| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/31/1949 |
Update or Other Action |
Operations of Byproducts plant (Former Sealing Plan in Tract 46 (TPA 9 STP)) 1949 report by Clarence O. Olsen General Manager. Most notable is the fact that the 1949 season marked the first complete operation of all byproducts plan machinery since the last expansion program began five years ago. Preseason work consisted principally of re-tubing two old boilers and erecting new smoke stacks. New electrical wiring was installed and two unsuitable TRANSFORMERS (PCB oil in them most likely) were replaced with new ones of correct voltage impedance. PCBs are a class of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. They are entirely man-made and do not occur naturally. They were first manufactured commercially in 1929 by Monsanto, their sole U.S. manufacturer. They were used in many different types of products including hydraulic fluid, casting wax, pigments, carbonless copy paper, plasticizer, vacuum pumps, compressors, heat transfer systems and others. Their primary use, however, was as a dielectric fluid in electrical equipment. Because of their stability and resistance to thermal breakdown as well as their insulating properties they were the fluid of choice for transformers and capacitors. As a matter of fact, because of their fire resistance, they were required by some fire codes. No mention in the report is what ever happened to the transformers that were found to be "unsuitable". |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/10/1951 |
Update or Other Action |
Clarence L. Olson report letter on Steel Tanks Byproducts to Chief, Branch of Alaska Fisheries Washington D.C. and General Manager Seattle WA regarding bad condition of seal oil storage tanks and diesel oil storage tanks. Seal oil tanks are wood stave of 10,000-gallon capacity and the diesel tanks are steel of 1,000-gallon size. Old wooden tanks have developed leaks last season (1950) that could not be repaired successfully and it was decided to replace them with steel tanks of the same capacity. The 1,000-gallon steel tanks have become leaky due to rust over a long period. The tanks requiring replacement have been in service at the Pribilof Islands for 20 to 30 years (1921 or 1931). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/31/1952 |
Update or Other Action |
Report of operation of byproducts plant in Tract 46 TPA 9 STP. Six 10,000 gallon tanks were installed to replace the leaking tanks at the processing facility. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 |
Update or Other Action |
Preliminary Assessment 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 and 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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 8/2/1995 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SA2R - Phase II SA Review (CS)). Approved an Environmental Site Assessment. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/2/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = RECN - Site Reconnaissance (CS)). Extensive investigation. 9000 cubic yards of contaminated soil stockpiled from diesel seep. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/2/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = TAS - Treatment Alternative Study (CS)). Extensive investigation. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/15/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Final management plan for Expanded Site Inspections received. Plan covered Tract 41 (a.k.a. Tract 46) which is composed of 5 subareas: active power plant, former power plant, former gasoline/diesel drum storage area, former AST location (saddles), former kerosene AST location, Demolished Diesel Tank Farm, Lukanin Bay Debris Site, NMFS Landfill site. Field laboratory will run Petroleum hydrocarbons (Method 8015 modified), PCB (Method 8080), BTEX using a PhotoVac , PAHs using a immunoassay kit. Confirmation sampling and analysis to support the field lab results submitted to the project lab on the rate of 1 per test pit, approximately 25% or more of the surface soil samples (site specific). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/2/1996 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranked by Shannon and Wilson. |
S&W |
| 6/30/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Draft Expanded site investigation received. Former AST saddles subarea located on east edge of Short Street. 80' south of Municipal Garage and machine shop. Up to 28,000 mg/kg of DRO was detected in hand auger borings HA-11, HA-12 and HA-13 installed within the footprint of the AST saddles and in test pit TP-24. Lead was detected at 1,400 mg/kg in HA-13/S-1. Total volume of contaminated soil for exceeding category C ranges from 910 to 1,950 cubic yards. Basalt refusal was encountered in all borings at 3.5'. Hart Crowser recommendations were for excavation and removal of accessible soils down to category C cleanup criteria down the basalt. This should address the lead contamination detected at HA-13/S-1 at 1,400 mg/kg. No removal actions would occur along the vegetated portions of the steep hillside (including most of the area between the 60' contour line and the AST saddles) or beneath the shed located adjacent to test pit TP-24. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/6/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Tract 41 (St Paul) is inclusive of several sites to include Fire station gas pump and former power plant. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 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 |
| 2/27/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Lynne Bush letter to Minh Trinh re: UST Closure Site Assessment reports. Old Gas Station Facility ID #3048 Tanks 1 and 2. One (1) 3,000 gallons diesel UST located to the south of the old gas station and one (1) 3,600 gallon gasoline UST located to the east, were removed from the ground on June 28, 1997. Sample results taken after 500 cubic yards of PCS was removed from the excavation indicate that contamination remains under both former USTs and beneath the dispenser area. The cleanup matrix score generated for both of these UST systems Level A is correct.
The final sampling results from the 3,600 gallons UST has elevated levels of benzene (14-23 mg/kg), total BTEX (774-2,152 mg/kg), DRO (4,900 mg/kg to 15,000 mg/kg) and GRO (3,600 mg/kg to 5,600 mg/kg). Lead content was not analyzed. These samples were taken at approximately nine feet below ground surface, within two feet of the depth where groundwater was encountered. Samples from the 3,000 gallon UST show levels of contamination still remain: benzene (1.2 mg/kg to 4.0 mg/kg), total BTEX (13.56 mg/kg to 15.5 mg/kg), DRO (230 mg/kg to 440 mg/kg), GRO (150-260 mg/kg) and lead (38 mg/kg to 280 mg/kg).
Old Power Plant Area Facility ID #3048 Tank 4. Diesel contamination remains in the soil in the area near this former UST, closed in place with Department approval on June 23, 1997. Levels of diesel contamination of 7,400 mg/kg remain in place in that location. It is the understanding of the Department that this tank will be removed from the ground and a closure site assessment performed when the overlying structure is demolished. As with the other UST systems reviewed in this letter, further release investigation and corrective action will be necessary.
Old Machine Shop South facility id # 3048 tanks 5 and 6. Two (2) 8000 gallon diesel USTs , located south of the old machine shop, were removed June 18, 1997. Petroleum contamination remains after removal of tanks and piping from the site: BTEX (5 mg/kg to 27.47 mg/kg) and DRO (4,600 mg/kg to 18,000 mg/kg).
Old Machine Shop Facility ID# 3048 Tank 7. One (1) 300 gallon gasoline UST used to service an old fuel station was removed from the ground on July 14, 1997. Because the entire UST system should be included in the site assessment, not just the tank itself, further investigation to locate the former piping runs and dispensers should be scheduled as the next phase of the project. If the ancillary equipment extended beyond the limits of the site assessment, further investigation may be necessary. Also depth to groundwater in this area is not recorded in the report. If groundwater or the seasonal high water table is known or suspected to exist at a depth within five feet below the bottom of the tank, one soil sample should be collected from the first six inches of the saturated zone. Please determine the depth of groundwater below the ground surface. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/30/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Investigation Workplan received. Data quality objectives: Initial sampling round will try to determine if Tract 41 can be closed. Plan is to collect soil samples from up to 3 borings per site, install monitoring wells, and collect groundwater samples from each well. Comments in document: sampling is limited to one soil sample from the most contaminated interval and one groundwater sample at each boring/well, PCB analysis at only one well. Analyses: GRO, BTEX, DRO, RRO, PAH, RCRA metals, for all 3 wells, PCBs for 1 well. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/29/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Letter to Minh Trinh NOAA re: request to close UST sites in Tract 41 Area. August 27, 1998 letter from NOAA requested closure of UST sites in Tract 41 area. None of the seven (7) USTs identified on St. Paul Island qualifies for No Further Action and may require additional investigation or corrective action. Per 18 AAC 78, “closure” of an underground storage tank is defined thus: 18 AAC 78.995(19) “close” has the meaning given that term in AS 46.03.375(g)(1); AS 46.03.375(g)(1) “close” means to remove petroleum and sludges from the tanks in the tank system and either fill the tanks with inert solid material or remove, dismantle, and dispose of the tanks”;
18 AAC 78.085(c) To permanently close a tank, the owner or operator shall empty and clean it by removing all liquids and accumulated sludge. A UST that is to be closed must be removed from the ground, along with all associated piping, or filled with an inert solid material. A UST with a known or past release must be removed from the ground unless the department, in its discretion, allows the tank to remain in place because removal of the tank would endanger existing structures. The resulting excavation must be investigated and cleaned up as required by 18 AAC 78.230 – 18 AAC 78.350. The owner or operator shall document the name of the disposal method, and the disposal location for all liquids, sludges, and UST components, including tanks, piping, and equipment.” 18 AAC 78.090(a) When performing permanent closure or a change-in-service, the owner or operator shall complete a site characterization and, depending on the results of the site characterization, perform a site assessment or release investigation.”
Under these definitions, not all the tanks within Tract 41 meet the definition of “closed”. Rather than reiterate the contents, I enclose a copy of the February 27, 1998 letter to re-familiarize you with the specific data gaps. NOAA is obliged to continue investigating the release and to perform corrective actions, as deemed necessary by the Department. Per regulations, site characterizations and assessments were performed during tank removal activities and the releases were reported in a timely manner.
However, the required release investigations for these sites have not taken place. 18 AAC 78.235(g) requires submittal of a release investigation report within 45 days of the date the confirmed release was reported to the Department. This has not occurred. 18 AAC 78.240 requires an interim corrective action report informing the department of the status of the cleanup actions within 60 days after the date of release confirmation. This has not occurred. Your agency is seriously behind schedule.
Due to the nature and scope of the work to be performed on both St. George and St. Paul Islands, the Department has thus far chosen to be lenient when enforcing deadlines, including those set forth in regulation and the Two-Party Agreement. We recognize the need to prioritize work and to set reasonable milestones and it is our intention to work in conjunction with NOAA and representatives of both islands to achieve acceptable levels of cleanup and to do so within schedules that consider the needs of all parties. Unfortunately, NOAA has missed an entire field season in which they might have accomplished these goals.
For additional information see site file. |
Lynne Bush |
| 12/24/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
UST removal and closure report received. Sample 8KnF had 16,000 mg/kg DRO and 27.47 mg/kg total BTEX. 2 8,000-gallon single-walled USTs and 30' of piping removed. Limits of backhoe reached in excavation with soils still observed with high petroleum contamination. Sample 8KNC had 20.01 total BTEX and 15,000 mg/kg. Both 8KNC and 8KNF were from the Northern Tank closest to the old machine shop. Line between USTs and old machine shop sample "Line A" had 18,000 mg/kg DRO. This particular sample was from a pipeline stub-out to supply a former boiler in the machine shop. No groundwater encountered from surface to bedrock at 18'. Stockpiled soil moved to seven miles north near quarry site on Polovina Hill. |
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 |
| 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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 6/4/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on the draft cleanout report for the machine shop. The text states only one report is available regarding this property: Saint Paul Island Building Inspection Report, July 19-21, 2000. ADEC disagrees. 1997 UST removal and closure report (Bristol Environmental Services Corporation-BESC 1997 project # 7029FG-00 September 24, 1997) show a release has occurred at the site. Please refer to ADEC comment letter dated February 27, 1998 subject: Review of UST Closure Site Assessment Reports (see attached). The letter clearly states at Facility ID 3048, diesel Tanks 5 and 6 had substantial diesel range organics (DRO) contamination remaining in place after removal. The closure report lists sample 8KnF had 16,000 mg/kg DRO and 27.47 mg/kg total BTEX. Two 8,000-gallon single walled USTs and 30' of piping were removed.
Apparently the limits of backhoe were reached in the excavation with soils still observed with high petroleum contamination (BESC 1997 Page 4 Discussion). Sample 8KNC had 20.01 total BTEX and 15,000 mg/kg DRO. Both 8KNC and 8KNF were from the Northern Tank closest to the old machine shop. Line between USTs and old machine shop sample "Line A" had 18,000 mg/kg DRO (BESC 1997 Table 1). This particular sample was from a pipeline stubout to supply a former boiler in the machine shop. No groundwater encountered from surface to bedrock at 18'. Stockpiled soil was moved to seven miles north near quarry site on Polovina Hill.
ADEC cannot grant a no further action determination until NOAA provides further information which shows the site was adequately characterized to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination, the contamination was successfully remediated and no additional contamination remains at the site above Category “B” criteria (see BESC report appendix D). |
Louis Howard |
| 6/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on the draft demolition report for the power plant annex TPA 9b. The document states that there were no previous assessment reports or environmental data available were reported to exist for this site. ADEC disagrees and refers the contractor to look at the following: EPA Preliminary Site Assessment (1992), Corps of Engineers Preliminary Assessment (1993), Hart Crowser (HC) Expanded Site Inspection (1996). The HC document lists Tract 41 (now Tract 46) at the former power plant contaminated with diesel range organics (DRO) at a maximum concentration of 4,100 mg/kg, residual range organics (RRO) at 3,100 mg/kg, and estimated volume of soil exceeding level B criteria at 170 cubic yards. Recommendations listed in the report for the inactive power plant were to excavate and remove "accessible" soil. Level B cleanup criteria for DRO is 200 mg/kg and RRO is 2,000 mg/kg.
ADEC requests NOAA provide documentation showing the contaminated soils listed in the HC document were removed and remediated to at least level B criteria. If NOAA can document the soils were properly remediated and disposed of, then ADEC may consider granting a no further action decision for this site as proposed in section 7.0 of the demolition report. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/11/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 5/20/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft corrective action plan for the Old Movie Theater in Tract 46. The Department will require analyses for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) be included in the laboratory analyses proposed in this section. This requirement is based on the UST Procedure Manual: Table 2 Determination of Sampling and Laboratory Analysis for Soil(S) and Groundwater(GW). Additionally, 18 AAC 75 Table A1 Method One requires: “…a responsible person shall ensure that the site meets the most stringent standards for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes for the applicable exposure pathway in Table B1 in (c) of this section.”
If NOAA cannot demonstrate that diesel#1/arctic diesel was not used, stored or released at the site, then NOAA must analyze for gasoline range organics. Analyses for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons will not be required by the Department since NOAA is choosing to implement Method One for soil cleanup levels. Pending inclusion of the additional analyses requested by the Department, the Department will consider the revised corrective action plan approved when submitted.
The Department’s review and concurrence on the document is to ensure the proposed work is in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While the Department may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on the corrective action plan does not relieve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
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 |
| 5/31/2002 |
350 Determination |
18 AAC 75.350 determination granted by ADEC. TPA Site 9, also known as Tract 46, has 16 distinct soil-contaminated sites identified by investigations subsequent to the signing of the TPA. TPA 9 sites & TPA 12 are covered by the determination. The GW 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, & electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the Tract 46 area. The GW is not currently used for drinking water & there is no anticipated future use of GW 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 GW 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. See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 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 |
| 4/20/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) received the draft UST removal and corrective action report for TPA site 9H Former Alaska Dormitory on April 9, 2003. The Department has the following comments regarding the document.
Table 1 Page 3
The footnote for Table 1 states that alternate cleanup levels based on the ten times (10X) rule may be used. This statement is correct, however the Department wishes to inform NOAA that with the use of the 10X Rule to establish alternative cleanup levels, the following conditions are still applicable:
- free product will be recovered to the extent practicable in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(f)(B) or 18 AAC 78.240(b)(2);
- surface water and sediment must meet 18 AAC 70 water quality standards;
- any required groundwater monitoring will be conducted as required by 18 AAC 75.345;
- institutional controls as required by 18 AAC 75.375 (a) will be attached to the property.
Unless otherwise approved by the Department, NOAA shall conduct monitoring quarterly for at least one year to establish the concentration trend. The Department will evaluate the monitoring program yearly. If the monitoring indicates that the concentration trend
(1) is increasing, the Department will require additional follow-up monitoring and assess the need for additional cleanup; or
(2) is stable or decreasing, and that hazardous substance migration is not occurring, the Department will decrease or discontinue the monitoring frequency and locations, if NOAA demonstrates that continued monitoring is not necessary to ensure protection of human health, safety, and welfare, and of the environment.
Groundwater monitoring wells must be installed, developed, and decommissioned in accordance with the Department's Recommended Practices for Monitoring Well Design,
Installation, and Decommissioning, April 1992, adopted by reference, or another approved method that is protective of human health, safety, and welfare, and of the environment.
NOAA has yet to finalize institutional controls for the 10X rule determination granted by the Department on May 30, 2002 for the area generically referred to as “Tract 46” which includes this site. The Department requests NOAA provide documentation, under a separate cover letter, that it is making progress to obtaining and implementing institutional controls that will limit or prohibit access to the groundwater for use as drinking water or other purposes.
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.
Additionally, NOAA must also document that, in the future, the contaminated soils which are present (above 10X rule concentrations) will be handled and disposed of in accordance with 18 AAC 75.370 “Soil Storage and Disposal”.
The text states that all accessible contaminated soils were removed from the Former Alaska Dormitory excavation site. The Department concurs and has determined, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(f)(1), that soil cleanup has been performed to the maximum extent practicable even though residual diesel range organics exists below the existing building and water table. No additional cleanup for the soils are necessary at this site unless information becomes available that indicates to the Department that the site may pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, welfare or the environment. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/4/2004 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Based on our review of the document, the Department finds the residual contamination remaining at Tract A House 102 Site 54/Two-Party Agreement Site 9R, does not pose a significant threat to human health or safety, or the environment. NOAA has removed, to the maximum extent practicable, the majority of the source of petroleum contamination by excavating to 18 feet below ground surface (bgs). Additional excavation is complicated by the presence of utilities, worker safety digging beyond 18 feet bgs, nearby building foundations. The Department has, therefore, determined that no further remedial action is required for this site which is equivalent to certification by the Department that corrective action is complete under TPA section 59 Closure of Sites of Operable Units. However, the Department is requesting NOAA identify the closest monitoring wells adjacent to this site that may be used for groundwater monitoring of the diesel range organics above cleanup levels found in samples SP54-CS-008-180 and SP54-CS-002-030.
It states: “… NOAA may request from ADEC written confirmation that all corrective action has been completed at a site(s) or operable unit(s) in accordance with this Agreement. Within thirty (30) Days of its receipt of such request, ADEC shall: (1) provide written confirmation that no further corrective action is required at the subject site(s) or operable unit(s). ADEC shall not deny certification that corrective action is complete at any site(s) or operable unit(s) solely on the basis that post-remedial measures, such as monitoring, shall remain in place for a period of months or years.”
In the event that the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible by the removal of the buried utilities, homes, building foundations, or adjacent churchyard, or other information becomes available which indicates that the site may pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, welfare or the environment, 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 requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
The Department reserves all of its rights, under AS 46.03 and 18 AAC 75 to require NOAA to conduct additional site assessment, remediation, and/or other necessary actions at TPA 9r if information becomes available that contamination is found at this site which is poses a risk to human health or safety, welfare, or the environment.
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)). |
Louis Howard |
| 5/4/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Part of the 10X rule area where ongoing groundwater monitoring will be required. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/4/2004 |
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 Tract A Lot 102 TPA 9R, 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 |
| 12/3/2004 |
Site Added to Database |
Site duplicated from TPA 09D STP Decomm Power Plant Annx, Reckey 1994250135426. |
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 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC 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 53/TPA Site 9q – Tract A Lot 101, NOAA Site 54/TPA Site 9r – Tract A Lot 102 and Site 55/TPA Site 9s – Tract A Lot 103.
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 reports on these properties. We found no record of oil or hazardous substance contamination known to currently exist on the last property.
However, the first two properties, Site 53/TPA Site 9q – Tract A Lot 101 and Site 54/TPA Site 9r – Tract A Lot 102 have 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 property is suitable for transfer. A notice to the deed indicating that residual petroleum contamination is present beneath the building foundation on the subject properties. The deed should note that in the event the building foundations are removed and the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible, 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 require 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 53/TPA Site 9q – Tract A Lot 101, NOAA Site 54/TPA Site 9r – Tract A Lot 102 and Site 55/TPA Site 9s – Tract A Lot 103.
It is our understanding the Department of Commerce will ensure the deed for sale or transfer of the property 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, Tract A Lot 102 Site 9r has contamination associated with either a UST/AST/Pipeline.
Site conditions:Residual soil contaminated with DRO remains beneath the building and beyond practical limits of removal; deed notice.
Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73123 name: auto-generated pm edit TPA 09R STP Tract A Lot 102 |
Louis Howard |
