| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 12/30/1984 |
Update or Other Action |
According to the "Transfer of Property Agreement" signed in 1984, the United States agrees to convey the certain real properties on St. Paul Island, Alaska to the local and state entitites. These entities agree to accept all right, title, and interest to the real property.
Table 1 Conveyance of Real Property on St. Paul Island, Alaska According to the 1984 Transfer of Property Agreement:Diesel Tank Farm (Parcel 8), Accepting Entity-TDX, Conditions-TDX and City shall agree to allocation of sufficient diesel fuel storage capacity to meet City's needs. |
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).
Located on the hill on the west side of the city of Saint Paul until 1988 when tanks were reconditioned and moved to the city's new diesel tank farm. Site included six 80,000 gallon and one 127,000 gallon ASTs. Pipelines connected the tank farm to UST Numbers 5 and 6 and the POL Pumphouse but were purged in 1988. City of Saint Paul residents reported that a spill had occurred and flowed down the hill to the ocean resulting in a fish kill on the harbor beach below the tank farm (D and M 1992). TDX's consultant dug a test pit near the site and collected 3 samples from different depths in the pit. samples ranged from 9,210 ppm and 6,810 ppm in the 1-2 feet range and 3,850 ppm and 3,530 TEPH in the 4.5 feet range. NO TEPH was detected at 11.5 feet and only 10.7 ppm TRPH was detected at this depth. Recommendation: to determine if diesel contamination is present in the soils. |
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 |
CERCLA SI |
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).
RCRA ID AK0131490021 CESQG CERCLIS EPA ID AKD98306612-St. Paul Island and CERCLIS ID AK0131490021 USDOC NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service NFRAP. 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 accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation will NOT relieve NOAA 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.
NOTE To file: SEC. 120. FEDERAL FACILITIES.(a) APPLICATION OF ACT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States (including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government) shall be subject to, and comply with, this Act in the same manner and to the same extent, both procedurally and substantively, as any nongovernmental entity, including liability under section 107 of this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any person or entity under sections 106 and 107.
(2) APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO FEDERAL FACILITIES.—
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria which are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this Act for facilities at which hazardous substances are located,
applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions at such facilities
shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines,
rules, regulations, and criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria which are inconsistent with the guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this Act.
(3) EXCEPTIONS.—This subsection shall not apply to the extent otherwise provided in this section with respect to applicable time periods. This subsection shall also not apply to any requirements relating to bonding, insurance, or financial responsibility. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require a State to comply with section 104(c)(3) in the case of a facility
which is owned or operated by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
(4) STATE LAWS.—State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or facilities that are the subject of a deferral under subsection (h)(3)(C) when such facilities are not included
on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than
the standards and requirements applicable to facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality.
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
DRO and RRO. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/2/1995 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SA2R - Phase II SA Review (CS)). Approved an Environmental Site Assessment. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/11/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Initial ranking. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 6/30/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Draft Expanded Site Investigation received. At sampling point, TP-2 diesel range organics (DRO) contamination at surface was 20,800 mg/kg and 4.5' was 15,800 mg/kg. Sampling was a limited to 10' due to reach of backhoe in excavation. TP-5 at 10' depth had 10,000 mg/kg DRO. Volume of soil was estimated to be between 4,500 to 9,600 cubic yards. Consultant recommended in-situ bioventing for the soil contamination below Level C cleanup criteria based on the depth of soil at the site and the nature of diesel fuel. |
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 |
ADEC (L. Dietrick) Director of SPAR sent a letter to Mr. John Lindsay Pribilof Project Manager NOAA, OR&R, Bldg. 4 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115: 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 TPA 11's final site characterization plan 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. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Naming nomenclature from Two Party Agreement adopted, site information updated in database to reflect this. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received. ADEC to receive draft site characterization report on 2/29/2000 from NOAA. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/23/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on draft site characterization report for site. ADEC does not concur with recommendations to dig two feet down and fill with clean fill. Diesel range organic contamination is above: migration to groundwater level, level "C" criteria under method one, 10x DRO levels under method two, and in some cases above maximum allowable levels for DRO. Recommend NOAA calculate site specific levels for DRO under method three for industrial land use or a method four risk assessment. Groundwater must be demonstrated per 18 AAC 75.350 and 18 AAC 345 that it is not a drinking water source. Staff also clarified that 15 feet is the depth that NOAA must consider for subsurface contaminants for ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/7/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the work plan for remediation of PCS soil on Saint Paul Island using enhanced thermal conduction (ETC) system for various stockpiles of petroleum soil on the island. The system is identical to the one being used for Saint George PCS soils. Staff requested all soil be treated without screening out the oversized material such as scoria. If NOAA proposes to screen out the oversized material (i.e. greater than two inches in size), then NOAA must demonstrate that the material is indeed impervious to petroleum constituents. Staff also requested no less than 28 field screening soil samples be taken for the purposes of identifying 7 confirmation soil samples that will be analyzed for a 600 cubic yard soil cell. Staff requested NOAA identify what the specifications are for the liner that will be underneath each treatment cell during operations. Finally, staff requested that the samples be from ? the bottom of the soil treatment cell, but above the original base layer of clean material after the treatment cell has cooled down sufficiently, from the middle of the treatment cell (i.e. if cell is six feet in height, then sample from a midpoint depth of three feet), and the furthest point(s) from each hot air injection manifold and/or piping, but no closer than 18 inches from the surface of the stockpile. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/11/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed response to ADEC comments and concurred with NOAA's response to comment letter on PCS remediation. |
Louis Howard |
| 7/25/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff requested all of NOAA's budget requests made to congress since the agreement was signed in 1996 by both ADEC and NOAA for the environmental cleanup at the Pribilofs. It has come to DEC's attention that NOAA did not make a formal request for funding to Department of Commerce for FY 01 and possibly FY02 (federal fiscal years). This is not in compliance with the TPA which requires NOAA to request adequate funding to meet its obligations under the TPA. NOAA was counting on the U.S. congressional delegation to fund 12 million dollars as a special appropriation for the Pribilofs. The appropriation was much less-3 million dollars for October 2000 to September 2001. Deadline for NOAA to provide a written response was no later than August 18th. |
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 |
Update or Other Action |
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 |
| 6/17/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and approved the draft corrective action plan for TPA site 11 as submitted. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/7/2004 |
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 Demolished Diesel Tank Farm TPA 11, 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).
|
Louis Howard |
| 10/7/2004 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
The Department has, therefore, determined that a no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) designation is appropriate for the soil at this site. This determination is equivalent to certification by the Department that corrective action is complete as stated by TPA section 59 Closure of Sites of Operable Units.
TPA Section 59 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, 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 prior approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
The Department is requesting NOAA begin, if it has not already, periodic groundwater sampling of the monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Former Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 11. The wells which have been identified are: MW46-1, MW46-29, MW46-21, and MW46-22. Groundwater was stated in the document as being addressed in a separate action.
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 Site 11 if information becomes available that contamination is found at this site which poses a risk to human health or safety, welfare, or the environment. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/7/2004 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) received the : Draft Corrective Action Report Site 30/Two Party Agreement Site 11 Former Diesel Tank Farm St. Paul Island dated September 30, 2004, on October 5, 2004. Based on our review of the document and the data provided by NOAA, the Department finds the residual contamination remaining at Site 30/Two-Party Agreement (TPA) Site 11, does not pose a significant threat to human health or safety, or the environment. NOAA has removed 6,550 cubic yards of contaminated soil which served as the primary source of contamination for this site to the maximum extent practicable. Excavation was limited by the presence of: large boulders which caused refusal, a 10-inch-diameter water main and Rim Rock Drive. The Department has, therefore, determined that a no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) designation is appropriate for the soil at this site. This determination is equivalent to certification by the Department that corrective action is complete as stated by TPA section 59 Closure of Sites of Operable Units.
TPA Section 59 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, 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 prior approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
The Department is requesting NOAA begin, if it has not already, periodic groundwater sampling of the monitoring wells in the vicinity of the Former Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 11. The wells which have been identified are: MW46-1, MW46-29, MW46-21, and MW46-22. Groundwater was stated in the document as being addressed in a separate action. 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 Site 11 if information becomes available that contamination is found at Former Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 30/TPA Site 11 which 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.
|
Louis Howard |
| 11/4/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA sent a request for NFRAP designation at the Former Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 11/Site 30. 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 Decommissioned Power Plant Annex, TPA Site 9d/Site 19 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 78, and AS 46 to require NOAA to conduct further investigation and/or remedial action if information indicates conditions at the Former Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 11/Site 30 pose a risk to human health, safety and welfare, and of the environment.
|
Louis Howard |
| 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 Diesel Tank Farm TPA Site 11 has site conditions as follows: Residual soil DRO remains beyond practical limits of excavation, near a water main, and beneath the road; deed notice.
Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/21/2009 |
Update or Other Action |
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has performed site characterization and
restoration on St. Paul Island, Pribilof Islands, Alaska and monitored groundwater for diesel
range organics, gasoline range organics, volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds, metals, and total dissolved solids at monitoring wells located at multiple sites.
Contaminants of concern and representative wells were chosen for long-term monitoring at five
sites, which include the City of St. Paul, Icehouse Lake, the Diesel Seep near Salt Lagoon, the St. Paul Municipal Landfill, and the National Weather Service Station Landspreading Area/Oil
Drum Dump Site.
Starting in June 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office began long-term groundwater monitoring on a semi-annual basis and contracted Bethel Services, Inc. to continue groundwater monitoring beginning in May 2008. Sampling scheduled for May 2009 did not take place until June 2009 due to fuel shortages on the island. After obtaining concurrence from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), NOAA directed that six of the 36 monitoring wells be dropped from the program beginning in the spring of 2009; therefore, 30 groundwater monitoring wells located at four sites (City of St. Paul, Icehouse Lake, the Diesel Seep near Salt Lagoon, and the St. Paul Municipal Landfill) were sampled in June 2009.
BSI completed groundwater monitoring of the subject monitoring wells between June 9 and June
15, 2009. Presented in this report are the results of the June 2009 St. Paul monitoring well
sampling event. Nine wells sampled in June 2009 were found to have contaminants in
concentrations exceeding ADEC cleanup levels.
Mann-Kendall statistical methods were used to evaluate contaminant trends at 22 of the 30 wells
sampled for a total of 45 calculated trends. The analyses incorporated available data from
October 2003 to Jun 2009. Of the 45 contaminant concentration trends analyzed, nine met data
quality requirements and are useable for the purposes of this report. All other trends had less than a 95% level of confidence, and therefore did not meet the data quality objective (DQO) of a 95% confidence level or greater. The nine trends meeting DQO criteria showed DRO concentrations trending upward at monitoring wells MW46-6 and MWA-3 and downward at monitoring wells MW46-14 and MWIHL-4. The trends showed benzene concentrations trending downward at
MW46-5, MW46-6, and MW46-28; total lead concentrations trending downward at MWSNPLF-1; and ethylbenzene concentrations trending downward at monitoring well MW46-5.
Additional sampling and analysis will further verify the contaminant trends presented in this
report. Factors influencing groundwater contaminant concentrations such as water table
variations as related to seasonal changes and sampling location relative to the water table were
neglected in the statistical analysis owing to lack of data availability. Though some wells had
contaminant concentrations above ADEC cleanup levels these particular wells have historically
been contaminated above the cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73145 name: auto-generated pm edit TPA 11 STP Demo. Diesel Tnk Farm |
Louis Howard |
