| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 10/31/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
Disposal of Federal property on Pribilof Islands (the Pribilofs)- (a) Submission to Congress of property transfer document - Any provision of law relating to the transfer & disposal of Federal property to the contrary notwithstanding, the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, is authorized to bargain, grant, sell or otherwise convey, on such terms as he deems to be in the best interests of the United States (U.S.) & in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, any & all right, title, & interest of the U.S. in & to the property, both real & personal, held by the Secretary on the Pribilofs: Provided, That such property is specified in a document entitled "Transfer of Property on the Pribilof Islands: Descriptions, Terms & Conditions," which is submitted to the Congress on or before October 31, 1983.
(b) Contents of property transfer document - shall include, but need not be limited to: (1) a description of each conveyance; (2) the terms to be imposed on each conveyance; (3) designation of the recipient of each conveyance; (4) a statement noting acceptance of each conveyance, including the terms, if any, under which it is accepted; & (5) an identification of all Federal property to be retained by the Federal Government on the Pribilofs to meet its responsibilities as described in this chapter & under the Convention.
(c) Report to Congress of fair market value of transferred property - Within 60 days of the transfer of real or personal property specified in the document described in subsection (a) of this section, the Committee on Merchant Marine & Fisheries of the House of Representatives & the Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation of the Senate shall be given a report prepared by the Secretary stating the fair market value at the time of the transfer of all real & personal property conveyed.
(d) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)- A MOU shall be entered into by the Secretary, a representative of the local governmental authority on each Island, the trustee or trustees, & the appropriate officer of the State of Alaska (the State) setting forth the respective responsibilities of the Federal Government, the Trust, & the State regarding -
(1) application of Federal retirement benefits, severance pay, & insurance benefits with respect to Natives of the Pribilofs;
(2) funding to be allocated by the State for the construction of boat harbors on St. Paul & St. George Islands;
(3) assumption of the State of traditional State responsibilities for facilities & services on such islands in accordance with applicable laws & regulations;
(4) preservation of wildlife resources within the Secretary's jurisdiction;
(5) continued activities relating to the implementation of the Convention;
(6) oversight of the operation of the Trust established by section 1166(a) of this title to further progress toward creation of a stable, diversified, & enduring economy not dependent up commercial fur sealing;
(7) the cooperation of government agencies, rendered through existing programs, in assisting with an orderly transition from Federal management & the creation of a private enterprise economy on the Pribilofs as described in this chapter; &
(8) such other matters as may be necessary & appropriate for carrying out the purposes of the chapter, including the assumption of responsibilities to ensure an orderly transition from Federal management of the Pribilofs. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/1993 |
CERCLA PA |
Preliminary Assessment (PA) conducted by E&E, Inc. staff with the Corps of Engineers representative on October 5, through October 8, 1992 for Saint Paul and Saint George Islands. The PA did not present extensive or complete site characterization, contaminant fate determination, qualitative or quantitative risk assessment or discussion regarding sites' aesthetics. During each site visit, a photoionization detector (PID) was used to determine if potential source areas were emitting organic vapors (OV).
Contaminated drain line site: 14-inch diameter drain line runs from a floor drain in the power plant building 200 feet into the harbor area. Drain line had not been in use for several years when a nearby septic tank overflowed. Water began to seep into the drain line, carrying some oil product to the outfall. City of Saint Paul stopped the septic tank overflow and plugged the inlet with concrete. Boom was placed around the outfall (Buckel 1990). No oil was observed during the E&E site visit nor was any absorbent boom present as previously reported. Recommendation: To determine if any POL contamination remains in the surface soil. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/30/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
U.S. EPA letter from Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager to Sharon Lundin Chief USDOC, WASC, Facilities and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700 Seattle WA 98115. The letter is to inform NOAA that EPA Region 10 has completed its review of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island National Marine Fisheries Site located on the Pribilof Islands. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility could score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, additional information is needed for EPA to complete the evaluation of the site. Specifically, a Site Inspection should be completed at the facility. Soil samples (surficial and subsurface) should be collected from the source areas to characterize the type of contamination present and delineate the size of the individual sources. Sediment samples should be collected from streams, wetlands and bays located near sources. Soil and sediment samples should be collected to determine background conditions for the area. All samples should be analyzed for the complete EPA Target Compound List (TCL) (organic) and Target Analyte List (TAL) (inorganic). Data generated should be equivalent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) level 4 data quality. Please include the information requested on Enclosure A in the final Site Inspection report.
Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act requires EPA to assure that a PA/SI is conducted for all facilities listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Executive Order 12580 (1/23/87) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an HRS evaluation. As such, EPA requests that you provide us with the above information within 180 days of receipt of this letter. If your facility anticipates an inordinate amount of delay in compiling this information, please send us with 30 days of receipt of this letter, a schedule of when we may expect to receive the required information. EPA would like to be involved in the development of the work plan for the site. Please contact EPA to schedule a meeting to discuss sampling locations for the Site Inspection. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/1/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
City of Saint Paul Public Notice to: Contractors/Regulatory Agencies. The City of Saint Paul hereby notifies you of the potential presence of hazardous materials on the island. The attached maps should be used as a general reference for identification of potential hazardous materials in planning your project. For the proposed utility projects within the Harbor Area planned for construction during the summer of 1993, the City does not believe that any hazardous materials are present. However, landowners and contractors are responsible for assuring compliance with federal and state regulations and should not rely on information provided herein.
If contractors on City Projects (and/or City Property) or on projects which are to become property of the City, believes that hazardous materials may or have been encountered, they must immediately cease any and all construction activity, immediately notify the Public Works Director and City Manager orally and in writing and comply with the attached guidelines. No further construction work can be done unless explicitly authorized in writing by the Public Works Director and City Engineer.
City of Saint Paul Hazardous Materials Procedures-
1) Review attached maps. If project includes construction within areas noted as potentially contaminated or if you encounter potential environmental contamination during construction, the following procedures must be followed:
2) Notify NOAA and the City of the potential problem;
3) conduct standard ADEC screening tests and provide in writing at a minimum-to NOAA and the City: a) exact location of area and land ownership, b) Quantity of material, c) Characteristics of material and contamination, d) documentation the contractor has certified persons to 1) conduct screening tests and 2) handling and disposal of hazardous wastes, e)Provide a detailed cost estimate for the initial screening, stockpiling, and testing of the material including labor, materials, equipment, testing, etc, f) provide a schedule for the final removal of any stockpiled materials, g) identify the location and specifications for stockpiling the materials.
4) If the material does not appear to require remediation according to ADEC and EPA regulations, the City Engineer and City Public Works Director will authorize the construction to proceed.
5) If the initial screening per ADEC and EPA regulations indicates that the material must be stockpiled for further testing (NOTE to file states should not be removed until an approved plan is submitted), then the contractor must comply with the protocol approved by NOAA and the City. At a minimum, this protocol would include the stockpiling of excavated materials, the placement of an impermeable liner in the construction utility corridor, the installation of utility lines covered with non-contaminated materials, and the testing of stockpiled materials for analysis and disposal per ADEC and EPA regulations.
6) When test results are available, the contractor must provide the following: a) test results, b) ADEC and EPA regulatory requirements for disposal, c) Proposed detailed plan for disposal of materials, d) Documentation that the contractor has certified personnel to handle and dispose of hazardous waste, 3) Provide a detailed cost estimate for the disposal of the material and any additional remediation required including labor, materials, equipment, testing, etc., f) provide a schedule for the final removal of any stockpiled materials.
7) The City and NOAA must approve the proposed plan and costs for disposal of the materials which were stockpiled prior to any construction activity. (Issued 10/01/1993). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/19/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DOC/NOAA WASC Sharon Lundin to U.S. EPA Mark Ader in response to the September 30, 1993 letter informing NOAA of the need to complete a Site Inspection (SI) for Saint Paul Island. NOAA recognizes its responsibility to comply with all statutory requirements under Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. However, there are some unalterable circumstances that will prevent NOAA from providing EPA the required information within the 180 days allowed in the regulation.
Saint Paul Island is located approximately 800 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska, in the middle of the Bering Sea. The island's location and arctic weather conditions provide a very limited construction season, usually a window from May until September. Additionally, because of the remoteness of the island, the availability of equipment is extremely limited. NOAA must lease equipment from the island entities (City of Saint Paul or TDX Corporation) for any work they do. Although this may sound like a simple process, they must compete with other contractors and/or City and Corporation for whatever equipment is available. This summer, the Island was in a boom period, with fisheries processing facilities being constructed around the clock. Because of this competition for equipment, it will be necessary for us to negotiate for its use far in advance of when we actually need it.
The current construction season has passed, to allow us the necessary time to schedule the equipment; NOAA requests an extension of 180 days. We anticipate beginning the planning process immediately. We will begin work as early as May 1994 as weather permits. We will provide you with the information you have requested no later than August 30, 1994. Again, NOAA understands their obligation to comply with these requirements and will do everything they can to expedite the process of obtaining it. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 11/2/1994 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
EPA Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment manager sent letter to Sharon Lundin, Chief U.S. DOC Western Administrative Support Center, Facility and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way, Bin C15700; Seattle, WA regarding EPA Region 10 has completed the review of Site Inspection (SI) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island, National Marine Fisheries Site located in the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests your portion of the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation will 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 (including NOAA/NMFS) 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 in the letter, will be listed for no further action. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 5/2/1996 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranked by Shannon and Wilson. |
S&W |
| 12/10/1997 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Incorporated data from Reckey 1994250135427 into Reckey 1994250135426 because this Reckey (26) is being treated as a group of spills. However, 11/4/99 broken back out for tracking purposes. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 11/18/1998 |
Potentially Responsible Party/State Interest Letter |
Don Young, Chairman Committee on Resources sent Joseph W. Westphal, Secretary (Civil Works), Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. a letter. I am writing you to advise you that the Department of Defense (DOD) through the Corps of Engineers appears to be responsible for environmental cleanup at one or more formerly used defense sites on the Pribilof Islands (St. Paul and St. George), Alaska, and to ask for your personal attention to these sites to ensure their prompt and complete cleanup and remediation.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is in the midst of a multi-year $25 million environmental restoration and cleanup project on the lands that are or were under its jurisdiction. This is part of a larger effort to transfer control on the Islands from Federal to local control. That effort results from the demise of the Federal fur seal harvest on the Islands. The Coast Guard is also undertaking a cleanup of property that it controlled.
The Corps of Engineers has previously acknowledged responsibility for a site known as Telegraph Hill on St. Paul Island. Unfortunately, the Corps has not scheduled the cleanup of this site. The use of St. Paul and St. George by DOD for defense purposes over a number of years suggests that there may be other sites on the Islands for which DOD should accept responsibility and undertake cleanup and remediation actions.
The State of Alaska and the residents of the Pribilof Islands are anxious to complete the cleanup of Federal sites. To enhance the Islands' private sector economy, cleanup of all Federal sites is needed. Please advise me at your earliest opportunity of the cleanup and remediation schedule for Telegraph Hill; the evaluation of DOD's potential responsibility for other sites on the Pribilofs; and the plan for resolving environmental problems at those sites. Sincerely, Don Young. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 2/22/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
This is the first week that stipulated penalties against NOAA are invoked by ADEC. Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement: Paragraph 70 page 17 Stipulated penalties states: If determined by ADEC to be appropriate, NOAA shall pay to ADEC a stipulated penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the first week (or portion thereof) and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each additional week (or portion thereof) in the event NOAA fails to meet any deadline related to a regulated UST or solid waste unit owned by NOAA and included in Attachment A. Interpretation remains whether or not the penalties are for each site in Attachment A per deliverable not received by ADEC or per week for both islands. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/11/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to NOAA John Lindsay project manager from ADEC.
As required by paragraph 42 of the Two-Party Agreement you are advised that Mr. Louis Howard is hereby designated as Interim Pribilof Project Manager for the Department of Environmental Conservation. Please consider this modification to the agreement as effective May 15, 1999. As required by the agreement please direct all official communications regarding the agreement through Mr. Howard.
|
Larry Dietrick |
| 7/21/1999 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Comments sent to be incorporated into final site characterization plan for Tract 46 and data gap analysis/conceptual site model. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Jennifer Roberts which states that ADEC is halting further accrual of stipulated penalties against NOAA for failure to fulfill and meet the requirements of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement in 1998 and part of calendar year 1999. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received to prevent recurring stipulated penalties. Site characterization plant to be reviewed and commented on by ADEC on 1/14/2000. Contractor to mobilize in field on May 2000. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/18/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the draft final site characterization plan for Tract 46 and adjoining properties. Staff clarified sampling depth for surface soil is from 0-2' not 0-2cm for analyzing exposure from inhalation of particulates, ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation from contaminants other than particulates. Sampling depth for subsurface as stated in the risk assessment procedure manual is ten feet. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received Geophysical Survey Report dated August 5, 1999 on February 28, 2000. Machine shop, Municipal Garage and East Side gas line were investigated. Site history indicated an underground gasoline line, which supported a former gas station and UST in this area. An EM61 survey was performed of the area and a metallic anomaly with the characteristics of a pipe was detected. There appears to be a magnetic anomaly with the characteristics of a pipeline present in this location, however, no anomalies with the characteristic of a UST were located at this site. Site history for the municipal garage North End Pipeline indicated a pipeline may have existed on the north end of the municipal garage. An EM61 survey was performed of the area and no metallic anomalies with the characteristics of pipelines were detected. Demolished seal processing plant history indicated USTs and underground pipelines may have been present at this location. EM61 survey detected no metallic anomalies with the characteristics of USTs or pipelines. Finally, at a demolished building foundation site history indicated that there may have been USTs associated with the site. A Magna-Trak handheld magnetometer was used and an anomaly was detected having the characteristics of a UST on the Southwest end of the building foundation. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/5/2000 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent comment letter to NOAA on draft final site characterization plan for tract 46 and adjoining properties. The text in paragraph 3 also states that the sampling depth will be no greater than 2 centimeters (cm), in accordance with ADEC guidance (Risk Assessment Procedures Manual). This statement would be correct if NOAA and ADEC were only concerned with particulates (liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, or smog found in air emissions).
Since the work for this site is not limited to particulates, ADEC requests NOAA sample beyond the first 2 cm for surface soil sampling. This sampling effort would ideally be from the 12-18” interval, but no deeper than 2’. Surface soils are defined in regulations as “...soil that extends no more than 2’ below the surface.”
Furthermore, the ADEC Risk Assessment Procedures Manual for Section 3.2.2.5 defines what depths are generally considered when sampling surface and subsurface. It states that for all land uses, ADEC will generally use a default value of two feet to define surface soil and ten feet to define subsurface soil to which residents will have a reasonable potential to be exposed (ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation).
There appears to be a discrepancy between 18 AAC 75(j)(2) which states that cleanup must be achieved in the subsurface soil to a depth of at least fifteen (15) feet and section 3.2.2.5 of the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual. Section 3.2.2.5 states that for all land uses, ADEC will generally use a default value 10 feet to define subsurface soil to which residents will have a reasonable potential to be exposed (ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation).
Until the issue can be corrected in the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual at a later date, ADEC will require NOAA to meet cleanup levels which prevent human exposure from ingestion or inhalation of a volatile hazardous substance in the surface soil and the subsurface soil to a depth of at least fifteen feet. Fifteen feet is the minimum depth which ADEC considers it reasonably likely for affected soils to be excavated and brought to the surface during the installation of septic systems, utilities, construction of basements, etc.
Upon incorporation of the above comments, ADEC will consider it a "final" document. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/14/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent letter to NOAA regarding Notification of possible Force Majeure (per the TPA). The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the above document via facsimile from NOAA on December 5, 2000. The document states that in accordance with Paragraph 67 of the Two Party Agreement, the potential exists for a Force Majeure situation. It further states that unless further Pribilofs Cleanup Funds are appropriated to NOAA for FY01, the project budget will be exhausted this fiscal year. We very much appreciate your providing this information and analysis of NOAA’s anticipated plans in FY 01 given the existing funding situation. ADEC realizes that funding is uncertain due to Congress not yet finalizing a budget for this FY01. We anticipate a meeting with NOAA to discuss potential impacts to the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement when Congress finalizes a budget. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/23/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Public Law 106-562 - Fur Seal Act of 1966. An act to complete the orderly withdrawal of the NOAA from the civil administration of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, and to assist in the conservation of coral reefs, and for other purposes.
Sec. 107 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
(2) LIMITATION.—None of the funds authorized by this subsection may be expended for the purpose of cleaning up or remediating any landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, or contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the Department of Defense or any of its components on lands on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/2/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent NOAA comment letter on TPA 2001 proposed schedules. These proposed revisions to Attachment B of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (TPA) are being reviewed under the Modification clause (section 82) of the TPA. Section 82 provides “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.”
ADEC approves the new schedule with two exceptions: 1) the schedule for the sites which NOAA has identified as “formerly used defense sites” (FUDS) and, 2) the schedule does not include projected work for many of the sites in calendar year 2002 and beyond.
1) FUDS. With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as FUDS sites, ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force Majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act). In order make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
2) Long-term schedule beyond calendar year 2001. NOAA’s cover letter accompanying the Project Schedules states that “while a limited number of the schedules go into calendar year 2002, most are not projected beyond 2001 because of the near constant shifting of priorities and the project’s dependence on future appropriations which make such projections meaningless at this time.” While ADEC understands the need to readjust priorities given new information, it is important to establish reasonable long-term schedules for needed work based upon current information. Given that the TPA is premised upon NOAA’s obligation to seek adequate future appropriations to accomplish needed work under the agreement (section 66) it is important that NOAA develop for ADEC’s concurrence a long-term schedule. As you know under section 81, we can adjust the long-term schedule in light of the results of future site investigation and clean-up work. Accordingly, ADEC requests that NOAA develop a long-term schedule for the work contemplated by the TPA given current information at the sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/28/2001 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff sent NOAA comment letter on TPA revised schedules for 2001 field season. It appears that NOAA is able to address some of the issues raised in our March 2, 2001 letter.
These proposed revisions to Attachment B of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (TPA) are being reviewed under the Modification clause (section 82) of the TPA. Section 82 provides “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.”
With one exception, ADEC approves the new schedules, which now include projected work for many of the sites in the calendar year 2002 and beyond. The one exception is as follows:
1) FUDS. With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as FUDS sites, ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force Majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act). In order make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
Given that the TPA is premised upon NOAA’s obligation to seek adequate future appropriations to accomplish needed work under the agreement (section 66) it is important that NOAA develop for ADEC’s concurrence a long-term schedule. With these new revised schedules, NOAA has shown it is planning beyond the current year of 2001 and ADEC appreciates the effort that it has gone in providing this information. As you know under section 81, we can adjust the long-term schedules in light of the results of future site investigation and clean-up work. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/25/2001 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Staff reviewed and commented on the groundwater monitoring plan which covered TPA 2, 5, 9, 11, 15. Comment was on the lack of current lab certification listed in table 10 for two labs. Staff requested proof of current certification and corrected table in the document with latest expiration date. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
West Duplex UST
Three soil borings were taken near the West Duplex UST in 2001. Two of the borings (RBSB-5 and RBSB-6) encountered DRO levels from 260 to 1,500 mg/kg from the two and eight foot depth intervals. Borings RBSB-5 and RBSB-6 also encountered RRO levels from 260 to 15,000 mg/kg in the same intervals. The third boring (RBSB-3) had a maximum DRO level of 29 mg/kg and a maximum RRO level <50 mg/kg. In addition, borings associated with the installation of several monitoring wells downgradient of the UST provide some additional soil data. MW46-13 is 80 feet away.
The drilling log for MW46-13 documented the presence of petroleum odors in the soil between 14 and 24 feet bgs; the source of these odors is uncertain. No indications of petroleum releases were observed at MW46-26. Soil contamination associated with MW46-18 and MW46-19, approximately 150 feet away, are considered linked to releases associated with the ATCO Dormitory heating service and/or the former Navy Radio Station complex. Surface staining was observed near the UST fill spout. The staining may continue down to the groundwater table at approximately 16 feet bgs.
East Duplex UST
Four soil borings by the East Duplex UST were advanced to a maximum depth of 12 feet bgs in 2001. The borings (RBSB-4, RBSB-7, RBSB-8, and RBSB-9) revealed DRO levels <10 to 13 mg/kg and RRO levels <50 mg/kg. The soil contamination information presented in the monitoring well drilling log for MW46-13, as discussed for the West Duplex UST is also applicable to this UST.
E-Shop former UST Site
CESI removed a UST, in the form of a 55-gallon barrel from the northeast corner of former E-Shop in 2000. CESI observed soil staining and strong petroleum odors at the UST excavation site. A single soil sample taken at 6 feet bgs, below the UST, exhibited a DRO concentration of 480 mg/kg and RRO at 4,400 mg/kg. In two soil samples taken at 3 feet bgs on the east and south sidewalls of the UST excavation, DRO was 56 mg/kg and 150 mg/kg, respectively. RRO did not exceed 1,400 mg/kg in either sample. The removal action also revealed active and abandoned electrical lines. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/11/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff has reviewed and commented on the revised Site Activity Schedule for FY 2002 and projected future work beyond 2002 during a meeting with NOAA on February 5, 2002.
The submittals are being accepted by the ADEC under the Modification clause of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement section 82 page 20. “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B* may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.
Any modification approved orally under this Paragraph must be reduced to writing within ten (10) Days and signed by both Project Managers. The ADEC’s approval does not preclude nor eliminate the annual review required by the ADEC and NOAA to update the deadlines in Attachment B based on preliminary assessments, site investigations, or other information obtained during the preceding field season.
*Except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties, NOAA shall prepare the documents identified in Attachment B to this Agreement by the corresponding deadlines established in Attachment B. Attachment B shall be reviewed and updated annually by the Parties, based on the site assessment and other information obtained during the course of the preceding year, and may be modified at any time in accordance with Paragraphs 81- 82. Annual review of Attachment B shall commence in January of each year and shall be completed by March 31 of the same year.
The ADEC also wishes to point out to NOAA that the TPA states: “NOAA shall submit to the ADEC (at) a minimum of sixty-five (65) Days prior to the start of field work or construction at any source area, all draft final work plans for field work, site assessments or remedial actions (both interim and final at such source area(s). Site Assessment and Remedial Action draft reports must be submitted to the ADEC within 120 Days after completion of field work.” For example, work that NOAA has scheduled to begin on May 15 would require work plans to be submitted no later than March 11, 2002 for ADEC review and comment.
With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as formerly used defense sites (FUDS) sites, the ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act) Sec. 107(f)(2).
In order for the ADEC to make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. The ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. The ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
NOAA has not fully funded the work necessary to meet all of the conditions of the TPA. Item 66 of the TPA states: It is the expectation of the Parties to this Agreement that all obligations of NOAA arising under this Agreement will be fully funded. NOAA shall request, through the normal Department of Commerce budget process, all funds and/or authorizations necessary to meet the conditions of this Agreement,
1) If sufficient funds are not appropriated by Congress as requested and existing funds are not available to achieve compliance with the schedules provided in this Agreement, and NOAA reports the lack of funds in accordance with Paragraph 67, then the compliance schedule shall be revised as necessary.
NOAA has submitted the necessary revised schedules for Attachment B based on available funding.
2) If the Congressional budget appropriation available for the activities to be performed under this Agreement is lower than the budget request for such activities, and NOAA cannot mitigate the impact on its performance under this Agreement by seeking supplemental appropriations, NOAA may elect to reduce allocations for specific field projects based on the priorities identified by the Community Advisory Committee established under Paragraph 56 of this Agreement, and, if the Community Advisory Committee members agree, may reallocate funds from one island to another. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2002 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2001 St. Paul Island March 2002 Project 823255.01030000. 2.3 Village Hill Plume Pages 2-5 and 2-6.
The text states that chromium was detected in samples collected from all four wells up to 5,200 ug/L. NOAA used a Hach kit to perform hexavalent chromium analyses (Diphenyl-carbazide method) screening. The kit uses a Diphenyl-carbohydrazide (DPC) to form an intensely colored complex with Cr(VI). The complex is measured quantitatively by its visible absorption at 520 nm.
However, as in any colorimetric analysis, this test is subject to positive interferences from other colored materials in the sample as well as from other elements that form colored complexes with DPC. The Department views the Hach kit testing as a field screening method and data gathered by field screening never is substituted for laboratory analyses. The only acceptable determination on whether the Cr(VI) is present in a water sample is through laboratory analyses. For example, there are methods available such as:
EPA method 218.6, or SW-846 Methods 7000 series method 7195 (coprecipitation) is used to determine Cr(VI) in EP extracts and groundwater, or method 7198 differential pulse polarography used to determine Cr(VI) in natural and wastewaters and in EP extracts, or method 7199 often used for determination of Cr(VI) in drinking water, groundwater and industrial wastewater effluents by ion chromatography.
The Department requests NOAA confirm the validity of Hach kit test results through a strict laboratory analyses using an approved Cr(VI) analytical method for groundwater results where chromium was detected in the groundwater. After determining through laboratory analysis that hexavalent chromium is not present above the Table C Groundwater Cleanup level of 100 ug/L, then NOAA may discontinue analysis for this particular parameter.
2.6 Recommendations for Central Tract 46 Page 2.8
See comments above regarding laboratory analysis of water for hexavalent chromium Cr(VI) to validate the field screening with Hach kits. The Department concurs with semi-annual monitoring of contaminants of concern (COCs) at Tracts 43 and 46. The Department will require monitoring for the following COCs : gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO), residual range organics (RRO), benzene, toluene, lead, selenium, hexavalent chromium, and tetrachloroethylene.
The Department requests groundwater monitoring of tetrachloroethylene not be limited to MW46-9, but also include MW46-23. MW46-23 will act as a sentinel well to ensure that tetrachloroethylene is not spreading beyond MW46-9. The Department requests that groundwater flow direction be described in the text and shown on the figures for the sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/30/2002 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has received the draft final groundwater use and classification in the vicinity of Tract 46 TPA 9 on May 6, 2002. Department staff also attended and participated in a briefing given by NOAA regarding the 18 AAC 75.350 10X Table C groundwater cleanup levels in the Tract 46 (TPA 9) area on May 9, 2002. Below are the Department’s general comments regarding NOAA’s request for a 10X rule determination for groundwater at Tract 46. Specific comments regarding the document referenced above will be addressed in another letter to NOAA.
General Comments
After reviewing the data and hearing NOAA’s briefing, the Department will approve the use of a 10X rule for groundwater cleanup levels in Tract 46. This approval does not modify the Water Quality Standards found in 18 AAC 70, which NOAA must comply with where applicable. The rationale for the Department’s approval is based on these site-specific conditions listed below:
-The groundwater in the Tract 46 area is impacted by saltwater intrusion from the nearby Bering Sea, which makes it unfit for drinking water consumption. This is demonstrated with the high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the Tract 46 area.
-The groundwater is not currently used for drinking water and there is no anticipated future use of groundwater in the study area.
-All residents obtain their drinking water from the public water supply system two miles northeast from the city.
-There is no current or future need for the groundwater within the study area to be used as a potential drinking water source. The existing water supply located two miles away from Tract 46 is adequate to meet all anticipated needs for drinking water.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/29/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Staff sent response to TDX attorney letter regarding use of 10 times (10X) rule in Tract 46 area.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) received your letter of August 1, 2002 on behalf of Ron Philemonoff, CEO of the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX). Your letter inquired about the impact of the 18 AAC 75.350 ten times (10X) groundwater cleanup levels to the Two-Party Agreement (TPA) site 9 commonly referred to as Tract 46 (the study area) on St. Paul Island.
The 18 AAC 75 Contaminated Sites regulations defines “cleanup” and “cleanup levels” as follows: “cleanup” means efforts to mitigate environmental damage or a threat to human health, safety, or welfare resulting from a hazardous substance , and includes removal of a hazardous substance from the environment, restoration, and other measures that are necessary to mitigate or avoid further threat to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment; and “cleanup level” means the concentration of a hazardous substance that may be present within a specified medium and under specified exposure conditions without posing a threat to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment.
The higher cleanup levels NOAA is requesting for the study area is literally ten times (10X) those found in 18 AAC 75.345 Groundwater Cleanup Levels Table C and in most cases, those levels found in 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 Method Two. For example, if diesel contamination were detected in the groundwater above Table C cleanup levels, then the cleanup level for diesel in soils would be 10X the migration to groundwater level.
If diesel contamination were detected at or below the Table C cleanup levels in groundwater, then soil cleanup levels for diesel contamination would have to meet the more restrictive migration to groundwater level and would not be eligible for the 10X rule application. These higher soil cleanup levels would only apply to the migration to groundwater cleanup level and, in no case, will not exceed the ingestion, inhalation, or maximum allowable soil cleanup levels (whichever value is less).
After reviewing NOAA’s data, the Department has determined that applying the 10X rule for groundwater cleanup levels in the study area is appropriate. This approval does not modify the Water Quality Standards found in 18 AAC 70, which NOAA must comply with whether or not a 10X rule determination is made. For example, where groundwater is closely hydrologically connected to surface water, water quality standards in 18 AAC 70 must be met for surface water and sediment.
The rationale for the Department’s approval is based on the site-specific conditions listed below:
The groundwater in the study area is impacted by saltwater intrusion from the nearby Bering Sea, which makes it unfit for drinking water consumption. This is demonstrated with the high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the study area. The groundwater is not currently used for drinking water and there is no reasonable expectation of a future use of groundwater as a drinking water source in the study area. All residents obtain their drinking water from the public water supply system located two miles northeast from the city.
There is no current or future need for the groundwater within the study area to be used as a potential drinking water source. The existing water supply located two miles away from the study area is adequate to meet all anticipated future needs for drinking water.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/5/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Breck Tostevin Attorney General's Office
Re: NOAA Environment Cleanup on Pribilof Islands.
AGO File No. 661-95-0126: Draft City of St. Paul Ordinance Concerning Water Wells
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has asked that I provided comments on a draft City Ordinance No. 02-05 addressing groundwater use on St. Paul Island, received by DEC on November 1. I have some general comments on the subject of institutional controls under DEC’s cleanup regulations and some more specific comments on the proposed ordinance itself.
As you may know, DEC has had discussions with NOAA, the City of St. Paul, the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) and other stakeholders concerning cleanup issues associated with the downtown site commonly referred to as Tract 46 (the study area) on St. Paul Island.
One of the issues under discussion is selection of cleanup levels and the establishment of “institutional control” measures designed to ensure that the cleanup measures remain protective of human health and the environment. See attached letter from DEC to Ron Terry Turner, counsel to TDX.
The establishment of legal mechanisms to ensure that cleanup levels are protective is described in DEC’s regulations at 18 AAC 75.375. Institutional controls include a variety of measures including
“(1) the requirement for and maintenance of physical measures, such as fences and signs, to limit an activity that might interfere with cleanup or result in exposure to a hazardous substance at the site;
(2) the requirement for and maintenance of engineering measures, such as liners and caps, to limit exposure to a hazardous substance;
(3) 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; and
(4) a zoning restriction or land use plan by a local government with land use authority.”
Under 18 AAC 75.375(c), the “use of institutional controls must, to the maximum extent practicable, be
(1) appurtenant to and run with the land so that the control is binding on each future owner of the site; and
(2) maintained by each responsible person or owner of the site."
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/10/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Michael J. Walsh Colonel, Corps Of Engineers, Chief of Staff issues Engineering Regulation No. 200-3-1. It is the policy of the USACE that the policies contained in this ER are the overarching USACE policy for management & execution of the FUDS program & takes precedence over previous USACE FUDS program policy & guidance.
The USACE MUST comply with the DERP statute (10 USC 2701 et seq.), CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601 et seq., Executive Orders (EOs) 12580 & 13016, NCP, & all applicable DoD (e.g., DoD Management Guidance for the DERP [28 September 2001]) & Army policies in managing & executing the FUDS program. Because of the linkages between the DERP & CERCLA & the delegation of certain Presidential authorities under CERCLA to DoD, CERCLA is DoD's preferred framework for environmental restoration. Where a regulatory agency seeks to use another framework, USACE Districts shall:
Seek formal approval of the decision to follow a framework other than CERCLA.
Ensure that the actions undertaken also comply with all applicable CERCLA requirements, especially in the areas of the content of decision documents & the maintenance of an Administrative Record.
Consistent with the statutory program goals of the DERP, DoD has established 3 program categories to classify activities at FUDS properties & projects: installation restoration program, military munitions response program, & building demolition/debris removal program.
1) Installation Restoration (IR) Program. For the FUDS, the IR program includes the Hazardous, Toxic, & Radioactive Waste (HTRW) & Containerized HTRW (CON/HTRW) project categories. IR program category is defined as the conduct of response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address releases of:
Hazardous substances or pollutants & contaminants (as defined in the CERCLA).
Petroleum, oil, or lubricants (POL). Under the DoD Management Guidance for the DERP, funding appropriated to the Environmental Restoration (ER)-FUDS account may be used to remediate releases of petroleum where the release poses an imminent & substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment [10 USC 2701(b)(2)].
DoD-unique materials.
Hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents.
Low-level radioactive materials or low-level radioactive wastes.
Explosive compounds released to soil, surface water, sediments, or groundwater as a result of ammunition or explosives production or manufacturing at ammunition plants.
2) Miltary Munitions Response Program (MMRP). The MMRP category is defined as response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) or Munitions Constituents (MC). This includes the removal of foreign military munitions if it is incidental to the response addressing DoD military munitions at a FUDS property.
3) Building Demolition & Debris Removal (BD/DR) Program. This program category is defined as the demolition & removal of unsafe buildings & structures at FUDS properties that were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States & under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense & transferred to state, local governments, or Native Corporations of Alaska.
FUDS Project Definition. Within this Program, USACE has defined a FUDS Project as a unique name given to an area of an eligible FUDS property containing one or more releases or threatened releases of a similar response nature, treated as a discrete entity or consolidated grouping for response purposes. This may include buildings, structures, impoundments, landfills, storage containers, or other areas where hazardous substance are or have come to be located, including FUDS eligible unsafe buildings or debris. Response actions at FUDS projects fall under the Installation Restoration (HTRW & CON/HTRW), Military Munitions Response Program (MEC & MC), or Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) program categories. An eligible FUDS property MAY have more than one project.
The DoD Goals for the DERP, established for the FUDS program in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), require USACE to develop an execution strategy that includes the following.
Reducing risk to human health & the environment through implementation of effective, legally compliant, & cost-effective response actions.
Having final remedies in place & completing response actions.
Requiring certain percentages of FUDS projects in the program to progress to specific stages of the response process by specific dates (i.e., milestones).
The objective of the BD/DR program is to protect human health & safety by demolishing & removing unsafe buildings, structures, & debris resulting from past DoD operations.
|
Louis Howard |
| 6/23/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA submitted a SITE CHARACTERIZATION PLAN, SITE 24, TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT SITE 9i, DUPLEX AND E-BUILDING
LEAD HOT SPOT DELINEATION.
During the corrective action, a total of approximately 160 cubic yards of PCS was removed from excavations at the two sites and transported to a PCS stockpile located at Tract 42. Excavation at the Duplex Building and Former E-Shop was restricted because of the presence of obstructions, including utility lines and structures. Analytical data for confirmation samples indicate that concentrations of diesel-range organic compounds and lead are still present above cleanup levels. Considering site conditions, however, it was determined that PCS has been removed to the maximum extent practicable. No further excavation with available equipment is technically feasible.
NOAA intends to further delineate the extent of lead contamination at the site prior to referring the site to the FUDS program. NOAA will collect discrete soil samples, at a minimum from the four (4) locations shown on Figure 2-1 with its Geoprobe 54DT track-mounted exploration rig using Geoprobe MacroCore samples (2.125-inch diameter, 48-inch length). Care must be taken to avoid buried utilities. Soil samples will be collected to represent the following intervals: 0.5-2.0 feet (ft), 2.0-4.0 ft, 4.0-6.0 ft, and 6.0-8.0 ft or until refusal is met, for a total of 16 samples. Samples will be collected consistent with the methods and data quality requirements in NOAA’s Master Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) (NOAA 2003b). Additional borings may be advanced and samples collected at the discretion of NOAA field personnel. All boring locations will be surveyed using NOAA’s differential global positioning system.
All the samples collected will be screened using a field-portable x-ray fluorometer (XRF). The XRF screening data will be used to identify sample intervals to send for fixed-laboratory definitive analysis. Samples will be analyzed consistent with the methods and data quality requirements in NOAA’s Master Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) (NOAA 2003b). XRF results will be compared against the ADEC residential cleanup level for lead of 400 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and commercial/industrial cleanup level of 1,000 mg/kg.
For each boring, the deepest sample interval with lead contamination above 400 mg/kg and the interval below it will be sent for fixed-laboratory analysis. If the deepest sample interval at a boring location has contamination, then the deepest sample interval and the interval immediately above it will be sent for fixed-laboratory analysis. If no sample intervals at a boring location have contamination, then the two shallowest sample intervals will be sent for fixed-laboratory analysis. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/23/2004 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft Site Characterization Plan Site 24, Two-Party Agreement (TPA) Site 9i, Duplex and E-Building Lead Hotspot Delineation, St. Paul Island, Alaska CS Database reckey # 1994250135426.
The Department has reviewed the information and granted its approval electronically on June 23, 2004 for Site 9i. This letter confirms the Department’s approval. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/8/2004 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Corrective Action Report Duplex Building and Former E Shop Two Party Agreement (TPA) Site 9i, St. Paul Island, Alaska CS Database reckey # 1994250135426.
The Department has reviewed the document and will approve it as a final document. Finally, the Department concurs with NOAA’s conclusions and recommendations for no further remedial action planned at this site (9i Duplex and E-Shop). NOAA is prohibited from taking further action at this formerly used defense site (FUDs) since Public Law 106-562 became law. It states under Sec. 107 Authorization of Appropriations: Section 3 of Public Law 104-91 (16 USC 1165 note) is amended- (1) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: "(f) Authorization of Appropriations-(2) Limitation- None of the funds authorized by this subsection may be expended for the purpose of cleaning up or remediating any landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, or contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the Department of Defense or any of its components on lands on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska."
This decision is based upon the fact that the primary source of contamination has been removed; further excavation is not possible based on the equipment available, structures, and presence of numerous utilities at the site. However, groundwater monitoring will be required.
The following policy applies for soil regulated under 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78 that is proposed for disposal off site from where it was generated. If the following criteria is met, ADEC approval and/or an institutional control(s) are not required:
1. The soil meets the most stringent Method Two, Migration to Groundwater, Table B2 cleanup level, and the most stringent standards for those chemicals under Table B1;
2. The soil may only be disposed of at any non-environmentally sensitive location in the Under 40" or Over 40" annual precipitation zone;
3. The soil is not placed within 100 feet of water wells, surface waters, and drainage ditches; and
4.The written approval from the landowner of the off-site location is required.
The off site disposal of all other soil subject to the site cleanup rules that does not meet the criteria above shall be reviewed by the ADEC project manager in order to determine if the off-site disposal action poses a current or future risk to human health or the environment. The final approval to dispose of soil off site that does not meet the criteria shall be made by the ADEC Section Manager.
Terms used in this document have the meaning given in 18 AAC 75.990 including: “environmentally sensitive area” means a geographic area that, in the department's determination, is especially sensitive to change or alteration, including:
(A) an area of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat;
(B) an area of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living organisms;
(C) an area of unique geologic or topographic significance that is susceptible to a discharge;
(D) an area needed to protect, maintain, or replenish land or resources, including floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits;
(E) a state or federal critical habitat, refuge, park, wilderness area, or other designated park, refuge, or preserve; and
(F) an area that merits special attention as defined at 6 AAC 80.170 (Repealed see AS 46.40.210(1))
“area which merits special attention” means a delineated geographic area within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which, because of plans or commitments or because a claim on the resources within the area delineated would preclude subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or incompatible use, warrants special management attention, or which, because of its value to the general public, should be identified for current or future planning, protection, or acquisition; these areas, subject to council definition of criteria for their identification, include:
(A) areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance;
(B) areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources;
(C) areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity;
(D) areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal water;
(E) areas of unique geologic or topographic significance which are susceptible to industrial or commercial development;
(F) areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, or settlement; and
(G) areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal flood plains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/8/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
John Halverson sent letter to CORPS (Suzanne Beauchamp) regarding Pribilof Island FUDS issues. This letter is to follow up on prior discussions and correspondence regarding formerly used defense site (FUDS) program work in the Pribilof Islands. DEC has asked the Alaska District to re-evaluate the sites for FUDS program eligibility to address residual contamination. In prior responses, the District has claimed cleanup work conducted in the mid 1980s was adequate to meet applicable cleanup requirements and provide protection of human health and the environment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been conducting site characterization and cleanup on the Pribilof Islands for many years. NOAA claims contamination remains at some of the FUDS and that it should be addressed under the FUDS program. While NOAA is obligated to cleanup and transfer the land to the native corporations, it is also prohibited from cleaning up FUDS.
Enclosed is a copy of a corrective action report NOAA’s consultants prepared for the site known as the Former E-Shop on St. Paul Island which originally served as a powerhouse for a former Navy radio station. Please have your staff review this document and then I would like to schedule a meeting, in early December, with the District, NOAA and our project managers to see if we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement addressing residual contamination at these sites. |
John Halverson |
| 11/8/2004 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
In the event that the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible by the removal of the soil located in the vicinity of the E-Shop/Radio Building TPA 9I Site 17, the land owner and/or operator will be required under 18 AAC 75.300 to notify the Department. Also, any transport or disposal of contaminated soil excavated from the site outside of the “Village Area” requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/9/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Monitoring of the groundwater will be required at the site since soil contamination is present at the site which may impact groundwater. Monitoring wells located in the vicinity of the Duplex Building and Former E-Shop include MW-46-13, MW46-17, MW46-19 and MW46-26, which are located downgradient of the site in addition monitoring well MW46-20 which is located upgradient of the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/3/2004 |
Site Added to Database |
Site duplicated from TPA 09D STP Decomm Power Plant Annx, Reckey 1994250135426. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/11/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA sent a request for NFRAP designation at the site sent to ADEC. ADEC concurred. In accordance with Paragraph 59 of the Two Party Agreement, this is to confirm that all corrective action has been completed at the Duplex Building and E-Shop, TPA Site 9i/Site 24 in accordance with the Agreement and that no plan for further remedial action is warranted.
However, please note that DEC reserves all of its rights under 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 60, and AS 46 to require NOAA to conduct further investigation and/or remedial action if information indicates conditions at the Duplex Building and E-Shop, TPA Site 9i/Site 24 pose a risk to human health, safety and welfare, and of the environment
|
Louis Howard |
| 7/5/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) received a no further remedial action request document on June 20, 2005. Based on a review of the information presented in the document, ADEC concurs that no further remedial action by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is necessary at the following sites:
1)Parcel 6f, which encompasses a duplex and the Former Electrical Shop (also known as the E-Shop), collectively known as Two Party Agreement Site 9i. It was previously referred to as Parcel 7 (housing and Airport Road shop) in the 1984 Transfer of Property Agreement. Lead contamination was detected above cleanup levels in the vicinity of the E-Shop in two locations at a depth of two feet and five feet. Lead was not found in the top one foot of soil at the E-Shop. Petroleum contamination at Parcel 6f is below, or in one sampling location in the vicinity of the E-Shop-just slightly above the alternative cleanup level of 2,500 mg/kg cleanup level for diesel range organics granted for the Village Area. Further removal of contaminated soil in these localized areas was hampered by underground piping and utilities. The site status in our contaminated sites database will be changed to No Further Remedial Action Planned.
Any property transfer documents will need to reflect that residual contamination is present at the property and needs to be managed properly, if exposed in the future. Also, any off-site transport or disposal of contaminated soil excavated from the site requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i). Institutional controls (per 18 AAC 75.375(b)(c) for contaminated soil at Parcel 6f will be required if it is not already included in the “Village Area 10X rule” soil management strategy.
2) The ATCO Building petroleum release, which is located less than 50 feet northeasterly of Parcel 6f boundary on land owned by the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX), appears to be the result of a recent fuel release by a private party. Therefore, ADEC is not requiring any additional characterization or cleanup action by NOAA at this site.
3) The Windmill Wells (associated with the Naval radio station complex) located along the east side of Polovina Turnpike just north of the current St. Paul post office. ADEC will coordinate with the Corps of Engineers (who will most likely work with local entities such as TDX and the City of St. Paul) on securing or decommissioning the wells, which may pose a physical hazard.
ADEC’s decisions described above are based on the most current and complete information provided by NOAA. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
The Critical Water Management Area (CWMA) precludes the use of groundwater from the aquifer within the boundary of the CWMA. The City of St. Paul provides an abundant and clean source of water to the homes and businesses within this area. The monitoring of the water quality in the CWMA will continue into the future, when and if the water quality improves to the point where it can be used, the designated CWMA can be revoked or amended to allow for full or limited use.
The extensive public notice and hearing process required to establish a CWMA resulted in no adverse comments to DNR’s designating the proposed area a CWMA. The establishment of the CWMA will keep current and future landowners with the CWMA from drilling, digging a well or otherwise removing groundwater from the CWMA.
NOAA has the intent and ability to meet the requirements required by ADEC to establishment a 10X rule for contamination clean up in the area of the CWMA . The CWMA establishes an institutional control over the removal of groundwater from the contaminated area, which is required under the 10X rule. This is a benefit to the applicant in that a more intensive and expensive clean up would not be required. The applicant has no need to remove water other than for water quality testing from a series of monitoring wells.
The CWMA establishes an institutional control over the removal of groundwater from the contaminated area, which is required under the 10X rule. This is a benefit to the applicant in that a more intensive and expensive clean up would not be required. The applicant has no need to remove water other than for water quality testing from a series of monitoring wells. The establishment of the CWMA will in no way effect the ability of the public to access navigable or public waters. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/5/2008 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and approved NOAA's Request for Concurrence, Pursuant to Section 120(h)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, for NOAA Site 24/TPA Site 9i – E-Shop/Radio Building and Duplex.
Our staff has checked our contaminated sites, spill response and solid waste program files and databases and reviewed NOAA’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report on these properties. NOAA Site 24/TPA Site 9i – E-Shop/Radio Building and Duplex has residual petroleum contamination beneath the foundations of the buildings and site conditions were such that further excavation was impracticable.
All corrective actions have been taken by NOAA and the properties are suitable for transfer. A notice to the deed indicating that residual petroleum is present beneath the building foundations at the subject property and residual lead contamination is present at depth. The deed should note that in the event the building foundations are removed and the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible at either property, the land owner and/or operator will be required under 18 AAC 75.300 to notify the Department. Also, any transport or disposal of contaminated soil excavated from the sites requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
Based on this information, the Department concurs with NOAA’s determination under Section 120(h)(4) for : St. Paul-NOAA Site 24/TPA Site 9i – E-Shop/Radio Building and Duplex, a.k.a. “E-Shop/Radio Building” and “Duplex Houses 108/109”.
It is our understanding the Department of Commerce will ensure the deed for sale or transfer of the properties will include a covenant warranting the federal government will conduct any future response or corrective action deemed necessary due to previously unidentified contamination that may exist at the time of transfer.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or other contaminated sites issues on the Pribilof Islands, please feel free to contact our project manager, Louis Howard, at (907) 269-7552. |
John Halverson |
| 6/4/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA and ADEC signed the closure letter for St. Paul Island. In accordance with paragraph 59 of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two-Party Agreement or TPA) January 1996 by designated officials of the State of Alaska and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA requested Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), as the duly authorized representative of the State of Alaska, certify NOAA’s completion of corrective action for the St. Paul Island Operable Unit (OU).
As of June 4, 2007, the E-Shop/Radio Building and Duplex Site 9i has contaminated soil associated with either a UST/AST/Pipeleine.
Site conditions: Residual lead soil 2 ft.+ bgs point of compliance along the southeast side of the Duplex (see Site 60 below) and 5 ft+ along eastside of E-Shop; residual soil contaminated with DRO remains along the northwest corner of the E-Shop, and extends beneath the road and near electric and sewer lines. DRO above 10x Rule criterion remains along the northwest corner of the Duplex; additional removal is hindered by electric, water, telephone and sewer trunk and service lines. DRO above 10x Rule criterion remains along a water line approx. 15 ft. from the northeast section of the E-Shop at 5 ft. bgs; deed notice.
Also the Duplex is part of the Lead Contaminated Soils NOAA Site 60. Lead-based paint abated; the Duplex property (parcel 6f) has residual lead soil remaining along southeast end of building 2ft+ bgs point of compliance; deed notice to future landowner of the Duplex; other two locations (Teacher House 101 and Teacher House 103) clean closed.
Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. Site is within the Critical Water Management Area (CWMA). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73116 name: auto-generated pm edit TPA 09I STP E-Shop/Radio Building |
Louis Howard |
| 12/1/2014 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the quitclaim deed.
ADEC does not review and approve the whole quit claim deed (QCD) – that’s NOAA’s responsibility, not ADEC’s. ADEC is just reviewing and approving items such as the need for our institutional controls (ICs).
Show the following on Enclosures E-1 Sampling Location Map and E-3 Confirmation Sampling Results and Excavation Extents: the depths of soil samples that contain elevated contaminant concentrations.
If this is not possible, then NOAA will either generate new figures with this information or describe in detail in the text (and a table) on the depths soil samples that contain elevated contaminant concentrations by contaminant, location, depth. This information may also be presented in a table.
|
Louis Howard |
| 5/24/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the 2016 GW monitoring annual report. Main comments were regarding the notification that there is no more 10X rule cleanup levels and for cleanup complete determination-groundwater must meet the current table C cleanup levels and soil must meet the human health cleanup levels and not 10X cleanup levels. Closure with institutional controls may be appropriate for those sites with groundwater plumes that are demonstrated to be stable or decreasing.
Finally, staff requested that NOAA evaluate for the vapor intrusion pathway within 30' of groundwater wells which exceed the ADEC VI Guidance residential and/or commercial target levels in groundwater.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/24/2017 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft 2014 St. Paul Groundwater Monitoring Annual Report, St. Paul Island, Alaska dated September 2015. ADEC will approve the report with one exception. ADEC does not concur on the removal of monitoring data from historical dataset at well MW46-10. The data is valid and representative and will stay in for future trend and statistical analysis.
See site file for additional information. |
Louis Howard |
