/15/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received for review the landfill closure monitoring report and deferred all future correspondence coordination to the solid waste management program staff (Jennifer Donnel). |
Louis Howard |
| 2/23/2007 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
|
Louis Howard |
| 4/7/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
Fall 2007 Landfill Monitoring Report received. Visual Monitoring Results-No signs of damage to the facility, evidence of escape of waste or leachate, unauthorized waste disposal, or evidence of death or stress to wildlife or vegetation were identified during this monitoring event. Ongoing use of a portion of the closed landfill as an asphalt reclamation area was noted during the visual inspection.
Groundwater Analytical Results-To determine if there are significant concerns with groundwater from the landfill, analytical results were compared to those MCLs established in 40 CFR 141. No analytes exceeded MCLs during the fall 2007 monitoring event.
During the fall 2007 landfill monitoring event, groundwater was sampled for both dissolved and total metals, as discussed in the Monitoring Plan. As agreed, filtered samples can be collected and analyzed but will not be used to compare water quality to standards. Filtered (dissolved) results are used as a tool to help evaluate water quality at the landfill and Fort Richardson.
Methane Monitoring Results-The fall monitoring event occurred on November 20, 2007. Methane was monitored at 10 locations using the QRAE Four Gas Monitor. The LEL (100 percent LEL) was measured at three locations: MP-02, MP-04, and MP-05. Elevated methane concentrations also have been recorded at these monitoring points during the previous two monitoring events. The remaining methane results for the November event were all zero.
In response to the levels exceeding LEL, methane monitoring was measured utilizing a more accurate meter, the GEM2000 Landfill Gas Monitor in December. In December, all methane monitoring results were at or less than 1 percent of the LEL.
Methane monitoring results indicate that some methane gas production is occurring at the landfill. Methane production at landfills, depending on age and content, is a normal part of the waste breakdown process. To prevent landfill gas from threatening human health and the environment, the ADEC regulates the percentage of the lower explosive limit (LEL) at the “facility property boundary” and in “facility structures.” For the Fort Richardson Landfill, 18 AAC 60.350 states that the LEL cannot be exceeded at the landfill boundary (which would be an LEL reading of 100 percent) and cannot exceed 25 percent in “facility structures.” No structures exist within 500 feet of the landfill boundary at this time; the nearest permanent structure is approximately a third of a mile away from the nearest landfill boundary.
In accordance with 18 AAC 60.350, the USARAK is required to submit a plan within 60 days of detecting methane above the LEL. This plan will outline potential monitoring techniques, sampling frequency, and if necessary a long term remediation plan for methane gas migration. This plan will demonstrate that current levels do not pose an unacceptable threat to public health, safety, and welfare. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/7/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71920 name: dump |
Bianca Reece |
| 5/13/2011 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the draft work plan for corrective action at heating oil tanks for several sites. This Work Plan, in conjunction with the addenda presented herein, will guide corrective actions to be performed at the Army Reserve Center (ARC) Tank E1, ARC Tank E2, ARC Tank E5, ARC Tank E7, Building 57-428 Tank, Building 987, Biathlon Range, & Fort Richardson Landfill sites in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) guidance documents.
The Fort Richardson Landfill is closed and the Army is conducting post-closure monitoring,
which includes an investigation of methane generation. One of the dedicated methane monitoring points was damaged in 2009 and requires replacement.
One gas monitoring probe at the Landfill site is damaged and will be replaced. USACE and
Bristol personnel will determine the location for probe replacement in the field. The methane
monitoring point will be 1-inch inside diameter, Schedule 80 iron pipe, equipped with a 12- to
18-inch screened section and drive point. The probe will be driven to a depth of 5.5 feet bgs
and pulled back 6 inches to create an air space (final depth will be 5 feet bgs) beneath the
drive point. The end of the pipe will be terminated at a height to be determined, and ground
smoothed to accept the installation of a cap. Prior to completing the site activities, the sample point will be tested to determine that soil gas can be adequately extracted.
The horizontal location of all borings/ groundwater monitoring wells will be established to
within one foot. The datum, coordinate system, and units will be: NAD83 Alaska State Plane, Zone 4, in feet. The elevation of the measuring point of all monitoring wells will be
surveyed to an accuracy of 0.01 foot.
Where there is not an established control at a site, a control by GPS static secessions of not
less than two hours per secession will be established. The data will be post-processed using
National Geodetic Survey Online Positioning User Service. The elevation of all soil analytical samples will be recorded to a vertical accuracy of one foot. All monitoring wells will be supplied with a four-number combination lock. The combination locks will be set to 0-9-1-1. |
Louis Howard |
