| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 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).
No visible evidence of stressed vegetation or soil staining was present. No evidence of surface contamination was present and no underground sources of contamination are suspected. |
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 |
| 10/19/1993 |
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 |
| 6/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
Possible diesel contamination. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/3/1996 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranked by Shannon and Wilson. |
S&W |
| 3/9/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
May 1997 Aleutian Enterprises Workplan for environmental sampling during removal action at the site received. Soil samples for VOCs, SVOCs, Organic PCBs, Pesticides, Metals, TPH, GRO/BTEX, DRO, RRO, were included in the plan. However, in the NOAA scope there were no provisions for laboratory analysis, or site characterization since it mainly focused on debris removal. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/19/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
1997 Aleutian Enterprises JV Close Out report received. Two Fairbanks-Morse pumps were removed from the site. No mention of any attempts made to field screen for contaminated soils nor were any soil samples taken to confirm the presence or absence of contamination. |
Louis Howard |
| 8/23/1999 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Comments sent to be incorporated into TPA 6's closure confirmation sampling plan. |
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. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received to prevent recurring stipulated penalties. Site characterization report to be reviewed and commented on by ADEC on 2/29/2000. |
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 |
| 4/11/2001 |
Site Closure Approved |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the above document on March 20, 2001. Based on a review of the data presented in the report, ADEC concurs with the conclusion in section 7.0 that no further action is required at the site known as the Pumphouse Lake.
However, if in the future, additional contamination is discovered at this site, further investigation and/or remedial actions will be requested of NOAA by ADEC. ADEC reserves its rights, under 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control regulations and AS 46.03 to require NOAA to conduct additional assessment and/or corrective actions, if information indicates the site conditions pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment. |
Louis Howard |
