Kirtland Air Force Base > Home > Environment

This website provides information about the investigation and remediation work being done to address a release of jet fuel that was first detected at Kirtland AFB’s Bulk Fuels Facility in 1999. Generally, the contaminants of concern related to this release are called BTEX which is an abbreviation for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. These compounds are typically found in petroleum products. Of these contaminants, the primary environmental contaminants of concern are ethylene dibromide (EDB) and benzene. While these compounds may be the primary contaminants of concern, the other contaminants are being addressed and monitored at the same time as part of the remediation work. To ensure that Albuquerque’s drinking water remains unaffected by this plume, the Air Force continues to operate the GWTS and regularly samples the groundwater well monitoring network and community drinking water wells both on and off-Base. No contaminants have been detected in any drinking water well related to this site.

The US Air Force is conducting this work under a permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department to:

Identify the full scope of the release (plume investigation and characterization);
Conduct interim cleanup activities (interim measures); and
Propose and implement a final remedy for cleaning up soil and groundwater contamination (corrective measures evaluation and implementation).

The final recommendation for the cleanup will be forthcoming in the Corrective Measures Evaluation portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting process. Currently, an interim measure that consists of the Groundwater Treatment System (GWTS) is operating and has stopped further migration of fuel-related contaminants in the groundwater. An interim measure is a cleanup activity that is performed before the final remedy is selected during the Corrective Measures Evaluation and is part of the RCRA process. To ensure that Albuquerque’s drinking water remains unaffected by this plume, the Air Force continues to operate the GWTS and regularly samples the groundwater well monitoring network and community drinking water wells both on and off-Base.

Current Site Activities

Continue routine sampling of groundwater and soil vapor monitoring wells – 174 groundwater monitoring wells and 67 nested soil vapor monitoring wells with 323 vapor points.
Continue operation and maintenance of the Groundwater Treatment System.
Continue working with the New Mexico Environment Department to move toward site cleanup of the source area (Corrective Measures Evaluation).
Continue to report all data collected to the public.

EDB Mass in Groundwater vs. Time

The pump and treat interim measure has achieved an estimated almost 100% reduction in the interim measure operational area of the dissolved EDB mass since 2015. While EDB was detected in Q2 2023, the amount of mass was above zero but below the estimation criteria (less than 0.01 grams).

RCRA Process/Path Forward

Work Done to Date

1999: Upon discovery of the fuel leak, the former fuel offloading facility was closed and a new, state of the art facility with aboveground pipelines and capture systems was built and operational by 2011.
1999 to 2015: A total of 4,822 tons of contaminated soil in the source area above screening levels was excavated.
2000 to date: 174 groundwater monitoring wells and 67 nested soil vapor monitoring wells consisting of 323 vapor points have been installed for groundwater and soil vapor monitoring, both on and off-Base. This well network ensures the extent of the plume is identified and aids in monitoring the effectiveness of the groundwater pump and treat interim measure.
2003 to 2015: Use of a soil vapor extraction system and modified bioslurping on base. These systems removed an estimated 750,000 gallons of fuel and significantly reduced contamination in the vadose zone (the area underground between the ground surface and groundwater table). These systems were discontinued because the amount of supplemental propane used to run the system was significantly more than fuel pulled from the subsurface and minimal free product above the groundwater.
2015 to date: Groundwater treatment system (GWTS), an interim measure pump and treat system, was installed to extract and treat the EDB in groundwater that has migrated off-base, north of Ridgecrest Drive Southeast. The system has 4 operational extraction wells and successfully reduced groundwater levels of EDB to below detection limits.
2016 to 2020: Pilot in-situ EDB biodegradation test was conducted in the source area groundwater plume to determine the effectiveness of enhancing specific bacteria to breakdown fuel-related compounds in an anaerobic, or low-oxygen, environment.
2018 to 2020: Pilot bioventilation test was conducted in the vadose zone source area to evaluate the feasibility of this technology to address any remaining contamination. Effectiveness of this approach is determined by measuring how much dissolved oxygen is used by microorganisms in the subsurface, which is directly tied to the biodegradation rate of fuel-related contaminants in the subsurface.
2013 to 2016: Installation of USGS sentinel wells between drinking water supply wells and the project well network to monitor for fuel-related contaminants moving toward the water supply wells.

Project History

The Bulk Fuels Facility is located in the north-western portion of Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Facility and associated infrastructure operated from 1953 until 1999. During that time, the fueling area was separated into a tank holding area where bulk shipments of fuel were received and a fuel loading area where individual fuel trucks were filled. Kirtland AFB removed the receiving facility from service in 1999 due to line leakage below the ground surface. Subsequently the entire fuel system was replaced.

Even though the fuel leak was identified by Kirtland AFB, the exact history of the leaks or releases is unknown. Releases could have occurred when fuel was transferred from railcars to the pump house, and then to the bulk fuel storage containers at the south end of the site. Initially, it was thought that the leak only affected surface soil around the identified source area. Kirtland AFB learned through additional investigation activities conducted between 2004 and 2007 that the leaked fuel had reached the groundwater table.

Vadose zone investigation activities began in 1999 and included multiple phases of soil sampling, borehole logging, well installation, and soil vapor sampling. Groundwater investigation activities began in 2000 and included multiple phases of installation, sampling, and analysis of GWM wells, slug testing, and aquifer testing. Completed interim measure and pilot testing activities for both the vadose zone and groundwater included:

Excavation of 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil down to 20 feet below ground surface
Multiple phases of soil vapor extraction
Bioslurping for LNAPL removal from groundwater and soil
Air sparge/soil vapor extraction pilot test
In-site EDB biodegradation pilot test (groundwater)
Bioventilation pilot test (soil vapor)
Groundwater Pump and Treat System (continuous operation since 2015)

The GWTS began operating as an interim measure designed to protect potential future downgradient receptors (City of Albuquerque production wells). Pumping and treating EDB-impacted groundwater downgradient (downstream) of the source area prevented further migration and reduced the size of the groundwater plume. The GWTS has effectively removed EDB from groundwater in the interim measure operational area, with no detections of EDB in the influent (pre-treatment) groundwater since Q3 2022.

Frequently Asked Questions, Project Definitions, Abbreviations & Acronyms
FAQs
The following questions and responses are actual questions asked at public meetings, along with basic project information presented in a question and answer format.

General Questions
- Q: How much has the Air Force done to remedy this situation?
A: As of March 2021, the Air Force Interim Measure Pump and Treat System has treated more than one billion gallons of groundwater. More than 96% of the EDB (ethylene dibromide) mass in the target capture zone north of Ridgecrest Drive has been removed. To date, this site has received more than $130M in funding and the AF has secured funding to continue to progress this site.
- Q: How much is the Air Force prepared to spend to clean up this fuel plume, to include the cost of new wells or well-head treatment?
A: The Air Force has a strong cleanup program and receives funding on a yearly basis through Congressional appropriations. The Air Force is required to fund its cleanup projects such as the fuel release at Kirtland AFB. For the fuel plume at Kirtland, the Air Force has established a goal to clean up the groundwater affected by the fuel plume to drinking water standards. To this end, the Air Force continues working to support and put in place systems designed to contain the fuel plume and prevent impacts to the water production wells.
- Q: Should there be a concern about past exposure to fuel contaminants in the neighborhoods?
A: Surface soil contamination has only occurred at the BFF (Bulk Fuels Facility) industrial area which is not accessible to the public. Contaminated soil has been excavated and removed for off-site disposal. There is no off-base surface or near-surface soil contamination, and groundwater contaminants are too deep to allow vapors to enter homes and buildings, contaminate garden crops or expose residents using Bullhead Park facilities. In addition to ground water monitoring, the AF monitors for soil vapor. The AF’s most recent shallow soil vapor studies have been completed and the report documents are with NMED for review.
- Q: How can we really be certain that there is no EDB in the drinking water production wells?
A: The drinking water wells are tested monthly and show no detections of any fuel-related contaminant. Sentinel wells (early detection wells) are tested quarterly and continue to show no detections of any fuel-related contaminant. The extensive groundwater monitoring network (174 groundwater monitoring wells), which has defined the vertical and horizontal shape of the plume, confirms that the plume has never reached any drinking water well.
- Q: Are there plans for emergency treatment at water production wells?
A: Yes. The Air Force and NMED will not allow any fuel contaminants to reach any drinking water supply well. However, when any drinking water well tests positive for a contaminant above an MCL, that well’s water will be treated, or the well would be taken out of service. Additionally, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority passed a resolution in 2014 stating it would shut down any affected well. The VA has the infrastructure in place to use Water Authority water. On base, a contaminated drinking water well would be taken offline and out of service.
- Q: Are our gardens in danger of being contaminated?
A: No, water supplied by the Water Authority is safe for irrigation. There is no off-base surface or near-surface soil contamination, and groundwater contaminants are too deep to allow vapors to contaminate garden crops.
- Q: How is the water treated and how is it used?
A: The Interim Measure Pump and Treat System pumps contaminated groundwater into the treatment facility on-base and treats it to drinking water standards. The treated water is used to irrigate the on-base golf course and added to the aquifer under a permit with NMED.
- Q: What is “total phase hydrocarbons (TPH)”? Is this a new term which includes EDB, benzene, and you’re putting them together?
A: “Total phase hydrocarbon” (TPH) is a catch-all analysis where any organic material that might pop up under this, short or long-chain organic compounds. It’s an analysis used as an initial characterization. The reason why it’s getting added to soil vapor analyses is that there is new risk guidance for total phase hydrocarbon that has screening levels associated with that analysis. This is nothing new, just an additional analysis in response to new guidance.
- Q: What does a successful (remediation) program look like? Are we going to have potable water throughout the aquifer when you are done?
A: No because other contaminants are present in the aquifer from sources other than this one. Ms. Sydney Lienemann (NMED) commented that the NMED strives to use the best available science to ensure a sustainable environment and clean drinking water as possible every day. What you have described is the end-goal they would like to see but there are a lot of other issues that are at play and pollutants that are beyond just this site.
- Q: How do you know when you’re done?
A: That is not an easy question to answer but it all comes down to how the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) process works. This process is implemented across the nation and has been used to successfully remediate many sites.

First, it is necessary to conduct a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) to determine the nature and extent of hazardous waste or contaminant releases into the environment and evaluate any ecological and human health risks from these releases. Once this is done, an evaluation, Corrective Measure Evaluation (CME), is conducted where you figure out what your final remedy is going to be. The selected remedy is then implemented during the CMI (Corrective Measures Implementation) phase, and throughout that process, you will be constantly monitoring and collecting more data. We have benchmark goals, which are the cleanup standards – for drinking water, it’s the MCL (maximum contaminant level) for EDB and benzene. Once contaminant levels are below that, we would petition the NMED for the last step in the process – Corrective Action Complete, which indicates that we have met all the requirements and cleanup goals, and we are able to walk away from the site. This will be a long time into the future since we still have that benzene plume, and other contaminants to address.

Current Status
- Q: Do you have an idea what will be the yearly dates on these boxes (in the RCRA flow chart)? Are we talking 20, 40, 60 years?
A: (Ryan Wortman, AF) The AF has been in the investigation phase for 23 years; the CME phase should not last that long. Once the AF gets to the CMI plan, have designed the CME and come up with the final remedy, it will be easier to identify the timeframe needed to do the work. Until these steps happen, we really cannot put a timeframe to the work, but we can say that it would be more of a decades’ timescale than a years’ scale.

NMED is in the process of working with the AF to figure out what a road map to CME looks like with milestones associated with it. NMED is hopeful that the next one of these (meetings) will be more definitive.

Do you know when that will be? We, the AF, conduct public meetings every April and November, we have a format similar to this one and hopefully at this complex (the New Mexico Veterans Memorial) again. In July, the AF opens up the Groundwater Treatment Facility (GWTS) located on Base for an on-site tour, poster session, and opportunities to ask questions one-on-one with project team members which we highly recommend because it’s far more interesting than listening to a presentation.
- Q: In the 2022 NMED letter disputing the passive sampling methodology, there was quite a lot about the passive sampling methodology. NMED was really adamant that they did not approve that methodology to the extent that the AF used it for 6 years, and you (the AF), you were very adamant that they did. There is an easy way to resolve this –you either have a letter from NMED that’s signed and expressly approves these things or you don’t. Where can people find the source approval letter?
A: (Ryan Wortman, AF) Sure – it was an approval of one of the groundwater monitoring work plans. The plan actually lists out the wells that are approved for passive sampling, as well as being included in some follow-on documents. But that’s the main approval and we do have that – it can be found in the Administrative Record (available online); it’s a very straightforward approval for the use of passive sampling. Also, passive sampling has never been used on the entire plume. Depending on the concentration levels, other sampling techniques are preferred. It has never been used on the entire plume footprint or the monitoring well network.

Q: You have a system, a bunch of wells, you’re pulling this stuff out of the ground, you’re getting pretty reasonable data that agrees with what we see going away, is going into the extraction process – that’s the good news. What about benzene and the benzene plume? Have you guys got a plan on that yet or are we still hanging loose on that?

A: (Ryan Wortman, AF) Yes, there is a plan to address the benzene. The benzene plume is another hydrocarbon so a similar pump and treat system would work on that as well, similar to what we’re using for EDB. But we’re not targeting that at this time because we’re not seeing a risk posed from that migration or seeing it move toward the water production wells. If we go back to the EDB Plume Footprint map, everything we saw on that is above water cleanup levels and will have to be addressed in the CME phase. During this phase, we don’t adopt a “one size fits all” approach, we parse it out in multiple different remedial situations and then the most protective and feasible one is selected by the state with public input so it’s an agreed upon strategy to address it. We need to make sure it’s fully defined because fiscal responsibility needs to be taken into account – we all have to agree we understand the problem before we can agree on how to spend a lot of money on addressing it.

Q: So, the current plan is really set up to do light hydrocarbons like EDB from what I can tell. So, if you were going to go after the “heavier” plume, the benzene, xylenes, toluenes, those are bigger molecules. Are you saying that you believe the current plan as it is currently constituted will clean that plume?

A: (Ryan Wortman, AF) There will likely have to be some changes. I’m not saying that that will be the final solution but our engineers are looking at it now but we won’t have a complete solution until the CME process is underway.

So, we’re talking about a decade so that’s somewhere around 2033 is when we’ll figure out how to work that plume. (Ryan Wortman, AF) That’s about right – hopefully we will have the CME drafted by then and working on getting it in the ground as part of the CMI, the implementation phase. Have you done anything on an experimental basis on that plume at this point that might slant your recommendation? (Ryan Wortman, AF) Yes, we’ve done multiple pilot tests. We have looked at it and done some various technologies. Again, we’ve looked at it on a small scale but once we get to the CME, that’s where a lot of these questions will be answered so I don’t have a concrete answer for you now. But that is something that we are pushing to and that is the next step in this project.

It is important to remember that that this is basically a gas station site – benzene is treated all over the nation, it’s a common constituent that is remediated, and there are a lot of technologies out there to deal with this contaminant, there is nothing experimental about this. The depth and size are unique to this site, but other than that it is a pretty well-engineered process to remediate this. So then why is it taking 10 years to make a decision? (Ryan Wortman, AF) It comes to the process and the size of our contaminant and all the data that have gone into it and getting the concurrence and moving forward lockstep with the state. So, it’s not just the technology but also getting the agreements and the paperwork done as well.

I think you all are doing a great job on the EDB, it’s going away. But I don’t see that kind of activity occurring now with the benzene plume, the toluene, with the xylene and other hydrocarbons. I’m just trying to get a handle on what are we going to do and when are we going to do it? In my mind, those are simple questions, but they aren’t simple questions for you guys. (Sydney Lienemann, NMED) Looking at it from a process perspective, it’s kind of two-prong. First, it’s not a quick process and that’s by design, this is a complex problem that requires time to ensure that we do it right. So, you have certainly seen some delays on our side due to staff shortages or turnover. We are really doing our best and we’re really hoping to get to CME in a much shorter time period than 10 years, but we’re in active conversations to see what it would take to get us there much sooner than that. But we don’t want this ship to turn too fast because then you’re not really making the best decision. You have to use an evidence-based process which is why I asked how far along you are on experimenting on this, and I’m not getting a clear answer that you’re moving on this quickly. (Ryan Wortman, AF) I would say, as seen on the path forward to the CME slide, our engineers have looked at all the site data and are comfortable in moving to the CME with the current data set and the current knowledge. But again, there is a lot of information that goes into that assessment and that is what we are currently talking through with the state to see if there is anything that they see outside of what our engineers are seeing that needs to be addressed. Once that has been agreed upon, then we can start evaluating if there needs to be any new experiment(s), that’s when that would roll out and at that time, we would have a much clearer path. The lines of communication are opening up with the state and we’re setting up meetings and having discussions to plan all that out.
- Q: For NMED – so I just heard Mr. Wortman say that the AF engineers are comfortable proceeding to the CME and I heard you say that you don’t want to turn the ship too quickly by getting there sooner than 10 years, but I would like to point out it is actually 33 years because this was discovered in 1999. That seems like an incredibly long time since, as Mr. Wortman pointed out, there are proven technologies that address BTEX and LNAPL. So, is NMED opposed to the AF implementing more aggressive measures in the source area in groundwater without a go-ahead on the CME, on their land and on their dime – are you opposed to that?
A: (Sydney Lienemann, NMED) I don’t feel comfortable answering that if I don’t know what you mean by more aggressive techniques. I will say more broadly that the RCRA process is not a fast ship, you want to collect the amount of data that will give you the confidence that you are cleaning up in the fast way possible to protect public health in the best way possible. I was not suggesting that you don’t see CMEs for another 10 years or that 33 years was too fast for this process to go.

Maybe I can narrow it down - if the AF tomorrow, installed an extraction well in the heart of that BTEX plume on their property, and installed an oil-water separator in front of their current GAC train, or added some additional GAC units and began to pump and treat that groundwater, is NMED opposed to the AF doing that and would you advise them not to? (Sydney Lienemann, NMED) We have been very welcoming of other interim measures, and we have worked very closely with them on the current pump and treat system. I’m not the person that signs off on that, I am not the subject matter expert, but I can’t imagine we would tell them not to do that. We share the AF’s desire to remediate this site as best and quickly as we feel comfortable.

(Ryan Wortman, AF) And I would note that this is the RCRA process, so the CME phase allows us to evaluate everything and is part of that fiscal responsibility to make sure that we can all agree upon a final solution. If we just went out there, without NMED’s concurrence, and we fully delineated the site – that is not how the RCRA process works. We would be doing it piecemeal and under our RCRA permit, we are limited in our remediation in the investigation phase to eliminate risk. As highlighted during the benzene plume discussion, it hasn’t moved over the entire time we’ve been monitoring it; it hasn’t moved toward the drinking water wells; and we have our interim measure as an intercept if it does begin to migrate. Also, if the monitoring data shows anything different, any changes in that plume that would pose a risk, the interim measure provision in our permit would be implemented. The benzene plume is much more suited to be addressed under the CMI phase and evaluated in the CME phase.
- Q: There’s a lot more detail on the Monitoring Well Network map. Did you do more monitoring between 2016 and 2023?
A: (Ryan Wortman, AF) Yes, new monitoring wells have been installed during that time – one data gap was the rising water table which was due to the water conservation practices and a good thing for the City, but it did create some complexities for the site since we didn’t have wells screened at those depths. So, we now have more wells to capture that shallower portion of the aquifer.

Project History/Background
- Q: What type of fuel was spilled at Kirtland AFB?
A: Three types of fuel were processed by the Bulk Fuels Facility: aviation fuel (AvGas) or high-octane gasoline, jet propellant fuel-4 (JP-4), and JP-8. AvGas and JP-4 fuels were phased out in 1975 and 1993, respectively. JP-8 use continued until the leak was discovered in 1999.
- Q: What is the full array of hazardous chemicals present in the plume?
A: Both jet fuels and gasoline are produced from crude petroleum and are composed of a large number of chemicals. The most common contaminants of concern which drive risk and remedy selection are benzenes, toluenes, ethylbenzenes, and xylenes, commonly referred to as BTEX. Historically, leaded gasoline fuels, whether used in automobiles or for aviation purposes (i,e., AvGas) contained ethylene dibromide (EDB) as an anti-knock agent. Jet propellant fuels, on the other hand, are derived from kerosene, do not contain lead and therefore do not contain EDB. EDB is the chemical found at the leading edge of this plume.
- Q: Is the EDB (ethylene dibromide) plume indicative of the oldest material in the environment?
A: Yes. It was only associated with leaded fuels and is a lead scavenger that was added to AvGas (aviation gasoline) and has certain chemical characteristics that make it highly mobile, resistant to degradation and it doesn’t like to bind with any other subsurface soils. It is toxic and carcinogenic which is why the maximum contaminant level (MCL) is set at 0.05 µg/L (micrograms per liter).

So, is it the widest assumed area of the plume, depending on the underground flow? Yes and no, the EDB itself has to do with its chemical characteristics, it flows more readily with groundwater. The benzene plume’s stability is more related to the relatively flat groundwater gradient and that the benzene degrades more readily than the EDB.
- Q: Will the EDB naturally degrade over time, how much has degraded over the last 20 years this has been going on?
- (Ryan Wortman, AF) Ryan indicated that he doesn’t have exact numbers, but EDB does not degrade as readily as other fuel constituents. We have been monitoring what we remove, and that has been over 120 grams of EDB from our extraction process but it has not readily degraded. We have done some natural attenuation, the in-situ bioremediation pilot test is one of the pilot tests referred to earlier, where we added biologic material that would help degrade it more readily and we have the results from that. Ryan suggested the questioner email me for more information.
- Q: How does leaked fuel behave underground?
A: Fuel will take the path of least resistance through the dry soil and unsaturated ‘vadose’ zone (soil area above the water table that is partly filled with both air and water) until it reaches the water table. Fuel contaminants in the unsaturated zone exist in four phases: 1) vapor in the pore spaces, 2) attached to subsurface solids, 3) dissolved in water, or 4) undissolved as non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL). The nature and extent of fuel movement are determined by the interactions among contaminant transport properties (e.g., density, vapor pressure, viscosity, and hydrophobicity – or inability to dissolve in water) and the subsurface environment (e.g., geology, aquifer mineralogy, and groundwater hydrology). Most fuel-derived contaminants are less dense than water and can be detected as floating pools (LNAPLs) on the water table.
- Q: Why hasn’t the Air Force already cleaned up this fuel spill?
A: In 1999, the Air Force discovered the fuel spill and immediately started remediation activities, including the installation of a soil remediation system which began extracting fuel from the soil in 2003. The Air Force’s remediation efforts have been directed by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), the state regulatory agency responsible for overseeing environmental remediation. In accordance with the RCRA permit under which the Air Force operates, all documents and actions require approval from NMED. Effective cleanup of the contamination depends on defining the type and extent of the contamination plume enabling it to be approached from every necessary angle. Both the Air Force and NMED want to remove the fuel contaminants from the ground and groundwater as quickly, safely, and effectively as possible, and the Air Force is dedicating the necessary resources to accomplish this objective.
- Q: Why is it taking so long to clean up?
A: It seems like it is taking a long time to clean up the fuel plume; however, interim measures have been in place since 2003 and more information is being collected about the extent of the plume, which is vital to ultimately cleaning it up. While the spill most likely occurred over a period of decades, evidence of a leak was only discovered in 1999. At that point, the Air Force started to investigate the soil around the spill area, collecting soil samples from a wide area and groundwater samples from directly below the spill site. Sample analyses showed that contamination was in the soil layers to a depth of nearly 350 feet, but no fuel product was apparent in the water below the release site.

In 2003, one SVE (soil vapor extraction) unit was put into service to remediate the contamination identified in the soil. Three additional SVE units were installed in 2004 to more aggressively remediate the source. In January 2007, a groundwater monitoring well at a location outside of the spill area was proposed and installed by Kirtland AFB Environmental Program based on indications of persistent vapor plume readings to the east of the original spill location. After the well was installed, LNAPL (light non-aqueous phase liquid), or fuel was discovered on the water table at the new well location. Since 1999, the Air Force has planned and programmed resources to support investigation and cleanup of this site as efficiently and effectively as possible and will continue this support until the effort is complete.
- Q: Do you know the size of the leak, how much leaked out? Do you know how many total gallons?
A: There was no underground tank, the leak occurred in the pipes below ground, the offloading pipe either from the railroad cars or later 18-wheelers that offloaded fuel. We removed all the tanks above-ground and the pipes below-ground. The leak was able to go unnoticed for a long time probably because it was underground and on the bottom of the pipe.
- Q: So what was the original amount of fuel?
A: We cannot calculate the actual amount of fuel that leaked because the system was under a vacuum – from the railcars to the pump house and to the tanks. When they would turn off the vacuum, and what residual that was in the pipe – don’t know how much that was (left in the pipe), how often the vacuum was turned off – this happened every time the vacuum was turned off. I know it had to happen before 1975 because I have AvGas and ethylene dibromide, but I don’t know when the leak started (between 1953 and 1975). The logs from this time period are not easy to find. We’ve calculated estimates but I’m not confident in them because that is hard to do when you don’t have all the information.
- Q: It’s disheartening because if you don’t know the total amount, you won’t know when you’ve made progress in cleaning it up.
A: I would like to point out that there are ways to measure success at this site and that is through measuring concentration trends over time. With all these monitoring points, I can evaluate the concentration trends over time, how they go up or down in that area; and I can use that to gauge success. Another measure of success will be reaching drinking water standards in the aquifer. We have to do that regardless of the gallons of fuel that leaked.
- Q: GAC: how long does each of those containers last, and where does it go once it’s all used?
A: The GAC units are 20,000 pounds in each container and are one after the other, in succession. It’s important to explain the safety aspect of this design which is to ensure we never release untreated water from the treatment system. There are two in succession so you can see when the water from the first GAC tank breaks through to the other one, and we’re continually monitoring between these two tanks. That information is used to gauge when the material has absorbed all the material it can handle. We can calculate approximately how long those tanks will last. Right now, there are some variables with that so until we finish testing the system, we won’t know for sure what the loading rate of the system. And until we figure all this out, we have the tanks working in succession to clean extracted water.

Used GAC is recycled – you can send it off to be re-stripped and re-manufactured, and brought back in. Or the manufacturer will recycle it in an appropriate manner. If the material can no longer absorb contaminants, it is sent off for disposal in a certified hazardous waste landfill or it is incinerated, a lot of times it is incinerated.

Abbreviations & Acronyms

AFB	Air Force Base
AFCEC	Air Force Civil Engineer Center	Perform technical work for the Air Force
Aquifer		A zone of soil or rock below the ground surface capable of producing water.
AOI	area of interest	The area over which the EDB plume covers and is affected as well as the surrounding areas being monitored on and off base.
BFF	Bulk Fuels Facility
BGS	below ground surface
Biodegradation		The breaking down of compounds by microorganisms.
Bioslurping		A treatment approach that inserts a tube into the free-product layer and uses a pump to pull out liquid (to include free-product) and soil gas. These materials are then cleaned up at the surface through a technology like soil vapor extraction. Aerobic degradation of contaminants is enhanced by adding air to the subsurface environment.
BTEX	Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene	A group of volatile aromatic compounds that are typically found in petroleum products like diesel fuel and gasoline.
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations	The general and permanent set of regulations that outline how Federal agencies conduct work and do business.
CME	Corrective Measures Evaluation	Before choosing a cleanup approach or set of final remedies, a range of measures will be analyzed and evaluated for their advantages and disadvantages relative to site-specific conditions. Corrective Measures may address air, soil, sediment, surface water, or groundwater. Significant public participation is encouraged during this portion of the corrective action process.
Corrective Action		The cleanup process or program under RCRA and all activities related to investigation, characterization, and cleanup of a release of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents. The term may also refer to a specific action taken to remediate contamination at a given facility.
CSM	Conceptual Site Model	A planning tool used to organize information about a site and to identify additional information needed to achieve project goals, such as cleanup. In a risk assessment, this involves identifying sources, media, receptors, fate and transport pathways, and exposure pathways.
Dissolved Phase		The part of hydrocarbon contamination which has partitioned, or broken down, into a body of water.
Ecological Risk Assessment		The process for evaluating how likely it is that the environment may be impacted because of exposure to one or more environmental stressors such as chemicals, land change, disease, invasive species and climate change.
EDB	ethylene dibromide	A colorless, heavy, synthetic liquid that was primarily used in anti-knock gasoline mixtures, particularly aviation fuel. The maximum contaminant level for EDB in groundwater is 0.05 micrograms per liter (or 0.05 parts per billion), as defined by the NMED and EPA.
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency	The Federal agency created to protect human health and the environment. The EPA creates and enforces environmental laws, inspects the environment, and provides technical support to minimize threats and support recovery planning.
ERP	Environmental Restoration Program	Programs directed by the DoD to perform remedial activities, and test new technology for major environmental issues.
Fate and transport		A term used to discuss the movement of chemical contaminants through water or air, the synergistic effects of the contaminants in that environment, and the eventual disposition of that contaminant.
FFOR	Former Fuel Offloading Rack	The infrastructure at Kirtland AFB used to transfer fuel from railcars to the pump house, and then to the bulk fuel storage containers of the fuel storage area.
FRA	fuel-related analytes	The substances or chemical constituents that are found in petroleum-based fuel.
GWM	groundwater monitoring	The process of taking groundwater samples to assess the quality and quantity of water beneath the earth’s surface.
GWTS	groundwater treatment system	A water treatment process that is used to treat polluted groundwater by removing the pollutants or converting them into harmless products.
Human Health Risk Assessment		The process to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media, now or in the future.
ICE	internal combustion engine	Part of the SVE system that was in place for 12 years beginning in 2003.
IM	Interim measure	Actions necessary to minimize or prevent the further migration of contaminants and limit actual or potential human and environmental exposure to contaminants while long-term corrective action remedies are evaluated and, if necessary, implanted. An interim measure is a step preceding the final corrective measures and often occurring while site characterization is underway.
In situ		Where contaminated material(s) are treated, in place, without prior excavation or extraction from the ground.
KAFB	Kirtland Air Force Base
LNAPL	light non-aqueous phase liquid	The term for fuel that has been released into the environment from infrastructure.
MCL	Maximum Contaminant Level	Standards that are set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water quality. An "MCL" is the legal limit on the amount of substances that is allowed in public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Naturaal Attenuation		Physical, chemical or biological processes that naturally reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of contaminants in the environment.
NMAC	New Mexico Administrative Code	The official collection of current rules written and filed by state agencies to clarify and interpret laws passed by the New Mexico Legislature.
NMED	New Mexico Environment Department	The regulatory agency for the ERP at the Base.
RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act	The principle federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste.
Remediation		An action taken to improve a contaminated site to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to human health or the environment. Remediation includes the development and application of a planned approach that removes, destroys, contains or otherwise reduces the availability of contaminants.
RFI	RCRA Facility Investigation	The RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) is a process to determine the nature and extent of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from regulated units, solid waste management units (SWMUs), and areas of concern (AOCs) at a facility. The RFI is part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program. The purpose of the RFI is to gather all necessary data to support the Corrective Measures Study.
Risk Assessment		The scientific examination of the nature and magnitude of risk to define the effects of contaminants on humans and other receptors.
ROI	radius of influence	The area that could be affected by containments or chemicals.
RSL	Regional Screening Level	Regional screening level tables are used by risk assessors for comparison values for residential and commercial exposures to soil, air, and tap water (drinking water). The use of "RSL"'s promotes national consistency.
SDWA	Safe Drinking Water Act	The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.
SL	Screening Level	A risk-based concentration number used for comparison with environmental samples to determine if further investigation is needed in an area where contamination is present.
SSL	Soil Screening Level	The risk-based concentration number used for comparison with soil samples taken from an area where contamination is present to determine if further investigation or remediation work is needed.
SVE	soil vapor extraction	Soil vapor extraction (SVE) is a physical treatment process for remediation sites of possibly dangerous contaminants in vadose zone soils. This process decreases the chemicals in the vadose zone to avoid groundwater contamination.
SVEW	soil vapor extraction well	A well is used to apply vacuum to soil near a contamination source to trigger a controlled air flow and remove contaminants via the well for treatment.
SVM	soil vapor monitoring	This is one method for determining if contaminants are present.
SVMP	soil vapor monitoring point
SVMW	soil vapor monitoring well
SVOC	semi-volatile organic compounds	Semi-volatile organic compounds are a subgroup of chemicals that tend to have a higher molecular weight and higher boiling point temperature. "SVOC"s are of concern because of their abundance in the indoor environment and their potential for negative health effects on humans.
TOC	total organic carbon	The amount of carbon found in an organic compound which is often used as a non-specific indicator of water quality or cleanliness of manufacturing equipment.
USACE	United States Army Corps of Engineers	A U.S. federal agency under the Department of Defense and a major Army command that performs public engineering, design, and construction management agencies. Although generally associated with dams, canals and flood protection in the United States, USACE is involved in a wide range of public works throughout the world including the remedial project of the BFF jet fuel leak on Kirtland Air Force Base.
USGS	United States Geological Survey	The Federal agency that provides scientific information and services on earth’s physical features, climate, natural resources, and human activities.
VA	Veterans Affairs
Vadose Zone		The soil area above the water table that is partly filled with both air and water
VISL	Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
VOC	volatile organic compound	Human-made chemicals used and produced in the manufacture of paints, pharmaceuticals, industrial solvents, and refrigerants. These compounds are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids and have a high vapor pressure and low water solubility. VOCs are common groundwater contaminants.

Ryan Wortman, Physical Scientist, - ryan.wortman.3@us.af.mil

Kirtland AFB Public Affairs, (505) 846-5991 - 377ABW.PA@us.af.mil

BFF Upcoming Events for 2024

April 18 - Public Meeting at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial on Louisiana Blvd. Poster session starts at 5.30 pm, followed by a presentation and Q&A starting at 6.00pm.
July 18 – Groundwater Treatment System Open House located on Kirtland AFB. Poster session and discussion opportunities begin at 5.30 pm until 8.00pm. Open House Poster
November 21 – Public Meeting at the New Mexico Veterans Memorial on Louisiana Blvd. Poster session starts at 5.30 pm, followed by a presentation and Q&A starting at 6.00pm.

Environmental Restoration Program Administrative Record

The Administrative Record website provides access to public documents related to environmental activities conducted at Air Force installations. To find documents related to the BFF, once you are in the site, select Kirtland AFB, ST-206 and then “Search”. Scroll down to see the results and click on the document you would like to see.

Welcome to the Bulk Fuels Facility Cleanup Project Information Page

Current Site Activities

EDB Mass in Groundwater vs. Time

RCRA Process/Path Forward

Work Done to Date

Project History

Frequently Asked Questions, Project Definitions, Abbreviations & Acronyms

Point of Contact

BFF Upcoming Events for 2024

Environmental Restoration Program Administrative Record

BFF Archive – Public event materials

2024

2023