Attachment 17 - PRSC LUCMP_2023_April.pdf

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER

(AFCEC/CZOP)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM

LAND USE CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN

PACIFIC AIR FORCES REGIONAL SUPPORT

CENTER REMOTE INSTALLATIONS

Revision April 2023

Attachment 17

(Intentionally blank)

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ii LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................. v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................... 1-2

1.2 PURPOSE .................................................................................................. 1-4

1.3 U.S. AIR FORCE LAND USE CONTROL POLICY ...................................... 1-6

1.3.1 Definition of Land Use Controls .................................................... 1-6

1.3.2 Land Use Controls Decision Documentation ................................. 1-7

1.3.3 Land Use Controls Development, Implementation, Documentation, and Maintenance .......................................................................... 1-8

1.3.4 LUC Violations Reporting Procedures......................................... 1-10

1.4 CURRENT STATUS OF ERP SITES AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

LANDFILLS ............................................................................................... 1-10

1.5 CLOSED ERP SITES WITH ADEC STANDARD CONDITIONS ............... 1-11

1.6 CLOSED ERP SITES WITHOUT ADEC STANDARD CONDITIONS ........ 1-11

1.7 LAND USE CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES ........................ 1-11

2.0 LAND USE CONTROLS IN EFFECT ................................................................... 2-1

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CONTROLS IN EFFECT ........................... 2-1

2.1.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Prohibitions and Restrictions ........................................................ 2-2

2.1.3 Engineering Controls .................................................................... 2-2

2.1.4 Institutional Controls ..................................................................... 2-2

2.1.5 Expected Durations ...................................................................... 2-3

2.1.6 Monitoring, Inspections, Reporting, and Maintenance ................... 2-3

2.2 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILLS IN ALASKA .................. 2-3

3.0 LAND USE CONTROLS IMPLEMENTATION INFORMATION ............................ 3-1

3.1 LAND USE CONTROLS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FORMS ............. 3-1

3.2 LAND USE CONTROLS RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................ 3-2

3.3 GEOSPATIAL DATA AND ELECTRONIC INFORMATION COLLECTION . 3-2

3.4 LAND USE CONTROLS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING ..................... 3-2

3.5 LAND USE CONTROL INSPECTIONS ....................................................... 3-3

3.6 FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS ................................................................................ 3-3

3.7 LAND USE CONTROLS MODIFICATION AND/OR TERMINATION ........... 3-5

4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 4-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 ii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1 LUC Status of PRSC Installations TABLE 1-2 PRSC ERP Sites with LUCs or Interim LUCs in Effect TABLE 1-3 PRSC ERP and Compliance Program Landfill Sites TABLE 2-1 Description of LUC Types Currently in Effect at PRSC ERP Sites

TABLE 2-1A Closed ERP Sites with ADEC Standard Conditions (PRSC Alaska Installations)

TABLE 2-1B Closed ERP Sites without ADEC Standard Conditions (PRSC Alaska and Pacific Installations)

TABLE 2-2 ADEC Landfill Management Requirements TABLE 2-3 Post-Closure Notification Requirements for Class III Landfills TABLE 3-1 LUC Compliance Procedures for PRSC ERP Sites with LUCs in

Effect TABLE 3-2 Personnel Contact Information for PRSC Installation Sites with ADEC

Standard Conditions and LUC/Interim LUCs in Effect

TABLE 3-3 LUC Inspection Schedule

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Alaska Location and Vicinity Figure 2 Pacific Locations and Vicinity Figure 3 Installation Map – Anvil Mountain RRS Figure 4 Installation Map – Barter Island LRRS Figure 5 Installation Map – Bear Creek RRS Figure 6 Installation Map – Beaver Creek RRS Figure 7 Installation Map – Bethel RRS Figure 8 Installation Map – Big Mountain RRS Figure 9 Installation Map – Bullen Point SRRS Figure 10a Installation Map – Campion AFS RRS Figure 10b Installation Map – Campion AS RRS (Galena AS) Figure 11 Installation Map – Cape Lisburne LRRS Figure 12 Installation Map – Cape Newenham LRRS Figure 13 Installation Map – Cape Romanzof LRRS Figure 14 Installation Map – Cold Bay LRRS

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 iii

Figure 15 Installation Map – Driftwood Bay RRS Figure 16 Installation Map – Duncan Canal RRS Figure 17a Installation Map – Eareckson AS Figure 17b Installation Map – Eareckson AS (Closed Sites only) Figure 18 Installation Map – Fort Yukon LRRS Figure 19 Installation Map – Granite Mountain RRS Figure 20 Installation Map – Indian Mountain LRRS Figure 21 Installation Map – Kalakaket Creek RRS Figure 22a Installation Map – King Salmon AS Figure 22b Installation Map – King Salmon AS (Closed Sites only) Figure 23 Installation Map – Kotzebue LRRS Figure 24 Installation Map – Lake Louise Recreation Camp Figure 25 Installation Map – Murphy Dome LRRS Figure 26 Installation Map – Naknek Recreation Camp I Figure 27 Installation Map – Naknek Recreation Camp II Figure 28 Installation Map – Nikolski RRS Figure 29 Installation Map – North River RRS Figure 30 Installation Map – Oliktok Point LRRS Figure 31 Installation Map – Pillar Mountain RRS Figure 32 Installation Map – Point Barrow LRRS Figure 33 Installation Map – Point Lay LRRS Figure 34 Installation Map – Point Lonely LRRS Figure 35 Installation Map – Port Heiden RRS Figure 36 Installation Map – Sparrevohn LRRS Figure 37 Installation Map – Tatalina LRRS Figure 38 Installation Map – Tin City LRRS Figure 39 Installation Map – Wainwright SRRS Figure 40 Installation Map – West Nome Tank Farm Figure 41 Installation Map – Johnston Atoll Figure 42 Installation Map – Wake Island Airfield

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Status of PRSC ERP and Compliance Program Landfill Sites at Alaska, Johnston Atoll, and Wake Island Airfield Installations

APPENDIX B PRSC Operating Instruction 32-7001 LUC Management APPENDIX C AFI 32-7020, The Environmental Restoration Program.

APPENDIX D U.S. Air Force and U.S. Department of Defense Forms

APPENDIX E Generic LUC Inspection Checklists

Land Use Control Management Plan

REVISION April 2023 v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µg/L micrograms per liter AAC Alaska Administrative Code ABW Air Base Wing ACM asbestos-containing material ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment AFF Air Force Form AFI Air Force Instruction AFLOA Air Force Legal Operations Agency AFS Air Force Station AOC area of concern ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement AS air station AST aboveground storage tank AWQS Alaska Water Quality Standards BGP Base General Plan BOS base operation support BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes C&D construction and demolition CA contracts administrator CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC contaminant of concern CRP Compliance Restoration Program cy cubic yards CZOP Environmental Engineering Directorate, Operations Division, Pacific DD decision document DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Account DEW Distant Early Warning DMM discarded military munitions DoD U.S. Department of Defense DRO diesel range organics EC environmental control EE engineering estimate

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 vi

EESOH-MIS Enterprise Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health- Management Information System

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EOD explosive ordinance disposal ERP Environmental Restoration Program FPTA fire protection training area FYR five-year review GIS geographic information system GRO gasoline range organics GWZ groundwater zone IC institutional control ID identification IRP Installation Restoration Program JA Johnston Atoll JBER Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson JP-4 jet propulsion fuel, grade 4 LF landfill LRRS long range radar site LUC land use control LUCMP Land Use Control Management Plan mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter MC munitions constituents MEC munitions and explosives of concern MED Manual for Electronic Deliverables MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MOGAS motor gasoline MSW municipal solid waste N/A not applicable NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFA no further action NFRAP No Further Response Action Planned PA preliminary assessment PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances POI points of interests POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants PRSC Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center RA risk assessment

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)

PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 vii

RAB Restoration Advisory Board RACG remedial action cleanup goals RACM regulated asbestos containing material RAO remedial action objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI remedial investigation ROD record of decision RPM remedial project manager RRS Radio Relay Station SBTS South Bluff Treatment System SC ADEC Standard Condition(s) SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment SI site inspection SAF/GCN Department of the U.S. Air Force General Counsel SVOC semi-volatile organic compounds SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act SWMU solid waste management unit TAH total aromatic hydrocarbons TAqH total aqueous hydrocarbons TCE trichloroethylene (CAS# 79-01-6) USAF U.S. Air Force USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank UXO unexploded ordinance VOC volatile organic compound VORTAC VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Aircraft Control WAA Waste Area Accumulation WACS White Alice Communications Site WIA Wake Island Airfield

Land Use Control Management Plan

REVISION April 2023 viii

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

As a result of past waste and resource management practices, certain areas within U.S. Air Force (USAF) installations in Alaska, Johnston Atoll (JA), and Wake Island Airfield (WIA) that are managed by the Pacific Air Forces Regional Support Center (PRSC) have been exposed to various organic and inorganic compounds generated by installation activities. To meet required environmental regulatory criteria, cleanup and restoration has been initiated under the USAF Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), which is currently managed by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Environmental Engineering Directorate, Operations Division, Pacific (AFCEC/CZOP) based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska.

This Land Use Control Management Plan (LUCMP) summarizes the current status and identifies land use controls (LUCs) in place for ERP or Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA)-funded sites at PRSC installations in Alaska (Figure 1), and JA and WIA (Figure 2). The LUCMP includes various categorized sites which are used in various management processes and in the dig permit procedure. The LUCMP documents responsibilities and procedures for maintaining, managing, tracking, enforcing, and (when appropriate), modifying or terminating the LUCs. Closed sites are included to make the LUCMP as comprehensive as possible. However, these closed sites do not have appropriations for management under DERA.

LUCs are one strategy applied as part of the ERP (and other programs) to restrict exposure to contaminant concentrations that present unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The LUCMP is a dynamic planning document and represents the current and reasonably forecasted status of LUCs at 40 PRSC installations as of April 2022 (Table 1-1 and Appendix A). LUCs limit access to and use of contaminated land and can also be used to protect the integrity of clean-up technologies during their implementation. LUCs are implemented after active remediation has reached its technical limit and contaminants remain at concentrations that do not allow for unlimited land use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The LUCMP also provides a comprehensive strategy for implementing, maintaining, monitoring, enforcing, modifying or terminating LUCs.

Restrictions or controls on land use may be needed prior to making or implementing an environmental restoration decision in order to address potential concerns regarding human health and the environment. LUCs may therefore be used while conducting environmental restoration investigations or during cleanup activities. In such cases, the LUCs are considered temporary pending the final decision and are referred to as Interim LUCs.

The DoD recognizes its responsibility to protect the public and site workers from potential hazards associated with military operations, both past and present. This is particularly true with regard to the DoD's use of military munitions in training and

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-2 testing. The DoD developed the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) in 2001 to address munitions-related concerns, including explosive safety, environmental, and health hazards from releases of unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMM), and munitions constituents (MC) at certain installations, including installations in this LUCMP. The MMRP addresses non-operational range lands with suspected or known hazards from munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) that occurred prior to October 2002 but are not already included with an Installation Response Program (IRP) site cleanup activity (DoD 2019). Open MMRP sites have LUCs in place but are identified on installation figures separately from other sites with implemented LUCs to emphasize the potential presence of residual risks associated with munitions to site workers and other potential receptors.

The DoD also recognizes the importance of emerging contaminants and their potential impact on the protection of human health and the environment as outlined in this LUCMP. Consequently, installations where contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in site soil and/or groundwater are so noted on the respective installation figures in this LUCMP.

In addition to ERP sites (IRP and MMRP), this LUCMP summarizes Compliance Program landfill sites associated with PRSC installations. It also includes closed ERP sites, with and without ADEC Standard Conditions (SC) in place, to better provide comprehensive site information for each installation.

1.1 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this LUCMP focuses on PRSC ERP sites and Compliance Program landfill sites in Alaska, JA, and WIA that are subject to LUCs. The report is organized as follows:

• Section 1.0 provides an introduction and states the purpose of the LUCMP, summarizes USAF LUC policy, and identifies PRSC ERP sites covered by this LUCMP revision.

• Section 2.0 describes the various LUCs in effect for sites at PRSC installations in Alaska, JA, and WIA.

• Section 3.0 identifies procedures for LUC implementation, management, and compliance monitoring with regard to specific responsibilities, records of inspections and reporting, five-year reviews, and modifying or terminating LUCs at LUC sites.

• Section 4.0 documents the references cited in Sections 1.0 through 3.0.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-3

Tables and Figures are presented immediately following Section 4.0 of the text. Tables and installation figures in this LUCMP have been updated to reflect the current designation for each of the sites based on interviews with the installation’s assigned remedial project manager (RPM) and EESOH-MIS site record through August 2019.

Note that the Appendix A table provides the color-coding/categorization for each site as they appear on installation figures. Additional tables and figures presenting LUC category information are provided as follows:

• Table 1-1 provides the broad list of installations and summarized number of sites in each category included in this LUCMP.

• Table 1-2 includes information for PRSC ERP sites with LUCs in Effect (including ERP-IRP and ERP-MMRP sites). Note that Table 1-2 also includes some, but not all ERP sites with interim LUCs (see Section 1.3.3). ERP-IRP sites with LUCs and interim LUCs are shown in blue on installation figures. ERP-MMRP sites with LUCs and interim LUCs are shown in red on installation figures to emphasize and visually differentiate their locations.

• Table 1-3 includes information for all PRSC ERP-IRP landfill sites and Compliance Program landfill sites. ERP landfill sites are shown in either blue, purple, or yellow on installation figures, based on determined LUC status and ADEC decision document or closure letter. Compliance Program landfills are shown in orange on installation figures.

• Table 2-1 provides a description of various types of LUCs currently in effect at PRSC ERP sites. Sites with interim LUCs were included in Table 2-1 if the site investigation and RPM indicated LUCs would likely be required to protect human health or the environment.

• Table 2-1A includes information for all PRSC closed sites with ADEC SCs identified. Closed sites with ADEC SC are shown in purple on installation figures.

• Table 2-1B includes information for all PRSC closed ERP sites without LUCs or ADEC SCs. Closed sites without restrictions or reporting requirements are shown in yellow on installation figures.

• Table 2-2 provides a listing of ADEC Landfill Management Requirements.

• Table 2-3 provides post-closure notification requirements for Class III landfills in Alaska.

• Table 3-1 provides LUC compliance procedures for PRSC ERP Sites with LUCs or interim LUCs in Effect (including ERP-IRP and ERP-MMRP sites). Compliance Program landfills are not included in this table.

• Table 3-2 provides currently available Personnel Contact Information for PRSC Installation Sites with LUC/interim LUCs in effect or with ADEC SC requirements.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-4

• Table 3-3 provides the LUC Inspection Schedule for ERP sites. Compliance Program landfills are not included in this table.

The appendices to this report, which address specific details of the five-year review, are as follows:

• Appendix A cumulatively lists all PRSC ERP and Compliance Program landfill sites included in this LUCMP and status for each. This is essentially a modified EESOH-MIS Master site table and includes ALL ERP sites, as well as some sites which have been administratively closed or are pending LUC-status designation.

PRSC Compliance Program landfills have also been included in this table.

• Appendix B includes PRSC Operating Instruction 32-7001, Land Use Control Management document dated 13 June 2018.

• Appendix C includes AFI 32-7020, The Environmental Restoration Program., dated 12 March 2020.

• Appendix D includes copies of key forms, including Base Civil Engineer Work Clearance Request (AFF 103), Base Civil Engineer Work Request (AFF 332), and Military Construction Project Data (DoD Form 1391).

• Appendix E includes generic LUC inspection checklists intended to be used for LUC inspections; these can be tailored in a site’s work plan to meet site-specific LUC requirements.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this LUCMP revision is to update the LUC status for ERP sites, add new ERP sites where implemented LUCs are anticipated in the future site management (see Section 1.3.3), and add closed ERP sites with and without ADEC SC. Several changes and additions have been made to the LUCMP Tables and installation figures based on the comments and discussion that the Air Force and ADEC had on the 2019 LUCMP, August 2019 Revision.

This LUCMP revision includes:

• Updates to Table 1-1 and Appendix A to further categorize types of sites at PRSC installations included in this LUCMP. This update was performed in order to provide the different site categories shown in the installation figures.

• A Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE)-compliant Geospatial Information System (GIS) Final deliverable to expedite future updates to the PRSC LUCMP text, tables, and figures.

• Updates to Table 1-2 and associated installation figures adding new ERP LUC sites and identifying sites with reporting or other requirements under ADEC solid waste regulations.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-5

• Updates to Table 1-3 and associated installation figures to specifically identify sites that are ERP landfills at each of the installations. Table 1-3 also lists and provides information on any Compliance Program landfill(s) present at the installation.

• Updates to Table 2-1 reflecting revisions or updates to the LUC/interim LUC details.

• Updates to Table 2-1A and associated Alaska installation figures adding all closed ERP sites with ADEC SC;

• A new Table 2-1B with additions to associated Alaska installation figures adding all closed sites without ADEC SC;

• Updates to Table 3-2 contact information;

• Updates to Table 3-3 will include any recently available LUC inspection dates and five-year review (FYR) document updates to the schedule.

With these updates, the LUCMP provides additional information and clarification for management and planning decisions to restrict exposure to or otherwise protect site workers and other potential receptors from site and source area contents (i.e., unexploded ordinance, landfill gas, etc.).

To complete this LUCMP revision, a site-by-site evaluation was performed using AFCEC Administrative Record for each installation, RODs, RACR, and the ADEC Databases (Contaminated Sites and Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS)). Through that review process, each site was designated under one of five categories:

1) Active LUCs (ERP Sites with implemented LUCs and sites with interim LUCs),

2) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites (note that ERP-MMRP sites have implemented LUCs and sites with interim LUCs),

3) Compliance Program Landfills,

4) Closed sites with ADEC SC, or

5) Closed sites without ADEC SC.

This LUCMP provides information for sites that AFCEC/CZOP identified for inclusion in the LUCMP, including a comprehensive list of open and closed ERP sites. Closed sites are those with Regulatory-agency-approved NFRAP or NFA determinations (e.g., closure letter, decision documentation, etc.). For this LUCMP update, USAF conducted a site-by-site review to determine which sites have, or do not have, ADEC SC associated with their closure. Each of the sites are designated based on the LUC status and categorizations described above and further detailed in later sections.

This LUCMP provides a framework for consistent and effective LUC implementation, management, and compliance tracking at the 40 PRSC installations included under this plan. For Alaska ERP sites, the ADEC provides regulatory oversight. For JA ERP

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-6 sites, the EPA provides regulatory oversight. For WIA, the USAF is the sole agency.

The EPA has been provided copies of reports and documents related to environmental investigations at WIA, but has neither provided comments nor asserted oversight concerning USAF clean-up actions at WIA. Other installation components, base contractors, and Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) members will use this plan as an information source.

While AFCEC/CZOP, in coordination with the 611th CES, manages Compliance Program landfills separately from the ERP sites, they are included in the LUCMP.

AFCEC/CZOP is responsible for the reporting requirements as set forth in 18 AAC 60 (ADEC 2022). Compliance Program landfills are included in this document in order to provide a more comprehensive representation of sites that have land use controls or restrictions. Their inclusion allows PRSC, Base Operation Support (BOS) contractors, or other site workers who use the LUCMP as a guide during the dig permit process to see all sites that need consideration when determining when, where, how, and if to dig at or near an identified site. Information for the Compliance Program landfills are provided in Section 2.2 (Appendix A and Tables 1-1 and 1-3 also include information on these landfills).

In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7020 (USAF 2020) and the 2012 U.S.

Department of Defense (DoD) Manual 4715.20 (DERP Manual; DoD 2012), this LUCMP meets the intended purpose of clearly delineating the responsibilities of all parties involved in implementing the LUCs and also specifies the physical, administrative, and legal mechanisms to be used to ensure the restricted use of, or access to, the affected sites. This plan is a management tool internal to the USAF as an agency and does not by itself create any enforceable rights, obligations, or privileges. Documents such as records of decision (RODs) or signed action memoranda (applicable to removal actions) may create enforceable obligations.

During the five-year review process (discussed in Section 3.6 of this LUCMP), validating this plan ensures that LUC mechanisms are still in place. The plan also specifies the process for modifying and discontinuing LUCs if some or all become unnecessary.

1.3 U.S. AIR FORCE LAND USE CONTROL POLICY

AFI 32-7020 (USAF 2020) provides guidance for USAF RPMs when developing, implementing, and managing LUCs as remedial strategies for protecting human health and the environment at USAF environmental restoration sites. The guidance is a mandatory directive and is foundational to this LUCMP.

1.3.1 Definition of Land Use Controls

According to the DoD, LUCs include any mechanism that places restrictions on the use of, or access to, real property to prevent or reduce risks to human health or the environment. The intent of using these controls is to protect human health and the

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-7 environment by limiting activities that may occur at a particular site and, where necessary, to protect the integrity of an engineered remedy. LUCs fall into two categories: engineering controls (ECs) and institutional controls (ICs). ECs are physical mechanisms that encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination, limit the potential for contaminant migration, and/or provide physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs. ICs consist of deed notices; institutional control registries, property easements and covenants;

installation administrative controls, such as construction and work request review and approval processes; and administrative orders and cleanup agreements (USAF, 2020).

Like the DoD, EPA defines LUCs to include ECs, or physical mechanisms, and ICs, which include legal and administrative mechanisms. EPA policy on LUCs, however, addresses only ICs or non-engineered mechanisms. Physical or engineered mechanisms of LUCs, including fences and signs, are considered by EPA as part of the physical remedy. ICs, defined by EPA as non-engineered instruments, include legal, administrative, and/or procedural actions that may limit access, activities, and actions on a particular site because of environmental contaminants residing on or within soils and/or groundwater at a site. Thus, in discussions or negotiations with EPA, any physical components of USAF-defined LUCs must be considered separately from the IC components.

LUCs as defined herein are separate from cultural resource and ecological reviews as well as the approvals required for any construction project at PRSC installations in Alaska, JA, and WIA. Controls such as Air Force Form (AFF) 103; consultation under the Endangered Species Act, Section 7; and those as established under ADEC Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) are in place to ensure that proposed activities at sites with LUCs in effect do not significantly affect cultural resources, sensitive ecological habitats, or other infrastructure. Because cultural resource and ecological reviews and approvals are not LUCs associated with past waste management practices, they are not addressed further in this LUCMP.

1.3.2 Land Use Controls Decision Documentation

LUCs are needed when the environmental restoration decision for a site requires controls on, or limits to, property use to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances. Determination that a LUC is necessary, or that a particular response action is not needed, is typically made by comparing sampling data with appropriate screening levels developed for various land use scenarios or through a baseline risk assessment using exposure assumptions appropriate for reasonably anticipated land use.

LUCs are established through environmental restoration documentation such as DDs, RODs or signed action memoranda (applicable to interim remedial actions).

Documentation for remedies with LUCs describe the exposure scenario used to select

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-8 the remedy, including assumptions made concerning the current and reasonably anticipated future land use, and specify the uses that may be made of the property or the activities to be prohibited. Although not a reasonably anticipated future land use for most PRSC ERP sites, risks to hypothetical future residents are typically considered to assist the USAF in determining whether LUCs are needed to prevent inappropriate movement of contaminated material to a residential setting and to determine if a site is suitable for residential or unrestricted use.

Similarly, at sites where no further action (NFA) decisions have been made, the documentation of decision (typically an NFA DD or No Further Response Action Planned [NFRAP] document) sets forth the rationale behind the finding and includes the relevant exposure assumptions for both current and reasonably anticipated future land use.

1.3.3 Land Use Controls Development, Implementation, Documentation, and Maintenance

The life cycle of LUCs consists of two major stages: development and implementation.

LUC development generally occurs during the investigative phases of remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), RCRA, or state regulations. LUCs are evaluated, along with active remedial alternatives, in the CERCLA feasibility study or the RCRA corrective measures study and documented in the DD for the site. Implementing LUCs begins when a DD is approved by all parties and continues during the CERCLA remedial design, construction, and maintenance phases, or during the RCRA corrective measures implementation phase (USAF 2020).

Interim LUCs

LUCs may be necessary before completion of site characterization and remedial alternative selection processes if, during the preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI) phase, contaminants are discovered that likely present a hazard to human health or the environment. These types of sites are shown in the LUCMP to have interim LUCs and are identified on Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 differentiates the sites with interim LUCs from those with implemented LUCs, which have been formalized through the DD process. Installation figures may depict site boundaries of interim LUCs the same way as sites with implemented LUCs (in blue boundary lines). If a boundary has not yet been identified, figures will show the site as a blue point, which is the location of the suspected source (e.g., tank location). Many interim LUC sites have limited details and specifics on what LUCs will be needed or implemented, and information for these sites provided in Table 2-1 will be updated during each LUCMP revision.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-9

LUCs

Once a decision has been made to place limitations on the use of an ERP site, appropriate control mechanisms are put into place to implement and manage the LUCs and to incorporate them into existing land use management processes at the installation. The DD, ROD, action memorandum, or work plan that establishes the LUCs is commonly used to describe how the LUCs will be implemented, including the reasons for the LUCs, location of the land subject to LUCs, duration of the LUC, and plans for modifications to the LUC as site conditions change. The DD should also generally explain restricted uses of the property, identify who is responsible for maintaining and managing LUCs, and specify frequency and requirements of LUC inspections. Once the LUCs are established at a site, they will be incorporated into the first or updated version of the installation-wide LUCMP.

LUCs on active installations are not recorded in deeds, however, a Notice of Activity and Use Limitation (NAUL) or Environmental Covenant for off-installation restrictions may be recorded. These NAULs or Environmental Covenants may be filed into the appropriate public lands records pursuant to the State of Alaska Uniform Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) [AS 46.04.300(a)]. The USAF has no authority to grant a real property interest for a LUC (e.g., an Environmental Covenant) on active installations, but may record an environmental notice of contamination or place a location on a state land use control registry that similarly does not create a property interest (USAF, 2020). The USAF uses existing land use planning and management systems to track and manage LUCs at its installations. These systems typically involve including LUC boundaries and attributes in geographic information system (GIS) layers, incorporating LUCs into the installation master plan, and filing LUCs with the installation offices that are responsible for managing buildings and grounds, utility systems, and construction.

Once LUCs are implemented, they must be maintained as long as site conditions exist that prevent UU/UE. LUCs can be maintained using a variety of separate and collective processes, including the site approval process, LUC boundary markers, periodic site inspections, environmental self-audits, training, internal notices, and five-year reviews.

If it appears a LUC is being violated, then appropriate installation officials should be notified immediately. Furthermore, regulatory agencies may be notified of the violation as applicable and as detailed in DDs, RODs, or signed action memoranda. Officials should take steps to ensure integrity of the LUC is restored and necessary corrective action is taken, and notifications are made. In addition, if land use at an ERP site changes, the LUCs for the site should be reviewed to ensure that the new land use is compatible with the LUCs. If it is not, then the site remedy and DDs may need to be revised before implementing a land use change. More information about how LUCs are implemented, documented, and maintained for PRSC ERP sites with LUCs in effect is provided in Section 3.0 of this LUCMP.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-10

1.3.4 LUC Violations Reporting Procedures

Once a LUC violation is verified by AFCEC/CZOP, the ADEC regulator will be notified by the assigned installation RPM or other AFCEC personnel. Following initial notification, written notice of violations will be issued to ADEC within 10 days of violation verification.

Table 3-2 includes updated contact information for personnel who should be notified with regard to any LUC violations. AFCEC/CZOP will ensure the appropriate officials or offices undertake the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the LUCMP.

1.4 CURRENT STATUS OF ERP SITES AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

LANDFILLS

This LUCMP includes information for several hundred ERP sites distributed over active and inactive PRSC installations. A summary of total numbers of and categories for each site included in this LUCMP is provided in Table 1-1. If present (see Table 1-1 and 1-3), LUCMP figures will also include Compliance Program landfill(s) located at the associated PRSC installation.

Information and details further provided in this LUCMP are applicable primarily for ERP sites with LUCs in effect and Compliance Program landfills requiring controls and reporting.

Information on closed sites with or without ADEC SCs in place is available through a request to the RPM, as well as through searches in the AFCEC Online Administrative Record 3.0.0 or ADEC's Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) and/or Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS) online databases. Full website addresses are provided in the References (Section 4.0).

Appendix A lists all PRSC ERP sites as well as PRSC Compliance Program landfills.

Sites currently undergoing, or that have upcoming remedial investigations either:

1- Require future documentation sufficient to determine that these sites either do, or do not, pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment under an occupational or industrial use scenario, or

2- Are in the process of remedial action, where the RA is currently being implemented to protect human health or the environment.

Regulatory-agency-approved NFRAP or NFA determinations are based on completed site investigation results and/or quantitative risk evaluation results that provided documentation to sufficiently determine that the site does not pose an unacceptable risk or threat to human health or the environment.

https://ar.afcec-cloud.af.mil/ https://ar.afcec-cloud.af.mil/ https://dec.alaska.gov/Applications/SPAR/PublicMVC/CSP/Search/ https://dec.alaska.gov/applications/eh/swims/search.aspx

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-11

1.5 CLOSED ERP SITES WITH ADEC STANDARD CONDITIONS

Identifying and including the comprehensive list of closed PRSC ERP sites with ADEC SCs was one of the primary goals for this LUCMP update. Documents for closed PRSC ERP sites were examined specifically for ADEC SC language during EESOH-MIS searches with the installation’s assigned RPM. Table 2-1A and Appendix A table contain all identified sites that have listed ADEC SC in their closure documentation, but that are otherwise identified as no further action necessary (closed sites). These sites may, or may not, contain residual contamination above standard cleanup criteria.

Sites may have either established site-specific alternative cleanup criteria or may have limited residual contamination above action limits. Often the site’s closure document has SC language which requires notification to ADEC prior to any intrusive site activities. AFCEC defines “intrusive” as any disturbance to soil where a dig permit is required. Approval processes for intrusive activities are described in Section 3.1.

Some of the ADEC SC sites did not have their boundary data available in GIS. In order to include them on the installation Figures, these site boundaries were created using a historical PDF of a site figure and the ArcGIS georeferencing tool.

JA and WIA installations are outside of ADEC’s regulatory authority and thus no ADEC SC apply.

1.6 CLOSED ERP SITES WITHOUT ADEC STANDARD CONDITIONS

Documents for closed PRSC ERP sites were examined specifically for ADEC SC language during EESOH-MIS searches with the installation’s assigned RPM. Table 2- 1B and Appendix A table contain lists of all PRSC sites that are closed under the ERP with NFA or NFRAP required. These sites do not have ADEC SC identified in their closure documents and do not have notification or reporting requirements associated with intrusive work, as described above (Section 1.5). All identified closed sites are shown on the Alaska installation Figures (Figures 3 to 40) with few exceptions. For example, administratively closed, or renamed sites are not always shown on figures;

closed sites that were road/runway oiling related are shown differently than other closed sites to visually simplify the installation Figure.

Many of the closed sites did not have their boundary data available in GIS. In order to include them on the installation figures, these site boundaries were created using a historical PDF of a site figure and the ArcGIS georeferencing tool. Table 2-1B and the Appendix A table provide comprehensive lists of closed sites at PRSC installations, but not all historically closed sites were added to Pacific installation figures for JA and WIA (Figures 41 and 42).

1.7 LAND USE CONTROL MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES

This LUCMP update is based on the most up-to-date site information and imagery available as of April 2022. The LUCMP is a dynamic document that is updated on a

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 1-12 periodic basis to maintain its accuracy and effectiveness. Previous version dates were December 2012, July 2015, December 2017, and August 2019. For LUCMP updates, an EESOH-MIS review should be conducted with the assigned installation RPM to identify any changes to the site management or status for each installation and site.

This LUCMP addresses outstanding ADEC comments on the 2019 LUCMP and incorporates ADEC recommendations from that version. ADEC comments and recommendations have been addressed by performing a site-by-site review with the RPM of all closed sites to determine if ADEC SC apply to the site (or not); and including both types of closed sites in the 2022 LUCMP tables and figures. ADEC also provided input on this April 2022 version update.

The LUCMP has also been updated to include and provide reference to the revised PRSC Operating Instruction (OI) 32-7001, dated 13 June 2018 (Appendix B) and the requirement for all contractors performing work at PRSC installations to coordinate all Dig Permits through AFCEC/CZOP for LUC management.

Future LUCMP versions will update information about sites with interim LUCs and address any modifications or terminations to existing LUCs based on changes in regulatory status (i.e., a new DD). If LUCs are terminated at a site, the LUCMP does not include LUC information.

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 2-1

2.0 LAND USE CONTROLS IN EFFECT

Requirements currently established for LUCs and other requirements are described in this section. Section 2.1 describes various elements comprising LUCs currently in effect at PRSC ERP sites in Alaska, JA, and WIA. Details specific to each site with LUCs in effect are included in Table 1-2 and 2-1. LUC locations are shown on installation Figures 3 through 42.

Section 2.2 provides the location of additional information and requirements for ERP- IRP landfill sites and Compliance Program landfills that are currently being managed by the PRSC.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE CONTROLS IN EFFECT

In general, the type of LUC for a particular site depends on the type of unacceptable risk to human health and the environment that has been identified through the applicable site investigations and/or quantitative risk evaluations. This section provides information for the following components that comprise the LUCs and their implementation at each site:

• Purpose and objectives

• Prohibitions and restrictions

• ECs (if applicable)

• ICs

• Expected duration of LUCs (if available)

• Monitoring, inspections, reporting, and maintenance

LUC components are generally described below, and detailed LUC information for each PRSC ERP site with LUCs in effect is provided in Table 2-1.

Readily available information for LUCs specific to the applicable ERP site is primarily taken from the DD, ROD, or signed action memoranda specific to each site.

Supplemental information was also collected from recent and readily available ERP documentation or from ERP personnel interviews. The RPM for the installation must be consulted for scenarios where no specific information is available regarding LUC components requiring schedule or frequency of activities (that is, duration of LUC at a site or inspection schedule of ECs).

2.1.1 Purpose and Objectives

Objectives developed for each site with LUCs in effect have been established to define what LUCs should accomplish to protect human health and the environment. Purposes and objectives for each site, as included in Table 2-1, are in essence the remedial

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 2-2 action objectives (RAOs) as established in the DD or ROD. Consistent with EPA guidance and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] § 300.430[e][2][i]), these objectives consider contaminants of concern (COCs), exposure routes and receptors, and remedial action clean-up goals.

2.1.2 Prohibitions and Restrictions

As defined in the DD, ROD, or signed action memoranda specific to each site with LUCs in effect, prohibitions and restrictions describe specific activities that are prohibited in order to protect human health and the environment. These activities may include the prohibited use of surface or groundwater, restricted ground-disturbance activities, and restricted access to the sites. The prohibitions and restrictions associated with LUCs at applicable sites depend on COCs, exposure routes and receptors, and current or future land uses. Restricted and prohibited activities for each site with LUCs, as summarized in Table 2-1, were established in the site-specific DD.

2.1.3 Engineering Controls

The DoD defines ECs as physical mechanisms that encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination and/or physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs (USAF 2020). ECs currently in place for applicable PRSC ERP sites with LUCs in effect are included in Table 2-1.

2.1.4 Institutional Controls

The DoD defines ICs as legal (e.g., court orders or RCRA permits), proprietary (e.g., easements or restrictive covenants), and administrative (e.g., deed notices and the base dig permit process) controls. The EPA defines ICs as non-engineered instruments, including legal, administrative, and procedural actions that may limit access, activities, and actions on a particular site because of environmental contaminants residing on or within soils and/or groundwater at a site. The State of Alaska, as referenced in 18 AAC 75.375(b), defines ICs to include the following:

• The requirement for and maintenance of physical measures, such as fences and signs, to limit an activity that might interfere with clean-up or result in exposure to a hazardous substance at the site

• The requirement for and maintenance of engineering measures, such as liners and caps, to limit exposure to a hazardous substance

• Restrictive covenants, easements, deed restrictions, or other measures that would be examined during a routine title search and that limit site use or site conditions over time or provide notice of any residual contamination

• A zoning restriction or land use plan by a local government with land use authority

Land Use Control Management Plan PRSC Remote Installations REVISION April 2023 2-3

For the purposes of this document, DoD’s definition of ICs will be used.

2.1.5 Expected Durations

In general, LUCs will be maintained until concentrations of hazardous substances in media of concern (i.e., sediment, fish tissue, soil, surface water, or groundwater) allow for UU/UE. UU/UE is allowed when concentrations of COCs are below established remedial action clean-up goals or if remaining material (such as landfill debris) is removed or as determined by the lead agency. The duration of LUCs at PRSC ERP sites is summarized in Table 2-1 and included in respective RODs. AFCEC/CZOP must be consulted for scenarios where no specific information is readily available for the expected duration of LUCs.

2.1.6 Monitoring, Inspections, Reporting, and Maintenance

As described in Section 1.2.3, the DD, ROD, or signed action memoranda specific to each site with LUCs in effect defines the requirements of LUC inspections. Inspections include field inspections, document review, and review of ICs currently in place.

Findings of inspections are subsequently documented in a report and forwarded to the applicable regulator. Table 2-1 provides the available information with regard to monitoring, inspections, and reporting requirements for ERP sites with LUCs in effect.

AFCEC/CZOP must be consulted for scenarios where no specific information is readily available for frequency of monitoring, inspections, and reporting. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this document provide further information with regard to monitoring, inspections, and reporting activities.

Maintenance requirements associated with LUCs generally apply to sites where ECs are in place, such as landfill covers, fences, or signs. Maintenance requirements for the applicable sites are provided in Table 2-1.