| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 6/3/1965 |
Update or Other Action |
1965 Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Coast Guard - Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now the National Marine Fisheries Service).
Whereas, the USCG continues to operate a LORAN station on Saint Paul Island in accordance with a DOD requirement, and further in accordance with the agreement previously entered into between the USCG and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF). *NOTE: Date of previous agreement is not known.
It is hereby agreed as follows: this agreement abrogates and supersedes the previous agreement above noted; this document represents the entire agreement between the parties.
The U.S. Coast Guard shall continue to occupy the TELEGRAPH HILL site for operation of a LORAN Station until such time as the station becomes no longer essential to the Defense Program; pre-existing metes and bounds description, boundaries, and Petroleum Oils and Lubricants (POL) pipeline continue as specified on USCG headquarters drawing number 107250, which drawing is incorporated herein by reference.
That USCG personnel shall have access to such other areas on the island for operational and recreational use as is not inconsistent with the DOI regulations relating to the administration of the Pribilof Islands and protection of the seal herds, and such other rules and regulations of like regard lawfully promulgated by the Island Manager.
That facilities and equipment of both the USCG and the BCF shall be used for the mutual advantage and benefit of both to an extent practicable and agreed upon by Commanding Officer, LORAN Station, Saint Paul and the Island Manager.
The USCG shall operate and maintain the Saint Paul radio beacon.
The USCG shall provide power for the operation of the airstrip and apron lights and beacon as necessary.
The USCG shall provide portable emergency fire fighting equipment for the landing and take off of aircraft.
Agreement shall be effective when executed by the Commandant USCG and the Director BCF or their duly authorized representatives. Signed May 13, 1965 P.E. Trimble Rear Admiral USCG Chief of Staff and June 3, 1965 Acting Director Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/22/1976 |
Update or Other Action |
Memorandum of Understanding among: TDX, TANAQ, and USDOC NOAA NMFS regarding Pribilof Islands Land Selections. Negotiations undertaken by the parties to resolve potential conflicts between village corporation and federal land selections on the Pribilof Islands under the ANSCA were successfully concluded during a third meeting held on St. George Island in June 1974. The Parties desired to record the items agreed upon during this meeting and during the two previous negotiating sessions held on St. Paul Island in April 1974 and in Seattle WA in February 1974.
The parties intend that this record of agreed items serve as a permanent background against which to compare and construe the land selection requests made by the parties to the BLM, Dept. of Interior, pursuant to the ANSCA.
Joint Use Areas. Areas not shown on Exhibits. Further areas not shown on the attached exhibits which are available for selection by the appropriate Village Corporation, but subject to joint management (category 3 of paragraph 1b above) are as follows: 1) Polovina/Big Lake "Vehicle Boneyard" (Truck Dump)-St. Paul, Scoria Pits. The Telegraph Hill, Polovina and Lake Hills Borrow (scoria) pits on St. Paul are being retained by NMFS subject to joint management, namely TDX Corp. may use scoria from these pits free of charge, subject to priority use by NMFS, for so long as these pits are under control of NMFS. Sanitary Landfills and "Vehicle Boneyards" (truck dumps) which are subject to joint management may be used free of charge for their intended purposes by the nonowning party.
* Land and any improvements thereon to be retained in fee simple by the Federal Government as in **subparagraph (b)(1) above, but subject to joint management by the Pribilof Islands Joint Management Board pursuant to the agreement creating said Board.
**Section (b)(1) "Government Withdrawal" states: land and any improvements thereon to be retained in fee simple by the Federal Government as the smallest practicable tract enclosing land actually used in connection with the administration of a Federal installation, within the meaning of 3(e)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 USC 1602(e)(1); such property not presently considered by the parties to be subject to joint management by the Pribilof Islands Joint Management Board |
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 |
| 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:Polovina Borrow Pit (Parcel 5), Accepting Entity-TDX, Conditions-City shall have free and unrestricted access and use of materials for purpose of road and airport maintenance. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/10/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to Chief, Construction at Chase Construction Inc. Subject: Contract Parameters Clarification, Contract DACA85-86-C-0003, Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, St. Paul/St. George Island from John R. Nelson Capt. COE, Alternate Resident Contracting Officer.
Receipt of Serial Letter CLO1, dated December 6, 1985, is acknowledged. It is agreed that the general intent or the contract is to dispose of DOD wastes. However, there may be some non-DOD waste in the sites designated. This material should also bo disposed of. Major items, or large quantities of non-DOD waste near the designated cleanup sites are not to be disposed of as part of the requirements of this contract.
The tractor and barrels on St. George Island, belonging to the U.S. Department of Commerce, whioh you reference in your letter, are not to within the limits of a designated clean-up site and are not to be removed. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/2/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter To Chief, Construction at Chase Construction Inc. Subject: Subcontractor, DACA85-86-C-0003, Debris Cleanup and Site Restoration, St. Paul and St. George, Alaska. The use of the Tanadquisix Corporation as a subcontractor in acceptable to the Government. You are reminded that you, the prime contractor must ensure that all subcontractors insurance and weekly payrolls are maintained. from Jack A. Vellinga Resident Contracting Officer |
Louis Howard |
| 5/20/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from the Resident Contracting Officer Jack Vellinga to DEC SCRO. SUBJECT: Nonitoring Wells Contract DACA85-86-C-0003, Debris Cleanup and Site Restcration. St. Paul end St. George Islands Alaska.
Gentlemen: Refereence your letter 274-2533 to Lt. Woodard dated April 29, 1986. The Corps of Engineers request that you provide a description of the monitoring wells that you are requiring around the disposal areas to be used by Chase Construction on St. Paul Island. This office also request information concerning who wll have the responsibility for performing the monitoring once our contractor has left the Islands.
The Corps of Engineers does not agree that monitoring wells are required around the areas from which debris (specifical1y barrels) are to be removed. The Contractor will be required to test the soil to determine whether or not the contamination has been removed. If this is vhat you are referring to as monitoring wells then it too wil1 be accomplished by our contractor.
The Corpn of Enginuera will not require the contractor to test the public drinking water supply for organic contamination unless there is reason to think the contractor has or could have created such a problem. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/6/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
NPACO-RR Subject: Government Non-removal of Non-DOD Barrels, St. Paul Islands DACA85-86-C-0003.
The foliowing information deals with Contract DACA85-86-C-0003, DERA St. Paul and St. George Islands.
There have been numerous barrels dumped in the vicinity of old World War II barrel dumps in the recent past. These barrels are obviously not DOD property and have not been removed by the Government Contractor nor will they be removed under this Contract.
This DF is to inform you of the Richardson Resident Office's position and action. Request you inform the land owners and/ or the state of Alaska & Department of Environmental Conservation from whom you received rights of entry permits of our action. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/18/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
Tanadgusix Corp. Letter to Chase Construction Subject: Questionable Material which will not be removed from St. Paul Island per contract DACA85-86-C-0003.
As per discussions earlter involving Mr. Rozier of C.O.E., Mr. Benson representing Chase Construction as Quality control, and myself, Greg Fratis as the Superintent for TDX, Corporation. The following items will beallowed to remain in place as the responsibility of TDX Corporation for the reasons given.
1. A single pickup truck chassis and engine block located 1/4 mile North East of Little Polovina - this vehicle was purchased as government surplus and is not D.O.D. The vehicle is approximately a 1955 Chevy and bears the markings, U.S. Army.
2. 2 each 55 or 56 chevrolet pick-up trucks and one Dodge of approximately the same vintage which are also government surlpus. These vehicles are located approximately 3/4 miles north of vehicles in item 1 and also contained markings "U.S. Army",
3. A large boneyard of old vehicles, some with government markings such as U.S. Goast Guard, located just over the sand dune north of item 2. These vehicles were also U.S. Government surplus. (These vehicles in 1,2, and 3 were, purchased by U.S. Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and NOAA for work to be done on St. Paul.)
4. Old bunkers in Lake Hill area and area North of airport. Any structures still standing in these bunkers have been laid flat and all spikes, metal debris and concrete foundations have been removed to the disposal site. Also any old barrels in the area have been disposed of.
The wood will be allowed to remain in the bunkers as it poses no health or safety hazard.
5. There are some bunkers located above the graveyard and it is fe1t that to disturb the is unadvisable as there is already alot of cliff erosion which has eaten into previous graves,.
6. In the city where the old U.S. Navy Towers existed, the landowner would prefer to leave the concrete foundations for recreational reasons*.
7. The cliff area at site E-1 is old city dump from the 1950's consisting of approximately 1000 cubic yards of garbage and miscellanous metal debris. This material is non 0.0.0 and outside the sc6pe of work, therefore it should remain in place.
8. Numerous small 4x4 telegraph poles shall remain in place since to remove them would do more damage to the environment than their existence.
9. To the best of our knowledge all DOD materials existing on the Island of St. Paul have been disposed of as per contract drawings and specifications.
10. Also I removed debris at B-1 snd Lukanin which I know wasn't DOD. After removing said items it made the area look cleaner.
11. A small concrete slab on Telegraph Hill will remain because to remove it would be harmful to the environment and it presents no health or saftey hazard.
This letter will relieve Chase Construction and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers of any responsibiiity for the above items.
*2 each- 16" diameter wood pilings at site will be allowed to remain for recreational purposes.
All containerized POL left at site B-1 are non-DOD and will be left in place for disposal by the City of St. Paul. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1986 |
Update or Other Action |
The 1986 formerly used defense sites (FUDS) cleanup project included work on nine separate sites on the island. Based on all the information provided to date, the Corps has not demonstrated that the following areas were adequately characterized, cleaned up or closed (determined by the CORPS not the ADEC):
the LORAN Station at Southwest Point - FUDS site A in the 1985-86 cleanup,
the Oil Drum Dump Site #1 - site B-1 in the FUDS cleanup, the Barrel Dumps north and east of Big Lake - sites B-2 and B-4 in the FUDS cleanup, and
the FUDS Landfill created near the Big Polovina Hill Vehicle boneyard.
The documents called for cleaning up hazardous spills and sampling to verify the level of cleanup. Site logs produced by the contractor show that some contaminated soil was excavated and transported to the solid waste disposal area a.k.a. FUDS landfill for disposal. It is unclear what types and concentrations of contaminants were present in the soil that was placed in the FUDS landfill near the Vehicle Boneyard. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/9/1987 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Roy S. Carlson Jr (Lt. Col) COE Contracting Officer to Chase Construction Inc. Contract Administration Branch Serial Number BRQ-35 Gentlemen: I have been advised by the Richardson Resident Engineer that "your firm completed all work required under contract DACA85-86-C-0003, Debris Cleanup & Site Restoration. St. Paul & St. George Islands. Alaska on June 24, 1987 and it is hereby nccepted. This acceptance does not "relieve you of other contractual
requirements, which include the Warranty of Construction.
Your compliance witb the sa'et~ regulations of this contract has been satisfactory, and your cooperation with the Corps of Engineers in the Accident Prevention Program is appreciated.
Your final pay has been processed. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1991 |
Update or Other Action |
Referred to as "Site C Telegraph Hill and Site E Ridge Wall Pit" in the 9/30/1991 Preliminary Assessment Report. Discovery action entered in CERCLIS NFRAP Sites for Saint Paul Island EPA ID AKD983066127 on 11/01/1988. A preliminary assessment was entered in on 9/30/1991 for a no further remedial action planned determination under CERCLA. EPA's NFRAP designation will NOT relieve the 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 National Priorities List (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 |
| 1/8/1992 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
EPA CERCLA (conducted by ADEC staff under contract to EPA) Preliminary Site Assessment Report December 1991 received by ADEC staff. The PA was conducted to identify potential public health and/or environmental hazards related to the site and, if present, identify the need for further investigative action. The PA is based on information derived from available files and literature pertaining to the site and a site visit. Sites covered by this PA:
Site A-East Airport Barrel Dump,
Site B-Tonki Point Dump Site,
Site C-Telegraph Hill,
Site D-Southwest Point-WWII LORAN Station, Site E-Ridge Wall Pit,
Site F-DERA description said this site was located on the Roadside between Middle Hill and Southwest Point-Not located during PA and locals had no knowledge of site,
Site G: Landing Craft in Saint Paul,
Site H-Miscellaneous Debris in town, and WWII bunker located Polovino Road below the new housing S/D where NMFS reportedly stored old dynamite caps,
Site I-Bone Yard.
Site C-Telegraph Hill had approximately 70 barrels in a pile in a large pit. They appear to be empty, some crushed and some scattered around.
Site D: South west Point WWII LORAN Station-site was cleaned during the DERA 1985 Cleanup. There were several small cement pads and a few larger ones that were probably Quonset foundations scattered in the area. Across the road where 2 foundations were present, there was a pit full of debris including old batteries, brake pads, spark plugs, etc. Unknown if this was missed during original cleanup or placed there after cleanup. Around parking lot area are parts of drums scattered in soil. Site East Ridge Wall Pit-This site was also cleaned up during the 1985 DERA cleanup. Prior to that, there was a pit approximately 1/2 acre in size, containing metal debris. The site appeared clean. There was a large pile of seal bones at the site.
Recommendations: No further action is warranted under CERCLA program. Nature of contamination and the low-density population precludes further action under the CERCLA program. Recommendations for the Island: 1) the remaining drums be located and removed, 2) the reports of the bunker containing dynamite capes be verified, and 3) all explosives discovered be either removed by trained professionals or stored in accordance with current safety standards and codes (i.e. Standard Number: 1910.109 Standard Title: Explosives and blasting agents. Sub-Part Number: H Sub-Part Title: Hazardous Materials). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/28/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Another 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).
Distance from the site to the nearest groundwater well is 0.25 mile. Residents claim NOAA abandoned heavy equipment at the scoria pits on Lake Hill and Telegraph Hill. Two power shovels, rock stockpiling equipment and drums remain on the northeast side of the Lake Hill site. 2 power shovels located on the north side of Telegraph hill with the small of the 2 shovels labeled with Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army and second shovel read U.S. Army 8B7726. Approximately 125 rusted drums and drum remnants were located in an excavated area on Telegraph Hill. Most appeared empty with no stained soil was evident. Recommendation: determine the contents of the drums and engine crankcases, determine if any associated contamination is present. |
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 National Priorities List (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.
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 |
| 1/27/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
January 27, 1995 Attorney General (AG) letter to NOAA General Counsel regarding environmental restoration agreement AGO file # 661-95-0126. January 13, 1997 NOAA letter does not address NOAA's obligation under federal environmental statutes. In particular, NOAA has not addressed its obligations under CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA and the open dump provisions of RCRA 40 CFR Part 257. Delegation of a federal program allows a state to enforce its program "in lieu of the federal program" See e.g. 42 USC 6926 (b). If a state program is not delegated EPA retains its right to enforce the federal program. The fact that the state has not received authorization to implement the federal program does not deprive state law of effect. To construe the federal statutes otherwise, is to render the state authority savings clauses and waivers themselves without meaning.
Since the Pribilof sites are not on the NPL, section 113(h) of CERCLA does not apply at all to the case at hand. With or without RCRA delegation, the State of Alaska can enforce its solid and hazardous waste laws. Should CERCLA removal or remedial actions be pursued to address hazardous substances at any of the Pribilof Island sites, those actions would have to comply with Alaska laws under the ARARs provisions of CERCLA. See 42 USC 9621 40 CFR 300.430. The second legal misconception NOAA has is that Alaska's statutes and regulations lack sufficient specificity to waive sovereign immunity. 18 AAC 70 and 60 demonstrate these provisions set forth concise, objective, standards, including numerical pollutant concentrations. Rather than debate NOAA's interpretation of the federal sovereign immunity statutes, we would prefer to delineate which sites NOAA is prepared to address under the terms of proposed remediation agreement. If NOAA is serious in this legal position that it has no responsibility and is unwilling to move forward then it would behoove the parties to seek resolution through judicial or other means rather than fruitless debate. We hope however, that your recent letter is more of a "pro forma" denial of liability before NOAA does the "right thing" by addressing the contamination left on the islands by the federal activities. As Chairman Don Young's letter of December 14, 1994 indicated, it is time to address this continuing problem of federal contamination on native lands and to stop federal land managers flight from responsibility for cleaning up those lands. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 2/1/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Breck Tostevin letter to NOAA Office of General Counsel Kathleen Chorostecki. AGO File Number 661-95-0126. The January 3, 1995 NOAA letter in response to AG's letter of December 7, 1994 to NOAA. NOAA letter does not address NOAA's obligations under federal environmental statutes (CERCLA, RCRA, TSCA, and the open dump provisions of RCRA. 40 C.F.R. Part 257). NOAA's analysis of the waivers of federal sovereign immunity in the federal statutes is premised on two (2) fundamental legal misconceptions. The first is that a state must have a "delegated federal program" in order for its laws to be considered "requirements" within the meaning of the waivers in the Clean Water Act or the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This conclusion is contrary to the plain terms of the two acts. The waiver sections speak of state and local "requirements" respecting "water pollution" and "solid and hazardous wastes". 33 U.S.C. 1323, 42 U.S.C. 6961. Nothing in the waiver sections limit these state and local requirements to those that are part of a federal program delegation. Rather, delegation of a federal program allows a state to enforce its program "in lieu of the federal program". See e.g. 42 U.S.C. 6926(b). If a state program is not delegated, EPA retains the right to enforce the federal program. The fact that a state has not received authorization to implement the federal program does not deprive state law of effect.
NOAA's reliance on U.S. v. State of Colorado, 990 F.2d 1565, 1569 (10th Cir. 1993) is misplaced in that it does not stand for the proposition that "only under an EPA-authorized program may a state impose upon a federal agency state law requirements concerning activities "under RCRA.” The site at issue in Colorado was Basin F of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal which EPA in 1989 placed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The U.S. Army sought to block Colorado's enforcement of its delegated hazardous waste program at the site on the grounds that CERCLA barred inconsistent state remedies. The 10th Circuit held that Colorado's administrative order under its delegated hazardous waste laws was not a "challenge" to CERCLA response action within the meaning of 113(h) of CERCLA.
Since the Pribilofs are NOT on the NPL, section 113(h) of CERCLA does NOT apply at all to the case at hand. With or without RCRA delegation, the State of Alaska can enforce its solid and hazardous waste laws. Rather than restricting the rights of states to enforce their environmental laws, the Colorado case was important in its recognition of the important role states have in ensuring federal compliance with our nation's laws. Should CERCLA removal or remedial actions be pursued to address hazardous substances at any of the Pribilof Island sites, those actions would have to comply with Alaska laws under the ARARs provisions of CERCLA. See 42 U.S.C. 9621, 40 CFR 300.430.
The second legal misconception is that Alaska's statutes and regulations "lack sufficient specificity" to waive sovereign immunity. A careful examination of Alaska's water quality regulations (18 AAC 70) and its solid waste regulations (18 AAC 60) demonstrate that these provisions set for the concise, objective standards, including numerical pollutant concentrations. Even with respect to narrative standards, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that such provisions are enforceable as "requirements" Washington Department of Ecology, 114 S. CT. 1900, 1910-11 (1994) (recognizing that criteria "are often expressed in broad, narrative terms, such as 'there shall be no discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.'"). Similarly, in a CERCLA ARARs case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that "general requirements containing no specific numerical standards, or any implementing regulations, can be enforceable ARARs" U.S. v. Akzo Coating, 946 F.2d 1409 142 (6th Cir. 1991). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 6/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
DRO and RRO contamination. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 11/14/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
John Halverson sent Request for Investigation letter to Mr. Greg Smith at the U.S. ACOE Alaska District. Over the past year several FUDS have been brought to ADEC's attention that warrant investigation into whether hazardous substances have been spilled, released or disposed of improperly and whether sites are eligible for cleanup under the DERP/FUDS program. ADEC requests inventory project reports (INPRs) be conducted on the following sites during fiscal year 1996 (unless current INPRs or data can be shown to adequately address the issues noted below): Atka Island, Aniak WACS/Airport, Saint Paul Island-Telegraph Hill, LADD Air Force Station-AAA site #4, Yakutat Airport-Quonset hut with a drum(s) of DDT, NIKE site landfill(s) Scotty Lake off the Petersville Road near Trapper Creek, and the Skagway POL tank farm.
The department is working with NOAA on investigation and cleanup of specific areas on the island. However, we have received reports that during a previous military cleanup effort thousands of drums were buried on Telegraph Hill (Two Party Agreement site # 15 Scoria Pits), that many of the drums contained fuel, and that the soil in the area has been impacted with petroleum. |
John Halverson |
| 1/6/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Congress passed Public Law 104-91 which was also known as H.R. 1358. Section 3 Pribilof Islands
(a) In General. The Secretary of Commerce shall, subject to the availability of appropriations provided for the purposes of this section, clean up landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, and contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on lands which it and its predecessor agencies abandoned, quitclaimed, or otherwise transferred or are obligated to transfer, to local entities or residents on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, pursuant to the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), as amended, or other applicable law.
(b) Obligations of Secretary. In carrying out cleanup activities under subsection (a), the Secretary of Commerce shall—(1) to the maximum extent practicable, execute agreements with the State of Alaska, and affected local governments, entities, and residents eligible to receive conveyance of lands under the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.) or other applicable law; (2) manage such activities with the minimum possible overhead, delay, and duplication of State and local planning and design work; (3) receive approval from the State of Alaska for agreements described in paragraph (1) where such activities are required by State law; (4) receive approval from affected local entities or residents before conducting such activities on their property; and (5) not seek or require financial contributions by or from local entities or landowners.
(c) Resolution of Federal Responsibilities. (1) Within 9 months after the date of enactment of this section, and after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and local entities and residents of the Pribilof Islands, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, a report proposing necessary actions by the Secretary of Commerce and Congress to resolve all claims with respect to, and permit the final implementation, fulfillment and completion of (A) title II of the Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983 (16 U.S.C. 1161 et seq.); (B) the land conveyance entitlements of local entities and residents of the Pribilof Islands under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);(C) the provisions of this section; and (D) any other matters which the Secretary deems appropriate.
(2) The report required under paragraph (1) shall include the estimated costs of all actions, and shall contain the statements of the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, any statement submitted by the State of Alaska, and any statements of claims or recommendations submitted by local entities and residents of the Pribilof Islands.
(d) Use of Local Entities. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the Secretary of Commerce shall, to the maximum extent practicable, carry out activities under subsection (a) and fulfill other obligations under Federal and State law relating to the Pribilof Islands, through grants or other agreements with local entities and residents of the Pribilof Islands, unless specialized skills are needed for an activity, and the Secretary specifies in writing that such skills are not available through local entities and residents of the Pribilof Islands. (e) Definition. For the purposes of this section, the term “clean
up'' means the planning and execution of remediation actions for lands described in subsection (a) and the redevelopment of landfills to meet statutory requirements. (f) Authorization of Appropriations. There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000 in each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 for the purposes of carrying out this section. |
Louis Howard |
| 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. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 3/19/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
1997 Aleutian Enterprises JV Close Out report received. Surface debris, two old power shovels were removed from the Telegraph Hill site. Lake Hill Scoria Pit site consisted of old rock screening and excavation equipment which was cut up and transported to staging area at the Saint Paul Harbor then shipped off to Seattle for final disposal/recycling via barge. No attempts were made to field screen for contaminated soils nor were any soil samples taken to confirm the presence or absence of contamination. For the entire project of sites 2,359.3 tons of steel, 88.1 tons of tires, and 8.75 tons of batteries were collected, prepared, and shipped. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/8/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Ray Dronenburg sent letter to NOAA Minh Trinh regarding Buried Debris Saint Paul and Saint George Islands, Alaska. Recently NOAA was placed on Notice that potentially they, representing the Federal Government, could be responsible for waste (solid and potentially hazardous) buried on Saint Paul and Saint George Islands. This Notice was presented under request from the Restoration Advisory Board for the Pribilof Islands and based on a broad interpretation for Public Law 104-91.
ADEC's solid waste program is concerned that the solid waste permit issued to Chase Construction and its contractor for the burial of 1000s of drums was not followed and does not indicate conclusion for many of the stipulations of the permit. The ADEC- FUDS program is concern that the CERCLA standards did not take into consideration those potentially threatening environmental concerns that could cause permanent damage to a single semi-confined aquifer and the CSRP program is concerned that the potentially contaminated soils exist that could cause contamination of the aquifer. A report by ADEC indicated that potentially, petroleum products as well as batteries and materials such as carbon tetrachloride (CC14) were present and available for disposal with no clear indication that any material was in fact removed from the island.
It is believed that records for NOAA and the federal government for activities on the Pribilofs, could produce data to support a position for ownership for various drums of POL products buried as FUDS material but which may have been actually utilized in the day to day operations of the NOAA.
Review of a memorandum drafted by Mr. Craig O'Conner (10-97), Senior General Counsel for the Department of Commerce (NOAA) states in part:
The United States is liable under CERCLA for the costs of removing hazardous wastes from the islands as the current owner/or the owner at the time of disposal of the wastes. It is also liable for natural resource damages occurring after December 11, 1980 as a result of releases of hazardous waste.
The United States is liable under CERCLA as a current and/or past operator of a facility at which hazardous substances have been disposed of with respect to the dump sites and landfills operated by federal agencies or with the government's acquiescence" and "The United States liability under CERCLA will survive any transfer of title to the Pribilovians, and includes an affirmative obligation to perform all remedial action on lands conveyed to the Pribilovians deemed necessary after conveyance. And finally, the United States liability as a previous owner or operator also survives conveyance" and "in addition the United States is likely liable under section 7003 of RCRA with respect to disposal sites which pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment, even where it has not undertaken active supervision or management of the site." |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/28/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA 5/21/1998 letter to Breck Tostevin Attorney General regarding Dronenburg letter 5/8/98 broadly asserting that NOAA is legally responsible for any possible environmental contamination which may have resulted from activities of the federal government on the Pribilof Islands. The primary concern for Mr. Dronenburg is apparently a drum burial site on Telegraph Hill for which the Corps of Engineers has accepted responsibility under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program.
NOAA asserts it is not, nor can be, legally responsible for any potential environmental contamination created by activities of other, unrelated federal agencies. Perhaps Mr. Dronenburg's efforts would be better applied to having the Corps move up the Telegraph Hill site on its priority list, rather than insisting that NOAA cleanup a site for which NOAA bears no legal responsibility.
NOAA cannot accept responsibility for the activities of the Army of Corps of Engineers. Signed Eva L. Dillard Attorney-Advisor Office of General Counsel Washington D.C. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 7/2/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA 6/19/1998 Office of General Counsel Washington D.C. letter to Ron Klein. Regarding PRP letter to NOAA on notice as being responsible for possible contamination which may exist on the Pribilof Islands. NOAA states that notice to the FUDS is required and discuss the priority of Telegraph Hill site. While NOAA is generally supportive of the State of AK's efforts to ensure the appropriate cleanup of environmental contamination on the Pribilof Islands, that support does not include undertaking the cleanup of a site where the activities of another federal agency are implicated and where that other agency has accepted responsibility of the site.
The Two Party Agreement (TPA) negotiated with the State of Alaska was limited to contamination left by NOAA or its predecessor and does not extend to the entire Federal Government. NOAA looks forward to continuing its cooperative working relationship with the State of Alaska and ensuring that the cleanup contemplated by that agreement is satisfactorily concluded. |
Ron Klein |
| 7/16/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Corps of Engineers (CORPS) Robert Chivvis 7/14/1998 letter to John Halverson regarding 5/8/98 letter requesting information on Corps cleanup work on Saint Paul and Saint George Islands. With regards to the 3 monitoring wells and monitoring requirements for 3 years, the Corps suggests ADEC address its concerns to the CORPS' contractor Chase Construction. They constructed the landfill and obtained the Permit to dispose of not only the CORPS' non-hazardous debris, but also other debris located on the island as directed by the local Native leaders. Information on all FUDS cleanup work done on the islands was compiled and made available to Ray Dronenburg who visited the Corps office last month (June 1998). He was satisfied with the information provided in order to address the subject at the next Pribilof Islands RAB meeting. |
John Halverson |
| 8/5/1998 |
Potentially Responsible Party/State Interest Letter |
John Halverson sent a potential responsible party notification letter to NOAA Mr. Minh Trinh.
This is to advise you that a pollution incident potentially exists for which the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may be a liable party. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has documented the potential threat of contamination by oil and other hazardous substances to the aquifer on St. Paul Island, St. Paul, Alaska.
Alaska Statutes 46.03.822 establishes who is liable in a pollution incident. Records available to the Department indicate that NOAA meets these criteria as a person or agency owning or operating the property from which a potential release may have occurred.
As you are aware the State of Alaska is concerned about a US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) project that occurred in the 1980’s and which involved the clean up and subsequent burial of debris. The ACOE administered the contract (DACA85-86-C-0003, Debris Cleanup & Site Restoration, St. Paul, St. George Islands, AK) with the prime contractor being Chase Construction. This contract was to clean up formally used defense sites (FUDS) associated with WWII and the occupation of St. Paul Island by the U. S. Army beginning in 1942.
A review of those records available indicate that soil contamination did exist. Contaminated material which included thousands of 55 gallon drums (many of which were reported leaking) were removed from various locations on the island. Unfortunately records which would indicate that soils at the various locations were cleaned to the satisfaction of the ADEC are not immediately available. Also the Department has not been able to determine from available records that groundwater monitoring in the area of buried debris has been accomplished.
Potentially five (5) sites have been identified which are associated with ACOE actions during the 1980’s. These sites are on NOAA property or properties that were conveyed by NOAA. (Public Law 104-91 states, in part “The Secretary of Commerce shall clean up landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, and contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on lands which it and it’s predecessor agencies abandoned, quitclaimed, or otherwise transferred or are obligated to transfer, to local entities or residents on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska.. .”
Consistent with the Two-Party Agreement, the Department is requesting that all sites as determined by those data available be added to the agreement and investigation be conducted as appropriate to determine (a) the level of contamination, and (b) appropriate clean up action if required. Site description and location maps are attached for your information. Please note that no action dates have been established at this time.
Please respond in writing within 30 days from the date of this letter addressing your responsible party status and intended actions with respect to these incidents.
NOTE to File: #1 Abandoned LORAN Site (Ridge Wall), Petroleum/PCBs contamination , GW Potential: None, Suggested Investigation: DRO/PAH/PCBs
#2 Telegraph Hill Barrel Dump Petroleum contamination, GW Potential (Yes), Suggested investigation: DRO/PAH
#3 Barrel Dump East of Big Lake, adjacent to Webster Lake, Petroleum contamination, GW Potential (Yes), Suggested investigation: DRO/PAH
#4 Lake Hill Site, Petroleum contamination, GW Potential (Yes), Suggested investigation: DRO/PAH
#5 Quonset Ruins near Airport, Petroleum contamination, GW Potential (Yes), Suggested investigation: DRO/PAH |
John Halverson |
| 8/5/1998 |
Potentially Responsible Party/State Interest Letter |
ADEC (R. Dronenburg) sent a potential responsible party notification letter to FUDs Program Manager Mr. Bob Chiwas, US Engineer District, Alaska.
This is to advise you that a pollution incident has occurred for which the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) may be a liable party. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has documented the potential threat of contamination by oil and other hazardous substances to the aquifer on St. Paul Island, St. Paul, Alaska.
Alaska Statutes 46.03.822 establishes who is liable in a pollution incident. Records available to the Department indicate that the ACOE meets the criteria as a person or agency “arranging for
transport, disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance that potential was released.”
In the mid 1980’s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did clean up (Federal Contract DACA85-
86-C-0003) surface debris which consisted mainly of 55 gallon drums which potentially contained hazardous waste. An ADEC report dated March 1984 indicated that galvanized barrels similar to a style and type used in the storage and shipment of carbon tetrachloride (CC 14) were present.
Records obtained from ACOE indicate that soils contamination was determined to exist (Copy of Conversation Record - DOD Form 27 1, signed by Robert Rozier, which indicated spillage during the clean-up operation had occurred and an odor of POLs was still in soil). A solid waste permit from the State of DEC was issued for the proper burial for debris. The permit called for the installation and monitoring of three (3) monitor wells. Existing information indicates that approximately twelve (12) separate sites were involved in the clean up and subsequent burial. It is believed that these clean up operations conducted by a contractor for the ACOE did take place and impact lands that were and are the responsibility of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Based on the information known to date, the Department has determined the following response
actions are necessary. The Corps of Engineers is hereby requested to provide the following
information:
1. A memo dated 10 December 1986, signed by Delwyn F. Thomas indicates that soils analyses tests were reviewed and determined as “acceptable”. The second paragraph for the memo indicates that further appropriate testing was recommended for this site and future sites.
Please provide testing results
2. Three (3) monitor wells were required under the permit issued for debris burial. Please provide exact locations for the monitor wells and any data collected from those wells.
3. Approximately twelve (12) sites were involved in the St. Paul clean up.
Please provide data to substantiate clean up standards were achieved for each site and if no
clean up was achieved what action can ADEC anticipate.
The State of Alaska is authorized, under Alaska Statute Title 46, to respond to this pollution
incident if response actions are not satisfactory to the Department. In the event that State
response actions are necessary, the responsible parties may be held financially liable for any
response actions taken by the State. Recoverable costs include salaries of personnel, travel,
contracts, legal fees, indirect costs and interest and other costs associated with the response.
Please respond in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter addressing your
responsible party status and intended actions with respect to this pollution incident. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/1/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA letter from Thanh Minh Trinh regarding 8/5/1998 PRP letter notification.
While NOAA appreciates ADEC's need to remediate the sites, it is troubling to NOAA that a failure to follow through by the Corps on the pre-existing agreement with the Corps could result in this type of action against NOAA. During the negotiation of the TPA, it was NOAA's understanding that ADEC would pursue an independent course of action on the FUDS sites. It is still NOAA's position that this is the appropriate course of action.
The financial resources to address cleanup have come as special Congressional appropriations (NOTE: Not in the Department of Commerce Budget submitted by NOAA for the Pribilof Islands Agreement). NOAA does not have a congressionally supported and funded formal program for cleanup like the Corps and FUDS program. NOAA's position is that the TPA addresses all the requirements under Section (3) of PL 104-91. NOAA's position is that PL 104-91, as a federal law, does not give rise to any new authority for the State to compel remediation of another agency's former contamination.
It is doubtful that any additional funding will be made available for subsequent remedial actions when a Congressionally funded program already exists to address this issue (i.e. DOD/FUDS). In light of the foregoing, please be advised that NOAA will not entertain reopening the TPA to address these sites.
With regard to Alaska's separate action of pursuing NOAA as an owner/operator PRP under Alaska Statute, this matter has been referred to legal counsel for an analysis of sovereign immunity and potential referral to the Department of Justice. Initial reactions are that the State does not have authority to bring action against the Federal Government. This position is consistent with the underpinnings of negotiations undertaken with Breck Tostevin at the time of the TPA negotiation in 1995. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/14/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC letter to Minh Trinh (NOAA). Your letter of August 27, 1998, in response to my August 5 request that NOAA undertake investigation and any necessary remedial action in five locations where the Army Corps of Engineers undertook work in 1986, has been received.
The Department of Environmental Conservation has made this request as a result of historical research it has conducted concerning past cleanup actions on St. Paul Island as it relates to NOAA’s cleanup actions under the Two Party Agreement. Ordinarily such research would be conducted by the responsible party, in this case NOAA, but because NOAA’s research position has not been yet filled, the Department undertook some of this work on its own in an effort to keep this project moving.
The Department has sought the cooperation of the Army Corps of Engineers in obtaining all of its records on the sites in order to assist NOAA’s investigation and any appropriate remediation of these sites under the Two Party Agreement.However under the Two Party Agreement and Public Law 104-91 NOAA is the lead on these sites and the Department therefore reiterates its request that NOAA undertake investigation at these sites as outlined in its August 5 letter. We look forward to meeting with you, your counsel and representatives of the department and the Alaska Attorney General’s Office in Anchorage on September 17.
The Department does not agree with NOAA’s position that these sites are not covered by the Two Party Agreement or NOAA’s cleanup authorization under Public Law 104-91 for several reasons. First, these St. Paul sites are already included in the Two Party Agreement as #l Oil Drum Dump Site, #2 Vehicle Bone Yard, and ##15 Scoria Pits including Lake Hill, Ridgewall Hill and Telegraph Hill. (See attachment A to Two Party Agreement).
Second, NOAA’s argument that these are former military sites that must be remediated by the Corps of Engineers ignores the mixed history of these sites and the federal government’s overlapping operations on the Pribilof Islands. NOAA and its predecessors created many of these wastes and sites prior to the Army’s occupation of the islands during World War II and then after the war continued to use these sites and surplus Army material as part of its fur sealing operations. It simply is not possible to separate the federal government’s wastes on the island into neat categories of DOD and non-DOD sites. Indeed, the reality on the ground is that the Department cannot issue no further action letters on these particular sites until questions about the 1986 Corps cleanup actions are resolved. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/13/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Nancy Briscoe USDOC NOAA OGC Washington D.C. letter to ADEC (R. Dronenburg). Summary of NOAA position re: Telegraph Hill & Monitoring wells.
The Two Party Agreement (TPA) NOAA has with ADEC is designed to permit the assessment, remediation (as necessary) & closure of sites identified in Appendix A of the TPA. As the signatories could reach no TPA as to applicable authority for cleanup absent any finding of contamination, it was decided that the following process would be used to assess & address unsightly & potentially contaminated areas at sites in the Appendix:
1) Preliminary Source Evaluations to determine whether or not source area poses an unacceptable risk to public health or the environment (a screening mechanism assessing existing information or using focused field sampling);
2) The submission of site investigation work plans for expanded site investigation (ESI) where there is suspected contamination;
3) Performance of the ESI;
4) The submission of a corrective action plan for areas requiring remediation to reach cleanup levels set forth in paragraphs 2 1-25;
5) Corrective action, &;
6) Submission of a corrective action report leading to site closure.
Under the TPA, this general process is to be followed at sites in the Appendix where the “Remaining Activities” matrix contains a designation for an ESI & cleanup under the terms of the TPA where contamination is found. At these sites, it could be possible that the site investigation may lead to the installation of monitoring wells & soil borings. This is not, however, a prerequisite or mandatory sampling procedure. Nor is it the norm where direct filed sampling provides sufficient information regarding contamination. A conceivable scenario requiring monitoring wells would be where surface sampling is insufficient as all information indicates that contamination has reached GW. In addition, monitoring wells may be required for landfill closure or in conjunction with underground storage tanks where contamination has leached to GW.
In addition to sites in the Appendix requiring an ESI & cleanup under the terms of the TPA, there are other sites in the Appendix with more discrete, site-specific activities required. These sites, for example, may call for debris & stained soil removal & confirmatory sampling, landfill closure or tank removal. These sites do not follow the same process as set forth above. At these sites, closure is reached when the proscribed remedy or activity listed is completed.
The Telegraph Hill (Scoria Pits) site does not include an ESI or cleanup, but rather is a remedy-specific site. The activities listed call for debris bulking, sampling & removal & the taking of confirmatory samples. As a result, sinking of monitoring wells goes far beyond the scope of agreed terms. Because drums marked “U.S. Army” were visibly present at this site, ADEC agreed at the time of signature of the TPA that the ACOE/FUDS/DOD process was the fair & correct avenue to pursue for these sites.
Accordingly, remediation of those sites was left out of the TPA & ADEC agreed to pursue an independent course of action at those sites. It is still NOAA’s position that this is the appropriate action to take. NOAA’s Project Manger recently proposed to ADEC a comprehensive sampling plan that would rely on monitoring wells to assess contamination across a number of sites. While not mandatory, this option might have proved effective at a cost-saving to NOAA.
In the course of fleshing out that option, you indicated that no wells would be needed at the Ice House Lake site & asked that NOAA instead place those wells at the Telegraph Hill site which is a FUDS site. Your proposal represents a substantive change to the terms of our TPA by suggesting we swap NOAA sites for DOD sites; this is equivalent to swapping apples for oranges.
I can appreciate your apparent dissatisfaction with the ACOE’s responsiveness on FUDS issues, but this arrangement is unacceptable as it would complicate NOAA’s responsibilities under the term of our TPA. To avoid future confusion, NOAA will henceforth adhere strictly to the terms of the TPA. Accordingly, we will no longer be proposing the use of monitoring wells & will sink them only as required for landfill closure or where further remediation & investigations require it based on a finding of contamination to GW.
For your information, our SOW for the upcoming remediation work on the Pribilofs requires our contractor to develop a comprehensive project work plan before we move forward with site remediation. This work plan will address the site confirmation sampling protocol to ensure that applicable regulatory cleanup levels will be achieved to support site closure with no further action required. It is our intention to send this work plan to your agency for review & approval prior to starting of any field work. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/26/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter to Minh Trinh NOAA project manager. The Department has spent some time attempting to resolve the contention that debris remaining on St. Paul and St. George Islands are the property of military versus NOAA versus National Marine Fisheries Service. Records that are available in the National Archives Facilities in Anchorage, Alaska reveal that ALL goods (both permanent and renewable) came on the island at the direction of NOAA and for the purpose of NOAA. All supplies came by "Cool Barge". Cool Barge was a military operation originating in Oakland California (Navy Supply Depot) and which carried supplies, all of which were marked with Federal Stock Numbers.
The exception to this was under the exclusive use of the Army during the period by 1942 to 1946. However, records again available in the National Archives indicate that materials abandoned on the Pribilofs by the military and after occupation were utilized by the NOAA for the purpose of NOAA. ADEC strongly suggests that NOAA retain the services of a person or persons to review this historical data which ADEC believes will provide information to support the contention that debris left on the Islands is the responsibility of the Federal Government. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/27/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Department of Law Attorney General Breck Tostevin sent letter to Nancy Briscoe Senior Counsel for Compliance re: Pribilof Environmental Restoration Agreement AGO#661-95-0126 (St. George). With respect to the Telegraph Hill site, DEC strongly disagrees with your statement that the site is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers or that DEC somehow agreed to pursue the site separately as an Army Corps of Engineers FUDS site. As you note in your letter, Attachment A to the agreement calls on NOAA to remove machinery hulks, debris and drums from the Telegraph Hill site, conduct confirmation sampling, and then submit a letter report with the confirmation sample results to DEC.
In particular, the agreement references NOAA's responsibility for removing "approximately 125 rusting drums [which] remain on Telegraph Hill" and conducting confirmation sampling for closure of the site. The assertion that the Telegraph Hill site is not part of the DEC-NOAA agreement is completely erroneous. DEC expects NOAA to complete the required confirmation sampling to ensure that Telegraph Hill drum dump used by NOAA/NMFS has been properly cleaned up. NOAA has not taken the required confirmation samples, nor submitted the required closure letter for DEC review. Under the Agreement, this work was originally scheduled to be completed as part of Phase I field work by December 19, 1995. As you point out in your letter, if confirmation samples indicate contamination-threatening groundwater then installation of monitoring wells would be warranted.
As you know, this dispute arose because DEC suggested that NOAA move the monitoring wells proposed for the Ice House Lake site to the Telegraph Hill site. DEC made this proposal as a cost saving measure and to prioritize work on those sites which propose the greatest potential threat to human health. DEC did not believe that the installation of the wells was needed at Ice House Lake. DEC suggested moving the wells to Telegraph Hill since it is located in the recharge zone for the community's drinking water aquifer and because NOAA has not gathered the required data at the Telegraph Hill site called for by the agreement. DEC is concerned that NOAA is apparently indefinitely delaying its plan to install monitoring wells this fall (1998) at several of the contaminated St. Paul sites. DEC understands NOAA's monitoring well plan was designed to take advantage of a drilling rig already on the Island as part of the USCG's work at the LORAN station and thereby avoid duplicating the substantial cost of mobilizing a drill rig to the island. DEC requests that NOA clarify its intentions and timetable for the installation of monitoring wells at the other sites in the Radian work plan.
At our teleconference, you stated that NOAA had "no more money" and was therefore not going to perform work requested by DEC. Under paragraph 67 of the TPA NOAA is to "keep ADEC appraised of significant budget events related to this agreement" and provides that if NOAA is raising a lack of funds as a basis of Force Majeure that NOAA will provide ADEC with budget documents demonstrating a lack of funding and NOAA's efforts to obtain all necessary funding to carry out the terms of the Agreement. If NOAA is indeed asserting a lack of funds, then ADEC requests that NOAA provide the required budget documentation. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/28/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Keven Kleweno Drinking Water and Wastewater Program sent letter to John R. Merculief City Manager regarding Recent Water Quality Tests of water taken from Fredreka Source Wells 1 and 2 PWSID Number 260286. 9/17/98 sampling detected toluene and xylene above the method detection limit but a 1000 times below the maximum concentration limit. 9/28/98 sampling from five source wells were non-detectable for BTEX or DRO. ADEC wishes to emphasize that the levels of toluene and xylene found in Fredreka Source Well 1 (USCG 9/17/98 sampling effort) do not pose a health problem.
Other potential sources for contamination of the aquifer were found during discussion with staff. Material being used in the construction of the Bethel seawall is being blasted and removed by heavy equipment from an area north and west of the Fredreka source wells. A report prepared by the Alaska Division of Water (Munter/Allely 1994) indicates that the Saint Paul aquifer receives recharge near the well field relatively rapidly. A second report by URS Corp. (July 1987) suggests that regional recharge to these basaltic aquifers is probably from barren rocky uplands rimming the watershed from the northwest to the northeast. These reports suggest that the area the rock is being removed from an area that may be the major recharge area for the aquifer that the City of Saint Paul is obtaining water for drinking and commercial uses.
Staff is obtaining information on the location of the blasting and type of material used. If commercial explosives (70%-90% ammonium nitrate by weight) are being used, either spillage or incomplete detonation could leach ammonia or nitrates into the groundwater. Please begin monitoring all water being produced by this well field for nitrate (as nitrogen) on a monthly basis. Over the next 12 months, it is hoped that enough information will be collected and analyzed to determine if the blasting has affected the water quality. All analytical results should be sent to ADEC with the PWSID Number 260286 for review as soon as they become available. |
Kevin Kleweno |
| 11/18/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Don Young Chairman Committee on Resources to Secretary Joseph Westphal. I am writing to advise you that the Department of Defense (DOD), through the Corps of Engineers,
appears to be responsible for environmental cleanup at one or more formerly-used defense sites on the Pribilof Islands (St. Paul and St. George), Alaska, and to ask for your personal attention to these sites to ensure their prompt and complete cleanup and remediation.
The Natioanl Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is in the midst of a multi-year,
$25+ million environmental restoration and cleanup project on the lands that are or were under its jurisdiction. This is part of a larger effort to transfer control on the Islands from Federal to local control. That effort results from the demise of the Federal fur seal harvest
The Coast Guard is also undertaking a cleanup of the property that it controlled. The Corps of Engineers has previously acknowledged responsibility for a site known as Telegraph Hill on St. Paul Island Unfortunately, the Corps has not scheduled the cleanup of this site. The use of St. Paul and St. George by DOD for defense purposes over a number of years suggests that there may be other sites on the Islands for which DOD should accept responsibility and undertake cleanup and remediation actions.
The State of Alaska and the residents of the Pribilof Islands are anxious to complete the cIeanup of Federal sites. To enhance the Islands’ private sector economy, cleanup of alI Federal site is needed. Please advise me at your earliest opportunity of the cleanup and remediation schedule for Telegraph Hill; rhe evaluation of DOD’s potential responsibility for other sites on the Pribilofs; and the plan for resolving environmental problems at those sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/18/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from William A. Brown, P.E., Deputy Director, Directorate of Military Programs, US Army Corps of Engineers to Honorable Don Young, House of Representatives. This is in response to your November 18, 1998, letter regarding the Department of Defense's (DOD) responsibility for environmental cleanup at the Pribilof Islands, Alaska and specifically Telegraph Hill on St. Paul Island.
As you know, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages the Forerly Used Defense Site program for DoD. In this regard, the Corps has evaluated all known areas of former DoD usage within the Pribilofs, and concluded there is no further DoD responsibility. In 1986, the Corps sucessfully removed all DoD contamination from Telegraph Hill and ten other sites on the islands to the satisfaction of the community (tribal government and native villages). Any pollution remaining was determined to be non-DoD.
In a 1998 letter from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the ADEC corroborated our evaluation regarding "Telegraph Hill" stating that the site was not the responsibility of DoD. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/28/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Fax from ADEC (R. Dronenburg) to NOAA (D. Winandy). The 1998 (August 5) letter referred to is the PRP letter sent to NOAA as the landowner.
Winandy hanwritten not: USACE took extreme liberties with the interpretation of both August 5, 1998 letters from ADEC (one to USACE/DoD FUDS and one to NOAA). The PRP notification to NOAA was based on NOAA ownwership, or part ownership of the lands and ADEC's interpretation of PL 104-91. The PRP notification and request for information to USACE/DoD FUDS was based upon the 1985-1987 USACE cleanup and/or burial at 12 sites on St. Paul Island. As best as I can determine USACE never provided the requested information to ADEC, but requested ADEC provide info/documents which ADEC obtained from USACE & TDX file. |
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 ($2000) for the first week (or portion thereof) and three thousand dollars ($3000) 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 |
| 8/27/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Letter to USACE Bob Chivvis. RE: PRP Notification for site characterization & possible remedial action St. Paul Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
We received the Alaska District's October 23,1998 letter responding to the potentially responsible party (PRP) letters ADEC sent to on August 5 & September II, 1998. The latest letter provided additional infomlation on the cleanup work done on St. Paul Island in 1985-86 under the FUDS program. It described the Alaska District's conclusion that all Department of Defense (DOD) impacts to the Island have been "mitigated to acceptable risk based levels & satisfy community concerns" & a decision to "not reopen our remediation".
Our Department (DEC) does not agree with the AK District's position that no further work should be done under the FUDS program. Insufficient information has been provided to document that the FUDS were adequately cleaned up. Therefore, the Department of Defenses has outstanding responsibilities for investigation & possibly cleanup on the Island. DEC is requesting that the Corps, as DOD's agent for cleanup at FUDS, conduct additional work under the FUDS Program to complete site characterization & any necessary cleanup.
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as the federal land manager for the island, is currently investigating & cleaning up areas that have impacts from past federal government activities. NOAA contends that areas in which cleanup work was done under the FUDS program, but which have not resulted in site closure under State regulations, should be brought to closure under the FUDS program. DEC requests that the Corps of Engineers work with NOAA to conduct site characterization & any necessary cleanup in these areas. Working together cooperatively will help ensure a timely & cost effective response.
The 1986 FUDS cleanup project included work on nine separate sites on the island. Based on all the information provided to date, the Corps has not demonstrated that the following areas were adequately characterized, cleaned up or closed: the LORAN Station at Southwest Point - FUDS site A in the '85-86 cleanup, the Oil Drum Dump Site # I - site B-1 in the FUDS cleanup, the Barrel Dumps north & east of Big Lake - sites B-2 & B-4 in the FUDS cleanup, & the FUDS Landfill created near the Big Polovina Hill Vehicle boneyard.
Telegraph Hill is located in the recharge area for what appears to be a surface influenced sole source aquifer for the community of St. Paul. The site is directly upgradient from the water supply wells. Periodic petroleum contamination has been documented in the water wells. FUDS cleanup work at Telegraph Hill included removing what the Corps estimated to be 4000 abandoned drums from approximately two acres of land. At the Oil Drum Dump Site (site B-1) an estimated 4000 drums, 60 tanks & 300 cubic yards of other debris were to be removed. At Drum Dump sites B-2 & B-4 an estimated 650+ drums were reportedly removed.
The contracting documents state that most of the drums had rusted through & spilled their contents. The documents called for cleaning up hazardous spills & sampling to verify the level of cleanup. Site logs produced by the contractor, show that some contaminated soil was excavated & transported to the FUDS landfill for disposal. It is unclear what types & concentrations of contaminants were present in the soil that was placed in the landfill. It is unclear whether any site characterization work was done at the former LORAN Station. To date, no documentation has been provided to ADEC to demonstrate that these FUDS were adequately characterized or cleaned up. The October 23 letter from the AK District states, "I canvassed District personnel who may have some knowledge or records on this matter. Unfortunately, we were not able to locate soil or groundwater results."
A December 1991 Preliminary Assessment Report, prepared by DEC, described the 60-70 drums that were documented as being left behind at Telegraph Hill during the FUDS cleanup because they were from a non-military source. However, it also described "drums, crushed drums, & drum debris scattered over the area" along with old pipes remaining at the site. An AK District trip report, Saint Paul (Sanders, May 1996) documents that residual soil contamination & old crushed drums remain at Telegraph Hill. It states that the drums were rusted & that it was not possible to define the origin of the drums, with the exception that one may have been a Shell Oil drum. DEC staff inspected the site again on November 3 & 4, 1998 & again observed drum remnants & other metal debris protruding from the ground at Telegraph Hill.
For additional information see site file. |
John Halverson |
| 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 |
| 9/30/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Site information updated to more closely reflect naming present in the Two Party Agreement. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/23/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff did not concur with the proposed site closure confirmation sampling plan and requested groundwater monitoring wells be installed and sampled as part of the site characterization. Additionally the geophysical investigation grid sampling be further clarified. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received. ADEC and NOAA to negotiate site characterization effort pending FUDS meeting to determine coordination of efforts on site characterization responsibilities. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/15/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC (John Halverson) responds to Corps (Bob Chivvis) letter of 11/10/99 which failed to address the legal and factual information contained in the 8/27/99 letter to the Corps.
We received the November 10 letter from Scott Marchand responding to our August 27 potentially responsible party (PRP) notification and request for action letter. The response failed to address the legal and factual information contained in the August 27 letter. The AK District has not addressed Department of Defense liability for disposal of solid and hazardous waste under 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3) (CERCLA) and 42 U.S.C. 6973 (RCRA liability for past disposal
presenting potential threat to human health or the environment) (see item 2, Attachment 1, in the Aug. 27, 1999 letter).
The response failed to address the site conditions, the potential threat to the community drinking water wells and the that insufficient documentation has been provided to demonstrate that the past FUDS cleanup work is protective of human health, safety, welfare and the environment. DEC does not agree with the Alaska Districts position regarding DOD’s responsibility at these sites.
On December 1, we received a draft No Further Action (NOFA) Report for FUDS work on St.
Paul. We were quite surprised by the submittal, especially in light of the fact that the Corps met with DEC, the Army, NOAA and Congressional staff in Washington D.C. in mid November
regarding FUDS issues on St. Paul Island. Based on that meeting it was our understanding that
staff from the AK District, NOAA and DEC would be meeting in January.
The objective of the agreed upon meeting is to discuss the federal government’s responsibility for ensuring areas it used on the island are adequately investigated and cleaned up so the land transfers can be completed in accordance with state and federal laws. However, the cover letter on the draft NOFA report requested that DEC provide comments on the document by January 3. It appears that there has been a significant miscommunication on this issue.
DEC does not concur with the proposed NOFA. The document does not address the site information and concerns raised in DEC’s previous correspondence. Attached is another copy of our Aug. 27 letter. Until the issues in that letter are adequately addressed, DEC will continue to pursue DOD to ensure it adequately cleans up hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants from its past activities that may pose a risk to human health, safety. welfare or the environment in Alaska.
I suggest that we schedule a meeting in January, after NOAA provides its next report on work it
has conducted on the island, as was agreed upon during the meeting in Washington D.C., to
discuss this issue further. |
John Halverson |
| 1/6/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on Scoria Pits revised schedules. Staff stated that ADEC will request further action by NOAA for Telegraph Hill and other FUDS sites unless the COE takes steps to address the data gaps necessary for closure by May 1st. Staff referred NOAA to August 27, 1999 PRP letter to COE and August 8, 1998 PRP letter to NOAA. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/28/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received Geophysical Survey Report dated August 5, 1999 on February 28, 2000. Site history indicated that drums were disposed of at the site. Visual inspection revealed drums buried at the site and surface drums in the pit and along the hillsides. An EM61 survey of the flat area south of the scoria pit and a magnetometer survey of the surrounding areas and disposal pit indicate that there are not any buried metallic anomalies at the site. The surveys may have missed or not been deep enough to categorically declare that no more drums are buried at depth at the site. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/25/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft sampling and analysis plan for 6 TPA and 5 Non-TPA sites including this one. General comments included discussion on field screening protocols and the need to use devices in addition to olfactory and visual observations for identifying sampling locations. Staff also provided information on soil sampling procedures from the UST procedures manual to clarify the document's QCP/QAP. |
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 |
| 11/2/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA sent in Saint Paul Drinking water chemical sample results. Columbia Analytical Sciences, Inc. took and analyzed samples from various freshwater taps at 161A Ellerman Heights, NMFS Staff Quarters Apartment 1 and a fire hydrant near the Decommissioned power plant (water from this source is used by CESI for decontamination of field equipment). CESI recently reported its results to NOAA as follows:
1) All QA parameters were within acceptable ranges. 2) There was no GRO in any of the samples at the Method Reporting Limit(<50 ppb). 3) All samples showed trace levels of DRO contamination below 1,500 ug/L (52, 71 and 90 ug/L <50 ug/L with silica gel cleanup). CESI reported that source of the DRO-range contamination prior to silica-gel cleanup is not clear at present, and they are somewhat surprised at the result because in their opinion the water treatment system should remove all of the naturally occurring organic matter. NOAA is not certain of the source of DRO in the drinking water samples, but as I had informed you, DRO has been observed in groundwater monitoring wells at Telegraph Hill. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/14/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent letter to NOAA regarding Notification of possible Force Majeure (per the TPA). The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the above document via facsimile from NOAA on December 5, 2000. The document states that in accordance with Paragraph 67 of the Two Party Agreement, the potential exists for a Force Majeure situation. It further states that unless further Pribilofs Cleanup Funds are appropriated to NOAA for FY01, the project budget will be exhausted this fiscal year. We very much appreciate your providing this information and analysis of NOAA’s anticipated plans in FY 01 given the existing funding situation. ADEC realizes that funding is uncertain due to Congress not yet finalizing a budget for this FY01. We anticipate a meeting with NOAA to discuss potential impacts to the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement when Congress finalizes a budget. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/23/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
U.S. Congress passed Public Law 106-562 which states in section 107(f)(2) replacement language to PL 104-91 (16 USC 1165 note) is amended (1) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following Authorization of Appropriations (2) None of the funds authorized by this subsection may be expended for the purpose of cleaning up or remediating any landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, or contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the Department of Defense or any of its components on lands on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/2/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent NOAA comment letter on TPA 2001 proposed schedules. These proposed revisions to Attachment B of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (TPA) are being reviewed under the Modification clause (section 82) of the TPA. Section 82 provides “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.”
ADEC approves the new schedule with two exceptions: 1) the schedule for the sites which NOAA has identified as “formerly used defense sites” (FUDS) and, 2) the schedule does not include projected work for many of the sites in calendar year 2002 and beyond.
1) FUDS. With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as FUDS sites, ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force Majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act). In order make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
2) Long-term schedule beyond calendar year 2001. NOAA’s cover letter accompanying the Project Schedules states, “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 |
| 6/4/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft site closure report for telegraph hill. The text states the contractor was not aware of any previous environmental assessment reports or environmental data for the Telegraph Hill scoria pit debris removal area. ADEC does not agree that there are no reports or environmental data available previous to this particular report. ADEC cannot concur with the no further action (NFA) request listed in this document. There is additional groundwater monitoring data that needs to be provided from the wells that NOAA will be monitoring at TPA 15 (see IT Alaska Inc. GW Monitoring Plan April 2001). Absent this monitoring data, ADEC cannot and will not be able to begin to consider a NFA request from NOAA on this site. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/24/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Public Law 106-562 also known as H.R. 1653 passed which described under Authorization of Appropriations Limitation: None of the funds authorized by this subsection may be expended for the purpose of cleaning up or remediating any landfills, wastes, dumps, debris, storage tanks, property, hazardous or unsafe conditions, or contaminants, including petroleum products and their derivatives, left by the Department of Defense or any of its components on lands on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 waste waters 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 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 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.
3 Telegraph Hill Page 3-3
See comments for 2.3 Village Hill Plume regarding laboratory analysis of water for hexavalent chromium Cr(VI) to validate the field screening with Hach kits. The Department does not concur with the elimination of metals from the analytical methods until it can be shown through laboratory analysis that hexavalent chromium is not present above the Table C Groundwater Cleanup Level of 100 ug/L. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/3/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on NOAA's request for no further action at Lake Hill and Ridge Wall Scoria Pits (TPA 15b and 15c). Based on a review of the information provided, the Department finds the Lake Hill Scoria Pit site listed in the Two Party Agreement (TPA) as Site No. 15b and the Ridge Wall Scoria Pit Site listed in the Two Party Agreement (TPA) as Site No. 15c, do not pose a significant threat to human health or safety, or the environment. In accordance with Paragraph 59* of the Two Party Agreement, this is to confirm that all corrective action has been completed at the Lake Hill Scoria Pit, TPA 15b and Ridge Wall TPA 15c in accordance with the Agreement and that no plan for further remedial action is warranted.
The Department concurs that TPA 15b and 15c do not require any further investigation or remedial action. The Department is basing its decision on the most current and complete data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Department reserves its rights, under 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control regulations, 18 AAC 60 Solid Waste regulations and AS 46.03 to require NOAA to perform additional investigation, cleanup, or containment if subsequent information indicates that: 1) additional contamination remains at the sites which was previously undiscovered, does not protect human health, safety, or welfare, or the environment; or 2) the information it relied upon for its decision was invalid, incomplete, or fraudulent.
*NOTE: Closure of Sites of Operable Units
59. At any time while this Agreement is in effect, 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): or
(2) deny such request and provide a written explanation of the technical bases on which the request is denied.
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. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/10/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Michael J. Walsh Colonel, Corps Of Engineers, Chief of Staff issues Engineering Regulation No. 200-3-1. It is the policy of the USACE that the policies contained in this ER are the overarching USACE policy for management & execution of the FUDS program & takes precedence over previous USACE FUDS program policy & guidance.
The USACE MUST comply with the DERP statute (10 USC 2701 et seq.), CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601 et seq., Executive Orders (EOs) 12580 & 13016, NCP, & all applicable DoD (e.g., DoD Management Guidance for the DERP [28 September 2001]) & Army policies in managing & executing the FUDS program. Because of the linkages between the DERP & CERCLA & the delegation of certain Presidential authorities under CERCLA to DoD, CERCLA is DoD's preferred framework for environmental restoration. Where a regulatory agency seeks to use another framework, USACE Districts shall:
Seek formal approval of the decision to follow a framework other than CERCLA.
Ensure that the actions undertaken also comply with all applicable CERCLA requirements, especially in the areas of the content of decision documents & the maintenance of an Administrative Record.
Consistent with the statutory program goals of the DERP, DoD has established 3 program categories to classify activities at FUDS properties & projects: installation restoration program, military munitions response program, & building demolition/debris removal program.
1) Installation Restoration (IR) Program. For the FUDS, the IR program includes the Hazardous, Toxic, & Radioactive Waste (HTRW) & Containerized HTRW (CON/HTRW) project categories. IR program category is defined as the conduct of response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address releases of:
Hazardous substances or pollutants & contaminants (as defined in the CERCLA).
Petroleum, oil, or lubricants (POL). Under the DoD Management Guidance for the DERP, funding appropriated to the Environmental Restoration (ER)-FUDS account may be used to remediate releases of petroleum where the release poses an imminent & substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or to the environment [10 USC 2701(b)(2)].
DoD-unique materials.
Hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents.
Low-level radioactive materials or low-level radioactive wastes.
Explosive compounds released to soil, surface water, sediments, or groundwater as a result of ammunition or explosives production or manufacturing at ammunition plants.
2) Miltary Munitions Response Program (MMRP). The MMRP category is defined as response actions (i.e., the identification, investigation, & remedial actions, or a combination of removal & remedial actions) to address Munitions & Explosives of Concern (MEC) or Munitions Constituents (MC). This includes the removal of foreign military munitions if it is incidental to the response addressing DoD military munitions at a FUDS property.
3) Building Demolition & Debris Removal (BD/DR) Program. This program category is defined as the demolition & removal of unsafe buildings & structures at FUDS properties that were owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States & under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense & transferred to state, local governments, or Native Corporations of Alaska.
FUDS Project Definition. Within this Program, USACE has defined a FUDS Project as a unique name given to an area of an eligible FUDS property containing one or more releases or threatened releases of a similar response nature, treated as a discrete entity or consolidated grouping for response purposes. This may include buildings, structures, impoundments, landfills, storage containers, or other areas where hazardous substance are or have come to be located, including FUDS eligible unsafe buildings or debris. Response actions at FUDS projects fall under the Installation Restoration (HTRW & CON/HTRW), Military Munitions Response Program (MEC & MC), or Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) program categories. An eligible FUDS property MAY have more than one project.
The DoD Goals for the DERP, established for the FUDS program in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR), require USACE to develop an execution strategy that includes the following.
Reducing risk to human health & the environment through implementation of effective, legally compliant, & cost-effective response actions.
Having final remedies in place & completing response actions.
Requiring certain percentages of FUDS projects in the program to progress to specific stages of the response process by specific dates (i.e., milestones).
The objective of the BD/DR program is to protect human health & safety by demolishing & removing unsafe buildings, structures, & debris resulting from past DoD operations.
|
Louis Howard |
| 8/24/2004 |
Site Closure Approved |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) received the above document for review and comment. The Department has reviewed the data and it appears that there is no need for future soil and groundwater remediation at TPA 15 Telegraph Hill (CS Database reckey # 1994250135420). It was mentioned in the document that monitoring for residual range organics would be required since the groundwater contamination for RRO was detected above Table C of 18 AAC 75 groundwater cleanup levels.
The document also states, “RRO was detected above the Table C regulatory limit of 1.1 mg/L in samples collected from MWTH-2 and MWTH-3 (Table 3) during September 2001. RRO was not detected above its regulatory limit during earlier groundwater sampling events at this site. Furthermore, RRO was reported in the associated method blank and the RRO results from a field duplicate sample from MWTH-3 were significantly lower and below the Table C regulatory limit.” The monitoring results are suspect at 1.5 mg/L RRO due to it being detected in the method blank, the nature of RRO not easily being dissolved in groundwater and earlier sampling results not showing RRO to be an issue, the Department will not be requiring groundwater monitoring for the site.
The Department’s determination for no further remedial action at TPA 15 Telegraph Hill is equivalent to Section 59 of the Two-Party Agreement “Closure of Sites of Operable Units”
59. At any time while this Agreement is in effect, 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): or
(2) deny such request and provide a written explanation of the technical basis on which the request is denied. 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. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/16/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has sent NOAA a letter dated August 24, 2004, which stated “…no need for future soil and groundwater remediation at TPA 15-1 Telegraph Hill.” Subsequent to the letter, NOAA has submitted the “Final Site Characterization Report” for TPA 15-1. Nothing in the final report changed the Department’s decision. This letter reiterates the Department’s decision to officially grant a no further corrective action determination once more, which was stated in the August 2004 letter.
The Department is basing its decision on the most current and complete data provided by NOAA. The Department reserves its rights, under: 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control regulations and AS 46.03 to require NOAA to perform additional investigation, cleanup, or containment if subsequent information indicates that:
1) additional contamination, left by NOAA and/or its predecessor agencies, remains at the site, which was previously undiscovered and presents an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, or welfare, or the environment; or
2) the information provided was invalid, incomplete, or fraudulent. |
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 Scoria Pit-Telegraph Hill Site 14 site conditions: potential exists for exposure of buried 55 gallon drums.
Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
