Skip to content
Back to Top

Site Report: Port Heiden WP03 Gray Lagoon

Site Name: Port Heiden WP03 Gray Lagoon
Address: Gray Lagoon aka AOC02, Port Heiden, AK 99549
File Number: 2637.38.002.09
Hazard ID: 187
Status: Active
Staff: Louis Howard, 9072697552
Latitude: 56.977613
Longitude: -158.653969
Horizontal Datum:NAD83

We make every effort to ensure the data presented here is accurate based on the best available information currently on file with DEC. It is therefore subject to change as new information becomes available. We recommend contacting the assigned project staff prior to making decisions based on this information.


Petroleum contaminated soil and groundwater associated with the site approximately 250 ft. north of the former composite building. WP003- POL Waste Disposal Pit No. 2 (Gray Lagoon Outfall) Formerly known as AOC02 (Area of Concern). 2006 RI/FS Former Facility Area 1 - Former Facility Area Pad- includes the Gray Lagoon (other sources in FFA1 are: USTs, Pad Grids -1 (PG-1) through PG-3), Drum Storage Area, Buried Water Tank, Antennae Pads 1 through 4, Gray Lagoon Outfall and Pipeline, and Foundation Cover Soil and Former Pipeline Corridor. The area refered to as the "grey lagoon" is ~250' north of the former composite building and is approximately 70' by 100' with sparse vegetation and discolored soil. RCRA EPA ID#AK0210890091 Hazardous waste activity: generator 1. CERCLA AK8570028698; Site located about 100 miles NE of Cold Bay, on the north side of Alaska Peninsula. Regional Native Corporation is Bristol Bay Native Corporation and the Village Corporation is Alaska Peninsula Corporation.

Action Information

Action Date Action Description DEC Staff
12/16/1985 Update or Other Action US ACE AK District Public Notice Identification # ER-86-01 Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) Public Notice. US Army Engineer District proposes to cleanup debris at Port Heiden AK including an abandoned World War II Army base and a "White Alice" communications site. The proposed action is to remove and dispose of unsafe and unsightly structures and associated debris. Possible methods of cleanup and disposal are discussed in the enclosed environmental assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI). The project consists of removal and disposal of: 1) approximately 280 Quonset/Pacific Huts, 2) collapsed wood frame buildings (150+/-), 2 large fuel tanks (250,000 gallon), 4) 3 radio towers (two -100 ft. one - 50 ft. tall), 5) 8,000 55 gallon metal barrels, 6) a "White Alice" site - four (60 ft) parabolic troposcatter antennas and feedhorns, a (30,000 sq. ft.) reinforced 2 story concrete building with a centra (45 x 45 ft.) five story tower, interconnecting electrical conduits, a 24,000 gallon fresh water storage tank, two buired (20,000 gallon) fuel tanks, two small (150 sq. ft.) concrete buildings and a septic system, 7) miscellaneous materials including: metal scraps, and debris, 8) asbestos material (approx. 80 cubic yards). Cleanup plans involve collapsing the quonsets and transport of the debris to burial sites. Other metal debris, including barrels, sheet metal, equipment, vehicles, towers, pipe and other miscellaneous materials will be collected and transported to disposal pits and also buried. Wooden material will be collected and moved to specified sites for burning. Large tanks will remain intact for use by local residents, salvaged, or drained dismantled and buried if no use is found. Any petroleum products will be drained or pumped from tanks or fuel lines for reuse or disposal. All disturbed sites will be revegetated following cleanup activities. Disposal methods and specifications will follow State, Federal and local regulations and procedures. Jennifer Roberts
5/6/1986 Update or Other Action Letter from USAF to Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) Robert J. Clark Executive Director, Kanakanak Hospital Dillingham, AK. Letter is regarding the telecon of May 5, 1986 on same subject. The Air Force has completed cleanup actions at this site to include the removal of industrial chemicals and contaminated soil. Industrial chemicals included PD 680 Solvent, battery acid, paints, engine starter fluid, detergents, lubiricating oils, diesel fuel, and motor gasoline, Contaminated soil had PCBs. The soil was removed in overpack drums and shipped to CONUS. We consider the site to be free from hazardous materials/wastes. Field work was monitored by personnel from Bioenvironmental Engineering Services. The State of Alaska approved this work, and the burial of solid waste at the site. Future work at Port Heiden will be accomplished by the AK District, Corps of Engineers, and will most likely be concerned with the building demolition and cleanup of WWII debris in the area. Jennifer Roberts
3/16/1988 Update or Other Action ADEC received a copy of a letter from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Div. Of Public Health to EPA (Mr. Jacques Gusmano). Mr. M.E. Lefever PHN Naknek Health Center (cc'd Carol Carlson CHA Port Heiden and Colleen Berg(sp)). It is my understanding that EPA plans to do a cleanup in Port Heiden this summer. What are the plans for disposing of all the old army trash. WIll any testing for trace chemicals be done in the soil and water supply? My interest in this process comes from seeing a higher rate of abnormal pap smears in the women of this village. Thirty to fourty percent of women who live there year around have had abnormal paps, some developing into cancer. I don't know if there is a documented connection between possible trace chemicals dumped by army refuse (garbage), and gonadal cancer. Certainly there is some reason why these people are demonstrating more abnormal paps than their relatives in Pilot Point and the Chigniks. I would be interested in any comments you have on my observations. Colleen Burgh
6/6/1988 Update or Other Action BBAHC Robert C. Clark letter to US Army Engineer District Carey S. Meyer NPAEN RE: DERP Port Heiden. It has recently come to our attention that the US Army Engineer District Alaska is now participating in the cleanup of the abandoned DOD site at Port Heiden. As you are aware, the site is adjacent to the village of Port Heiden, whose 115 residents receive health care services through the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC). With concern fro the health of the residents of Port Heiden, we would like to request that a more extensive sampling and testing program for hazardous materials, including PCBs be incorporated into the Port Heiden cleanup project. From a public health standpoint, the program should include sampling drinking water. Since most village residents obtain drinking water from private on-site wells, sampling of these wells would be crucial in ensuring that contamination of the aquifer has not occurred. At the very least, those wells nearest the dump sites should be tested for hazardous materials. Jennifer Roberts
3/23/1989 Update or Other Action BBAHC Robert J. Clark letter to Harlan E. Moore, Army Engineer District-Alaska. We have reviewed the Plans and Specifications document for the DERP cleanup of the White Alice communication facilities and Fort Morrow debris at Port Heiden. We are pleased that the Army is proposing to cleanup these sites and remove or contain the materials. However, in the interim the presence of these materials in their current state may pose a hazard to residents of the area. At least two possible routes of exposure to these materials currently exist: via direct contact at the ground surface, and via contamination of drinking water supplies. Many village residents may not be aware that PCBs and other hazardous compounds may be present. Interim measures such as fencing should be erected around the contaminated areas and adequate warning signs posted to reduce exposure. (CC Senators Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens, Repr. Don Young, Henry Friedman ADEC, Beth Baxter BBNA, Sue Flensburg BB CRSA, Orville Lind PHVC, Carol Carlson PH Health Clinic). Jennifer Roberts
4/26/1989 Update or Other Action US Army Engineer District-Alaska Army Projects Section Harlan E. Moore-Chief, Engineering section letter to Robert J. Clark Executive Director BBAHC. I have received your letter of March 23, 1989, regarding the Port Heiden project developed under the Defense Environmental Restoration Project (DERP) and I appreciate your concerns. We have no funds to accomplish the interim remedial work you suggest at Port Heiden and we do not expect any FY1989 program change that would allow construction, although plans and specifications for the restoration work are complete. We are requesting funds for construction in FY1990, but we have been informed that the funding levels will be similar to those for FY1989. National priorities are established at the Washington D.C. level and we are not optimistic that construction of the Port Heiden DERP project will be funded in FY1990. The good news is that samples from water supply wells in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing area, and the old town of Meshik were collected and analyzed in the summer of 1987. No hazardous contaminants of any kind were identified. Jennifer Roberts
5/9/1989 Update or Other Action BBAHC Robert J. Clark letter to Harlan E. Moore Chief, Engineering Division. Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1989 responding to our concerns regarding Port Heiden DERP Project. Your letter mentioned that samples were collected from water supply wells in the HUD housing area and the old village of Meshik in 1987. We were not aware that such testing was done, and would like a more detailed information. Specifically, we would like to know which wells were tested, what parameters were anlyzed and the results. Please forward a copy of the report containing this information. (CC Henry Friedman ADEC, Sue Flensburg Bristol Bay CRSA, Beth Dextor BB Native Assoc., Orville Lind Port Heiden Village Council, and Carol Carlson CHP, Port Heiden Health Clinic). Jennifer Roberts
11/30/1990 Update or Other Action Exploratory trenching was performed in 1990. Trenches were dug to 6-feet bgs and soil samples collected. During excavation, an underground cable was found that ran from the Gray Lagoon Outfall to the former composite building. This cable, or the disturbed soil around it, was believed to act as a conductor for product transport. Results for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were reported as high as 8,600 mg/Kg. It was not ascertained whether the contaminant migrated along the cable from the Gray Lagoon Outfall, the former 20,000-gallon USTs, or from the former composite building. The Gray Lagoon Outfall may have been used as a POL storage area, or perhaps a tank was located there. John Halverson
6/20/1991 Cleanup Level(s) Approved Letter from Jennifer Roberts Fed. Fac. Coordinator-Southcentral Regional Office to Louis R. Pylant Lt. Col. COE RE: FUDS Risk Analysis Dated June 19, 1991. The Department has reviewed the Final Risk Analysis for Alternative Cleanup Levels at Port Heiden, Alaska, submitted by your department on June 19, 1991. The risk analysis adequately addresses the concerns generated by utilizing a cleanup level of 5,000 parts per million total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) for remote areas of the Port Heiden Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) cleanup. (Area near populated areas=AOC06 POL Tank Farm). This 5,000 ppm does not include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and total xylenes. It is my understanding that the components have volatilized off and are no longer an issue. This letter approves of the work proposed in the Final Risk Analysis with a remote site-specific cleanup level of 5,000 ppm (mg/kg) for TPH. (CC'd Max Schwenne, Ron Godden, and Eileen Olsen). Jennifer Roberts
1/31/1994 Update or Other Action Preliminary Assessment for facility identified POL contaminated soil remaining at Port Heiden: The gray lagoon is the area near the diesel tank excavation northeast of the composite building. Underground utility lines may have provided channels for fuels to flow to the north of the excavation and Antenna Pad 3. The highest concentration of TPH was 8,600 ppm in a trench dug north of the source. High concentrations were also found around the antenna pad. The concrete antenna pad is the only structure remaining at the WACS site. It was not removed because of the surrounding soil contamination. According to the COE project manager, soil removals were based on PCB concentrations below 10 ppm in remaining soil. Louis Howard
4/12/1994 Update or Other Action EPA Region 10 sent letter to USAF Lt. Colonel Rodney L. Hunt 11th CEOS. The letter was to inform the Air Force that EPA Region 10 has completed the review of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) report for the Port Heiden White Alice Communication site located near Port Heiden, Alaska. The PA and supplemental information have been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly. EPA's NFRAP designation does not relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, Section 120(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA. Mark Adar Federal Facilities, Site Assessment Manager. NOTE to File: CHAPTER 103--COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY SUBCHAPTER I--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES RELEASES, LIABILITY, COMPENSATION Sec. 9620. Federal facilities (a) Application of chapter to Federal Government (1) In general Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 9607 of this title. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 9606 and 9607 of this title. (2) Application of requirements to Federal facilities All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter. (3) Exceptions This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 9604(c)(3) of this title in the case of a facility which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. (4) State laws State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) of this section when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality. Louis Howard
10/11/1995 Update or Other Action Emcon sent work plan for review at 4 sites. Gray Lagoon previous soil sample locations I4 and H4 (16,000 mg/kg and 14,000 mg/kg TPH respectively from the 1990 restoration activities), former Heliport Area, former septic outfall arear. Landfill A and B will be inspected to look for potential areas of subsidence, seepage, and exposed debris or other indications that impact from the landfills may be occurring. The former POL storage tank area will also be inspected. With time permitting, interviews will be conducted with local residents regarding the site. Ray Burger
3/13/1996 Update or Other Action DEC received the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Report Port Heiden Radio Relay Site, dated March 1996, by EMCON for the Air Force. Four trenches were excavated and soil samples collected and analyzed to delineate the approximate limits of impact at the site. Exploratory trenching was accomplished using a tracked backhoe and the soil was field-screened using a PID. Soil samples were selected based on PID readings and/or field observations. A visibly impacted zone was observed from approximately 1 to 5 feet bgs. The soil was stained a greenish gray color and there was a petroleum-like odor. Samples were collected to delineate the vertical extent of impacted soil. Samples were submitted to a laboratory for analysis by USEPA Methods 418.1 for TPH, 8015 Modified for gasoline range organics (GRO), and BTEX by 8020. Analytical results contained TPH, diesel range organics (DRO), and GRO concentrations of 15,000 ppm, 9,250 ppm, and 930 ppm, respectively. Xylenes were detected in one sample with all other BTEX analytes ND. Field observations and analytical results indicated that there was approximately 100 to 150 cy of impacted subsurface soil above the 5,000 ppm cleanup level still in place at the Gray Lagoon. Most of the contamination is within the diesel range. Remedial action was recommended in the 1996 Final PA/SI Report since concentrations are above the cleanup level. John Halverson
12/29/1997 Update or Other Action Management Action Plan DACA85-95-D-0010, D.O. No. 16 is intended to be a strategic document integrating the Environmental Restoration Program {ERP) into a series of response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. Due to the dynamics inherent in the strategic planning process, the MAP represents a "snapshot" in time, requiring periodic updating to remain useful. This MAP does the following: • Describes the environmental response objectives, the MAP purpose, and a brief history of the installation (Chapter 1), Identifies all known contaminated sites; environmental condition of property; real property, off-base facilities and properties; and non-Air Force tenants (Chapter 2); Summarizes the status of the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and regulatory agreements (if applicable); IRP Sites; Areas of Concern (AOCs); and community relations program Chapter 3); Describes the installation-wide strategy for environmental restoration through the definition of zones (including current scope of removal and remedial activities associated with, or to be completed for, each), and contracting and hiring strategy (Chapter 4), and • Provides a Master Schedule of planned and anticipated activities to be performed throughout the duration of the ERP(Chapter 5). All areas at the Port Heiden RRS have been assigned to one of seven environmental condition of property categories based on site characterization and remediation efforts to date. AOC01:Category 6. Areas where storage, release, or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, but required response initiatives have not yet been implemented. The Black Lagoon (AOC01), the Gray Lagoon (AOC02), and the POL Tank Farm (AOC06) are in this category. Louis Howard
11/1/1999 Site Added to Database Petroleum contaminated soil. Gretchen Pikul
1/30/2001 Update or Other Action Final Site Investigation, Port Heiden RRS, Alaska (dated July 2000) – no draft version was received for ADEC review prior to the final version being submitted – this investigation was performed to update the relative risk evaluation for select sites at Port Heiden. Gretchen Pikul
6/19/2002 Update or Other Action DEC sent letter to the Corps of Engineers and the 611 CES (Air Force) informing them on the community concerns and asking for cooperation in compling the site records, conducting a site inspection and community meeting, and ensuring the sites are adequately characterized and cleaned up. John Halverson
6/21/2002 Update or Other Action Letter sent to Mayor Matson re: Former White Alice Site Communication System Site at Port Heiden. Thanks for sending the June 13th letter about the recent phone call and report on drums of wastes being dumped into trenches in the past at the White Alice site. ADEC has reviewed the information in our files and contacted the Air Force and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) environmental cleanup managers. You may know that these agencies have done some sampling and cleanup work at the White Alice Site and the surrounding areas during the 1980s and early 1990s. However, cleanup work has not been completed and both agencies have plans for future work. The reason both of these Department of Defense (DOD) agencies are involved is that the Air Force is responsible for environmental cleanup on property that it owns or has owned after 1986. The Corps, under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program, is responsible for environmental cleanup associated with past military activities on land that was transferred out of the DOD control before 1986. *NOTE Engineer Regulation 200-3-1 FUDS Program Policy:defines a FUDS Property as real property that was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and owned by, leased by, or otherwise possessed by the United States (including governmental entities that are the legal predecessors of Department of Defense [DoD] or the Components) and those real properties where accountability rested with DoD but where the activities at the property were conducted by contractors (i.e., government-owned, contractor operated [GOCO] properties) that were transferred from DoD control prior to 17 October 1986. During WWII, the Army Air Corps developed Fort Morrow as part of the air defense efforts. It was shut down shortly after the ware. During the Cold War, the Air Force constructed and operated a White Alice Site on a portion of the old Fort Morrow to again assist in air defense actions. The Air Force still owns or controls a parcel of land around the former White Alice Site, while a large portion of the old Fort Morrow has been transferred to others. It is unclear whether the trenches the caller had reported dumping drums of waste into were sampled or included in any of the prior cleanup activities. John Halverson
4/29/2003 Meeting or Teleconference Held Public meeting held with ADEC and Air Force staff to update community members on plans for site characterization and cleanup work at the Air Force properties (White Alice site and the fuel pipeline corridor from the site to the former tank farm in the old village (Meshik). Larry Underbakke (611 CES RPM) gave a presentation on the IRP and plans for site characterization (2004-2005), Proposed Plan/Decision document (2006), Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) (2007-2015). John Halverson gave presentation on ADEC's role in military site cleanups and State cleanup levels. Questions and comments about not wanting higher cleanup levels just because people don't live right on site were some of the issues raised by the community. The community does hunt and gather foods in the area and wildlife moves through the area. Alaska default cleanup levels are based on family living at the site but do not take subsistence into account and a risk assessment would be needed to evaluate that scenario. Larry pointed out that they plan to cleanup the sites to residential levels. The Corps does not have work programmed until the year 2011. They are working with the Tribe through NALEMP to collect water samples from all local drinking water wells (est. 43 wells). If the water well samples indicate groundwater contamination (above the maximum contaminant level or MCL) that may be linked to the FUDS areas, then the Site would be moved up sooner on teh Corps programming. Conversely, it would be expected to stay where it is if no groundwater contamination is found in water well samples linked to the FUDS areas. *NOTE to file: "Contaminant" means a physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or material in water that, in sufficient quantity, makes water unfit for human consumption. "MCL" means the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public water system. John Halverson
6/5/2003 Update or Other Action Keres Environmental is sampling all water wells in Port Heiden under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). Sampling plans were reviewed by DEC and the Corps and each well will be tested for VOC, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Sampling will be conducted during the first week of June and results are anticipated by early August. John Halverson
6/27/2003 Update or Other Action Letter from 611 CES Remedial Project Manager Larry Underbakke to Ms. Carlson-City of Port Heiden. The Installation Restoration Program process to investigate the contamination associated with the White Alice Site at Port Heiden is being moved from a start date of 2008, to a start date of 2004. This decision by the Air Force was based largely on the valuable information that was provided to Larry Underbakke during his visit to Port Heiden in August 2002. In April or May 2003,the 611 CES would like to meet with Port Heiden residents to discuss ways to best integrate community participation into the clean up process. From experience at many other sites, the Air Force has learned that active community involvement improves the process, and results in a more thorough cleanup. John Halverson
5/3/2005 Update or Other Action File number issued 2637.38.002.09 Aggie Blandford
7/22/2005 Site Characterization Report Approved DEC approved the final RI report dated May 2005. The AF property was evaluated in three main areas, the former WACS facility, the pipeline cooridor and the former fuel tank farm. The former facility area has PCB contamination in soil, petroleum contamination in soil and groundwater and TCE contamination in groundwater. Groundwater flows toward the northwest away from the village. Localized areas of petroleum contamination in soil and surface water were found along the pipeline cooridor, with one area near the airport and Frosty Fuels pipeline having groundwater contamiation. The former tank farm area did not have contamination above cleanup levels. Of the 17 surface soil analytical samples collected at the Gray Lagoon Outfall and the Gray Lagoon Cable, five (and one duplicate sample) contained DRO above the screening criteria. These results are shown in Table 6.2-52 and on Figure 6.244. The highest concentration of DRO in surfuce soil was collected at Cell 12 within the surface soil grid (sample GLO-C1201- 01-0). The concentration of DRO in this sample was 13,000 mg/kg, exceeding the screening criteria of 250 mg/kg. Additionally, sample GLO-C12-01-01-1 had DRO at 11,000 mg/kg and GLO-C28-01-01-0 had 5,500 mg/kg DRO. No other analytes were detected above the screening criteria. John Halverson
7/22/2005 Risk Assessment Report Approved DEC approved the human health and ecological risk assessments as part of the remedial investigation report. The risk assessments show potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks above acceptable State risk levels for the Former Facility Area. Contaminants of concern exceeding risk based levels include PCBs, TCE, pesticides, PAHs and arsenic (however, arsenic was within background levels). The risk assessments showed negligible risk along the pipeline cooridor and no unacceptable risk at the former tank farm. John Halverson
9/16/2005 Update or Other Action Project management change. Halverson to Howard. Louis Howard
11/5/2005 Update or Other Action Keres Environmental sampled 42 domestic (private) wells out of 52 wells identified in Port Heiden under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). The 42 domestic wells were the only ones that were either functioning or accessible for sampling. Samples were analyzed for: diesel range organics (DRO), gasoline range organics (GRO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), via the selective ion method (SIM), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and safe drinking water act (SDWA) primary metals plus lead, iron, and copper. The first and second areas chosen for potential impact identified by the community members based on their location relative to the Port Heiden housing areas were located north and south of the road to Annie Christensen's house. The third is west of the New Meshik Mall, and the fourth is north of the new HUD area toward the west end, and the fifth is on the northeast side of the road from new HUD to the airport. Additionally, an old drum storage area is located north and west of the hazardous waste site on either side of an unnamed community road. The drum site is also of interest to the community. The other areas of interest and the other identified hazardous waste site are not located near housing and generally lie west/northwest of Port Heiden. Only six organic compounds were identified during sampling, all were below federal and state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. "Maximum contaminant level" or "MCL" means the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public water system. "Contaminant" means a physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or material in water that, in sufficient quantity, makes water unfit for human consumption. Arsenic and iron were observed in the analytical results. Arsenic was below the Federal standard of 10 ppb or 10 ug/L (0.010 mg/L) and the State standard of 50 ppb or 50 ug/L (0.050 mg/L). Iron in 29 of the 42 domestic wells sampled exceeded the secondary maximum contaminant level of 0.3 mg/L or 300 ppb (300 ug/L) applicable only to community water systems not private domestic wells. According to the US EPA, National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs or secondary standards) are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to public water systems but does not require public water systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards. State of Alaska defines public water systems as either a: "Class A public water system" means a public water system that (A) is expected to serve, year-round, at least 25 individuals, (B) is expected to serve, year-round, at least 15 residential service connections; or (C) regularly serves the same 25 or more individuals for at least six months of the year; or a (13) "Class B public water system" means a public water system that is not a Class A public water system, and that regularly serves at least 25 individuals each day for at least 60 days of the year; or a (14) "Class C public water system" means a public water system that is not a Class A public water system, a Class B public water system, or a private water system. "Private water system" means a potable water system serving one single family residence or duplex. The department will require a "public water system" to meet the secondary MCLs if the department determines that public health is threatened or that exceeding a secondary MCL is not in the public interest. Groundwater is not contaminated since 18 AAC 75 states: “contaminated groundwater” means groundwater containing a concentration of a hazardous substance that EXCEEDS the applicable cleanup level determined under the site cleanup rules. Louis Howard
2/9/2007 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Louis Howard
1/24/2013 Exposure Tracking Model Ranking Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 71167 name: storage tank. This is an auto action that was triggered by an administrative fix to correct reporting problems in the Unranked Sites Report. This is not an actual ETM ranking and no answers were altered within the ETM. The only part of the record affected by this fix may be the ranking dates. (Reese) Kristin Thompson
6/2/2015 Report or Workplan Review - Other Staff reviewed and approved the Final 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report Port Heiden RRS dated May 2015. Louis Howard

Contaminant Information

Name Level Description Media Comments

Control Type

Type Details


Description Details

There are no documents for this site report.

Missing Location Data

Because the GIS location data for this site has not been entered, we cannot direct you to its position on the map. Click "Continue" to proceed to the Contaminated Sites Web Map or "Close" to return to the site report.
Continue     Close