| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 10/31/1983 |
Update or Other Action |
Disposal of Federal property on Pribilof Islands (the Pribilofs)- (a) Submission to Congress of property transfer document - Any provision of law relating to the transfer & disposal of Federal property to the contrary notwithstanding, the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, is authorized to bargain, grant, sell or otherwise convey, on such terms as he deems to be in the best interests of the United States (U.S.) & in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, any & all right, title, & interest of the U.S. in & to the property, both real & personal, held by the Secretary on the Pribilofs: Provided, That such property is specified in a document entitled "Transfer of Property on the Pribilof Islands: Descriptions, Terms & Conditions," which is submitted to the Congress on or before October 31, 1983.
(b) Contents of property transfer document - shall include, but need not be limited to: (1) a description of each conveyance; (2) the terms to be imposed on each conveyance; (3) designation of the recipient of each conveyance; (4) a statement noting acceptance of each conveyance, including the terms, if any, under which it is accepted; & (5) an identification of all Federal property to be retained by the Federal Government on the Pribilofs to meet its responsibilities as described in this chapter & under the Convention.
(c) Report to Congress of fair market value of transferred property - Within 60 days of the transfer of real or personal property specified in the document described in subsection (a) of this section, the Committee on Merchant Marine & Fisheries of the House of Representatives & the Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation of the Senate shall be given a report prepared by the Secretary stating the fair market value at the time of the transfer of all real & personal property conveyed.
(d) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)- A MOU shall be entered into by the Secretary, a representative of the local governmental authority on each Island, the trustee or trustees, & the appropriate officer of the State of Alaska (the State) setting forth the respective responsibilities of the Federal Government, the Trust, & the State regarding - (1) application of Federal retirement benefits, severance pay, & insurance benefits with respect to Natives of the Pribilofs; (2) funding to be allocated by the State for the construction of boat harbors on St. Paul & St. George Islands; (3) assumption of the State of traditional State responsibilities for facilities & services on such islands in accordance with applicable laws & regulations; (4) preservation of wildlife resources within the Secretary's jurisdiction; (5) continued activities relating to the implementation of the Convention; (6) oversight of the operation of the Trust established by section 1166(a) of this title to further progress toward creation of a stable, diversified, & enduring economy not dependent up commercial fur sealing; (7) the cooperation of government agencies, rendered through existing programs, in assisting with an orderly transition from Federal management & the creation of a private enterprise economy on the Pribilofs as described in this chapter; & (8) such other matters as may be necessary & appropriate for carrying out the purposes of the chapter, including the assumption of responsibilities to ensure an orderly transition from Federal management of the Pribilofs. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 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).
Contaminated drain line site: 14-inch diameter drain line runs from a floor drain in the power plant building 200 feet into the harbor area. Drain line had not been in use for several years when a nearby septic tank overflowed. Water began to seep into the drain line, carrying some oil product to the outfall. City of Saint Paul stopped the septic tank overflow and plugged the inlet with concrete. Boom was placed around the outfall (Buckel 1990). No oil was observed during the E and E site visit nor was any absorbent boom present as previously reported. Recommendation: To determine if any POL contamination remains in the surface soil. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/30/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
U.S. EPA letter from Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager to Sharon Lundin Chief USDOC, WASC, Facilities and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700 Seattle WA 98115. The letter is to inform NOAA that EPA Region 10 has completed its review of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island National Marine Fisheries Site located on the Pribilof Islands. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility could score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, additional information is needed for EPA to complete the evaluation of the site. Specifically, a Site Inspection should be completed at the facility. Soil samples (surficial and subsurface) should be collected from the source areas to characterize the type of contamination present and delineate the size of the individual sources. Sediment samples should be collected from streams, wetlands and bays located near sources. Soil and sediment samples should be collected to determine background conditions for the area. All samples should be analyzed for the complete EPA Target Compound List (TCL) (organic) and Target Analyte List (TAL) (inorganic). Data generated should be equivalent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) level 4 data quality. Please include the information requested on Enclosure A in the final Site Inspection report.
Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act requires EPA to assure that a PA/SI is conducted for all facilities listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Executive Order 12580 (1/23/87) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an HRS evaluation. As such, EPA requests that you provide us with the above information within 180 days of receipt of this letter. If your facility anticipates an inordinate amount of delay in compiling this information, please send us with 30 days of receipt of this letter, a schedule of when we may expect to receive the required information. EPA would like to be involved in the development of the work plan for the site. Please contact EPA to schedule a meeting to discuss sampling locations for the Site Inspection. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/1/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
City of Saint Paul Public Notice to: Contractors/Regulatory Agencies. The City of Saint Paul hereby notifies you of the potential presence of hazardous materials on the island. The attached maps should be used as a general reference for identification of potential hazardous materials in planning your project. For the proposed utility projects within the Harbor Area planned for construction during the summer of 1993, the City does not believe that any hazardous materials are present. However, landowners and contractors are responsible for assuring compliance with federal and state regulations and should not rely on information provided herein.
If contractors on City Projects (and/or City Property) or on projects which are to become property of the City, believes that hazardous materials may or have been encountered, they must immediately cease any and all construction activity, immediately notify the Public Works Director and City Manager orally and in writing and comply with the attached guidelines. No further construction work can be done unless explicitly authorized in writing by the Public Works Director and City Engineer.
City of Saint Paul Hazardous Materials Procedures-
1) Review attached maps. If project includes construction within areas noted as potentially contaminated or if you encounter potential environmental contamination during construction, the following procedures must be followed:
2) Notify NOAA and the City of the potential problem;
3) conduct standard ADEC screening tests and provide in writing at a minimum-to NOAA and the City: a) exact location of area and land ownership, b) Quantity of material, c) Characteristics of material and contamination, d) documentation the contractor has certified persons to 1) conduct screening tests and 2) handling and disposal of hazardous wastes, e)Provide a detailed cost estimate for the initial screening, stockpiling, and testing of the material including labor, materials, equipment, testing, etc, f) provide a schedule for the final removal of any stockpiled materials, g) identify the location and specifications for stockpiling the materials.
4) If the material does not appear to require remediation according to ADEC and EPA regulations, the City Engineer and City Public Works Director will authorize the construction to proceed.
5) If the initial screening per ADEC and EPA regulations indicates that the material must be stockpiled for further testing (NOTE to file states should not be removed until an approved plan is submitted), then the contractor must comply with the protocol approved by NOAA and the City. At a minimum, this protocol would include the stockpiling of excavated materials, the placement of an impermeable liner in the construction utility corridor, the installation of utility lines covered with non-contaminated materials, and the testing of stockpiled materials for analysis and disposal per ADEC and EPA regulations.
6) When test results are available, the contractor must provide the following: a) test results, b) ADEC and EPA regulatory requirements for disposal, c) Proposed detailed plan for disposal of materials, d) Documentation that the contractor has certified personnel to handle and dispose of hazardous waste, 3) Provide a detailed cost estimate for the disposal of the material and any additional remediation required including labor, materials, equipment, testing, etc., f) provide a schedule for the final removal of any stockpiled materials.
7) The City and NOAA must approve the proposed plan and costs for disposal of the materials which were stockpiled prior to any construction activity. (Issued 10/01/1993). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/19/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DOC/NOAA WASC Sharon Lundin to U.S. EPA Mark Ader in response to the September 30, 1993 letter informing NOAA of the need to complete a Site Inspection (SI) for Saint Paul Island. NOAA recognizes its responsibility to comply with all statutory requirements under Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. However, there are some unalterable circumstances that will prevent NOAA from providing EPA the required information within the 180 days allowed in the regulation.
Saint Paul Island is located approximately 800 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska, in the middle of the Bering Sea. The island's location and arctic weather conditions provide a very limited construction season, usually a window from May until September. Additionally, because of the remoteness of the island, the availability of equipment is extremely limited. NOAA must lease equipment from the island entities (City of Saint Paul or TDX Corporation) for any work they do. Although this may sound like a simple process, they must compete with other contractors and/or City and Corporation for whatever equipment is available. This summer, the Island was in a boom period, with fisheries processing facilities being constructed around the clock. Because of this competition for equipment, it will be necessary for us to negotiate for its use far in advance of when we actually need it.
The current construction season has passed, to allow us the necessary time to schedule the equipment; NOAA requests an extension of 180 days. We anticipate beginning the planning process immediately. We will begin work as early as May 1994 as weather permits. We will provide you with the information you have requested no later than August 30, 1994. Again, NOAA understands their obligation to comply with these requirements and will do everything they can to expedite the process of obtaining it. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 11/2/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment manager sent letter to Sharon Lundin, Chief U.S. DOC Western Administrative Support Center, Facility and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way, Bin C15700; Seattle, WA regarding EPA Region 10 has completed the review of Site Inspection (SI) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island, National Marine Fisheries Site located in the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests your portion of the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation will NOT relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska State regulations. The Superfund amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 Section 120(a) (4) requires federal facilities (including NOAA/NMFS) to comply with State cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance docket, but as noted earlier in the letter, will be listed for no further action. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/31/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1994, a soil sample collected by Woodward Clyde Consultants, Inc. (WCC), from the south side of the Demolished Power Plant Annex (DPPA) revealed low concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 6/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
Site added to database. Formerly located in area known as Tract 41. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/2/1995 |
Preliminary Assessment Approved |
(Old R:Base Action Code = SA2R - Phase II SA Review (CS)). Approved an Environmental Site Assessment. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 8/2/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
(Old R:Base Action Code = TAS - Treatment Alternative Study (CS)). Extensive investigation. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/15/1995 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Final management plan for Expanded Site Inspections received. Plan covered Tract 41 (a.k.a. Tract 46) which is composed of 5 subareas: active power plant, former power plant, former gasoline/diesel drum storage area, former AST location (saddles), former kerosene AST location, Demolished Diesel Tank Farm, Lukanin Bay Debris Site, NMFS Landfill site. Field laboratory will run Petroleum hydrocarbons (Method 8015 modified), PCB (Method 8080), BTEX using a PhotoVac , PAHs using a immunoassay kit. Confirmation sampling and analysis to support the field lab results submitted to the project lab on the rate of 1 per test pit, approximately 25% or more of the surface soil samples (site specific). |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 5/2/1996 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Ranked by Shannon and Wilson. |
S&W |
| 6/30/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
In 1996, an expanded site investigation conducted by Hart Crowser identified the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil at both the DPPA; however, no contaminants were detected above cleanup levels. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/6/1997 |
Update or Other Action |
Tract 41 (St Paul) is inclusive of several sites to include Fire station gas pump and former power plant. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 12/10/1997 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Incorporated data from Reckey 1994250135427 into Reckey 1994250135426 because this Reckey (26) is being treated as a group of spills. However, 11/4/99 broken back out for tracking purposes. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 2/27/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Lynne Bush letter to Minh Trinh re: UST Closure Site Assessment reports. Old Gas Station Facility ID #3048 Tanks 1 and 2. One (1) 3,000 gallons diesel UST located to the south of the old gas station and one (1) 3,600 gallon gasoline UST located to the east, were removed from the ground on June 28, 1997. Sample results taken after 500 cubic yards of PCS was removed from the excavation indicate that contamination remains under both former USTs and beneath the dispenser area. The cleanup matrix score generated for both of these UST systems Level A is correct.
The final sampling results from the 3,600 gallons UST has elevated levels of benzene (14-23 mg/kg), total BTEX (774-2,152 mg/kg), DRO (4,900 mg/kg to 15,000 mg/kg) and GRO (3,600 mg/kg to 5,600 mg/kg). Lead content was not analyzed. These samples were taken at approximately nine feet below ground surface, within two feet of the depth where groundwater was encountered. Samples from the 3,000 gallon UST show levels of contamination still remain: benzene (1.2 mg/kg to 4.0 mg/kg), total BTEX (13.56 mg/kg to 15.5 mg/kg), DRO (230 mg/kg to 440 mg/kg), GRO (150-260 mg/kg) and lead (38 mg/kg to 280 mg/kg).
Old Power Plant Area Facility ID #3048 Tank 4. Diesel contamination remains in the soil in the area near this former UST, closed in place with Department approval on June 23, 1997. Levels of diesel contamination of 7,400 mg/kg remain in place in that location. It is the understanding of the Department that this tank will be removed from the ground and a closure site assessment performed when the overlying structure is demolished. As with the other UST systems reviewed in this letter, further release investigation and corrective action will be necessary.
Old Machine Shop South facility id # 3048 tanks 5 and 6. Two (2) 8000 gallon diesel USTs , located south of the old machine shop, were removed June 18, 1997. Petroleum contamination remains after removal of tanks and piping from the site: BTEX (5 mg/kg to 27.47 mg/kg) and DRO (4,600 mg/kg to 18,000 mg/kg).
Old Machine Shop Facility ID# 3048 Tank 7. One (1) 300 gallon gasoline UST used to service an old fuel station was removed from the ground on July 14, 1997. Because the entire UST system should be included in the site assessment, not just the tank itself, further investigation to locate the former piping runs and dispensers should be scheduled as the next phase of the project. If the ancillary equipment extended beyond the limits of the site assessment, further investigation may be necessary. Also depth to groundwater in this area is not recorded in the report. If groundwater or the seasonal high water table is known or suspected to exist at a depth within five feet below the bottom of the tank, one soil sample should be collected from the first six inches of the saturated zone. Please determine the depth of groundwater below the ground surface. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 9/30/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Investigation Workplan received. Data quality objectives: Initial sampling round will try to determine if Tract 41 can be closed. Plan is to collect soil samples from up to 3 borings per site, install monitoring wells, and collect groundwater samples from each well. Comments in document: sampling is limited to one soil sample from the most contaminated interval and one groundwater sample at each boring/well, PCB analysis at only one well. Analyses: GRO, BTEX, DRO, RRO, PAH, RCRA metals, for all 3 wells, PCBs for 1 well. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/29/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Letter to Minh Trinh NOAA re: request to close UST sites in Tract 41 Area. August 27, 1998 letter from NOAA requested closure of UST sites in Tract 41 area. None of the seven (7) USTs identified on St. Paul Island qualifies for No Further Action and may require additional investigation or corrective action. Per 18 AAC 78, “closure” of an underground storage tank is defined thus: 18 AAC 78.995(19) “close” has the meaning given that term in AS 46.03.375(g)(1); AS 46.03.375(g)(1) “close” means to remove petroleum and sludges from the tanks in the tank system and either fill the tanks with inert solid material or remove, dismantle, and dispose of the tanks”;
18 AAC 78.085(c) To permanently close a tank, the owner or operator shall empty and clean it by removing all liquids and accumulated sludge. A UST that is to be closed must be removed from the ground, along with all associated piping, or filled with an inert solid material. A UST with a known or past release must be removed from the ground unless the department, in its discretion, allows the tank to remain in place because removal of the tank would endanger existing structures. The resulting excavation must be investigated and cleaned up as required by 18 AAC 78.230 – 18 AAC 78.350. The owner or operator shall document the name of the disposal method, and the disposal location for all liquids, sludges, and UST components, including tanks, piping, and equipment.” 18 AAC 78.090(a) When performing permanent closure or a change-in-service, the owner or operator shall complete a site characterization and, depending on the results of the site characterization, perform a site assessment or release investigation.”
Under these definitions, not all the tanks within Tract 41 meet the definition of “closed”. Rather than reiterate the contents, I enclose a copy of the February 27, 1998 letter to re-familiarize you with the specific data gaps. NOAA is obliged to continue investigating the release and to perform corrective actions, as deemed necessary by the Department. Per regulations, site characterizations and assessments were performed during tank removal activities and the releases were reported in a timely manner.
However, the required release investigations for these sites have not taken place. 18 AAC 78.235(g) requires submittal of a release investigation report within 45 days of the date the confirmed release was reported to the Department. This has not occurred. 18 AAC 78.240 requires an interim corrective action report informing the department of the status of the cleanup actions within 60 days after the date of release confirmation. This has not occurred. Your agency is seriously behind schedule.
Due to the nature and scope of the work to be performed on both St. George and St. Paul Islands, the Department has thus far chosen to be lenient when enforcing deadlines, including those set forth in regulation and the Two-Party Agreement. We recognize the need to prioritize work and to set reasonable milestones and it is our intention to work in conjunction with NOAA and representatives of both islands to achieve acceptable levels of cleanup and to do so within schedules that consider the needs of all parties. Unfortunately, NOAA has missed an entire field season in which they might have accomplished these goals.
For additional information see site file. |
Lynne Bush |
| 2/22/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
This is the first week that stipulated penalties against NOAA are invoked by ADEC. Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement: Paragraph 70 page 17 Stipulated penalties states: If determined by ADEC to be appropriate, NOAA shall pay to ADEC a stipulated penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the first week (or portion thereof) and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each additional week (or portion thereof) in the event NOAA fails to meet any deadline related to a regulated UST or solid waste unit owned by NOAA and included in Attachment A. Interpretation remains whether or not the penalties are for each site in Attachment A per deliverable not received by ADEC or per week for both islands. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 7/21/1999 |
Site Characterization Workplan Approved |
Comments sent to be incorporated into final site characterization plan for Tract 46 and data gap analysis/conceptual site model. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Jennifer Roberts which states that ADEC is halting further accrual of stipulated penalties against NOAA for failure to fulfill and meet the requirements of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement in 1998 and part of calendar year 1999. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received to prevent recurring stipulated penalties. Site characterization plant to be reviewed and commented on by ADEC on 1/14/2000. Contractor to mobilize in field on May 2000. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/18/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on the draft final site characterization plan for Tract 46 and adjoining properties. Staff clarified sampling depth for surface soil is from 0-2' not 0-2cm for analyzing exposure from inhalation of particulates, ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation from contaminants other than particulates. Sampling depth for subsurface as stated in the risk assessment procedure manual is ten feet. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/5/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent comment letter to NOAA on draft final site characterization plan for tract 46 and adjoining properties. The text in paragraph 3 also states that the sampling depth will be no greater than 2 centimeters (cm), in accordance with ADEC guidance (Risk Assessment Procedures Manual). This statement would be correct if NOAA and ADEC were only concerned with particulates (liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, or smog found in air emissions). Since the work for this site is not limited to particulates, ADEC requests NOAA sample beyond the first 2 cm for surface soil sampling. This sampling effort would ideally be from the 12-18” interval, but no deeper than 2’. Surface soils are defined in regulations as “...soil that extends no more than 2’ below the surface.”
Furthermore, the ADEC Risk Assessment Procedures Manual for Section 3.2.2.5 defines what depths are generally considered when sampling surface and subsurface. It states that for all land uses, ADEC will generally use a default value of two feet to define surface soil and ten feet to define subsurface soil to which residents will have a reasonable potential to be exposed (ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation).
There appears to be a discrepancy between 18 AAC 75(j)(2) which states that cleanup must be achieved in the subsurface soil to a depth of at least fifteen (15) feet and section 3.2.2.5 of the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual. Section 3.2.2.5 states that for all land uses, ADEC will generally use a default value 10 feet to define subsurface soil to which residents will have a reasonable potential to be exposed (ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation).
Until the issue can be corrected in the Risk Assessment Procedures Manual at a later date, ADEC will require NOAA to meet cleanup levels which prevent human exposure from ingestion or inhalation of a volatile hazardous substance in the surface soil and the subsurface soil to a depth of at least fifteen feet. Fifteen feet is the minimum depth which ADEC considers it reasonably likely for affected soils to be excavated and brought to the surface during the installation of septic systems, utilities, construction of basements, etc.
Upon incorporation of the above comments, ADEC will consider it a "final" document. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Beginning in 2000, CESI installed and sampled a series of five monitoring wells near the DPPA (CESI 2001). Additionally, IT Alaska Corporation conducted groundwater sampling in 2001 (IT Alaska Corporation 2002). Analytical data collected during these events revealed the presence of petroleum contamination including DRO and gasoline range organic compounds (GRO). DRO and GRO were detected at concentrations of 6,700 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and 700 µg/L, respectively, in monitoring well MW46-5 located south of the DPPA. In addition, DRO was identified during six separate sampling events at concentrations varying from 1,100 µg/L to 1,600 µg/L in monitoring well MW46-9, north of the DPPA. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/14/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent letter to NOAA regarding Notification of possible Force Majeure (per the TPA). The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has received the above document via facsimile from NOAA on December 5, 2000. The document states that in accordance with Paragraph 67 of the Two Party Agreement, the potential exists for a Force Majeure situation. It further states that unless further Pribilofs Cleanup Funds are appropriated to NOAA for FY01, the project budget will be exhausted this fiscal year. We very much appreciate your providing this information and analysis of NOAA’s anticipated plans in FY 01 given the existing funding situation. ADEC realizes that funding is uncertain due to Congress not yet finalizing a budget for this FY01. We anticipate a meeting with NOAA to discuss potential impacts to the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement when Congress finalizes a budget. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/2/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent NOAA comment letter on TPA 2001 proposed schedules. These proposed revisions to Attachment B of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (TPA) are being reviewed under the Modification clause (section 82) of the TPA. Section 82 provides “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.”
ADEC approves the new schedule with two exceptions: 1) the schedule for the sites which NOAA has identified as “formerly used defense sites” (FUDS) and, 2) the schedule does not include projected work for many of the sites in calendar year 2002 and beyond.
1) FUDS. With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as FUDS sites, ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force Majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act). In order make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
2) Long-term schedule beyond calendar year 2001. NOAA’s cover letter accompanying the Project Schedules states that “while a limited number of the schedules go into calendar year 2002, most are not projected beyond 2001 because of the near constant shifting of priorities and the project’s dependence on future appropriations which make such projections meaningless at this time.” While ADEC understands the need to readjust priorities given new information, it is important to establish reasonable long-term schedules for needed work based upon current information. Given that the TPA is premised upon NOAA’s obligation to seek adequate future appropriations to accomplish needed work under the agreement (section 66) it is important that NOAA develop for ADEC’s concurrence a long-term schedule. As you know under section 81, we can adjust the long-term schedule in light of the results of future site investigation and clean-up work. Accordingly, ADEC requests that NOAA develop a long-term schedule for the work contemplated by the TPA given current information at the sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/28/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff sent NOAA comment letter on TPA revised schedules for 2001 field season. It appears that NOAA is able to address some of the issues raised in our March 2, 2001 letter.
These proposed revisions to Attachment B of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (TPA) are being reviewed under the Modification clause (section 82) of the TPA. Section 82 provides “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers.”
With one exception, ADEC approves the new schedules, which now include projected work for many of the sites in the calendar year 2002 and beyond. The one exception is as follows:
1) FUDS. With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as FUDS sites, ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force Majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act). In order make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
Given that the TPA is premised upon NOAA’s obligation to seek adequate future appropriations to accomplish needed work under the agreement (section 66) it is important that NOAA develop for ADEC’s concurrence a long-term schedule. With these new revised schedules, NOAA has shown it is planning beyond the current year of 2001 and ADEC appreciates the effort that it has gone in providing this information. As you know under section 81, we can adjust the long-term schedules in light of the results of future site investigation and clean-up work. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/25/2001 |
Long Term Monitoring Established |
Staff reviewed and commented on the groundwater monitoring plan which covered TPA 2, 5, 9, 11, 15. Comment was on the lack of current lab certification listed in table 10 for two labs. Staff requested proof of current certification and corrected table in the document with latest expiration date. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/12/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff commented on the draft demolition report for the power plant annex TPA 9b. The document states that there were no previous assessment reports or environmental data available were reported to exist for this site. ADEC disagrees and refers the contractor to look at the following: EPA Preliminary Site Assessment (1992), Corps of Engineers Preliminary Assessment (1993), Hart Crowser (HC) Expanded Site Inspection (1996). The HC document lists Tract 41 (now Tract 46) at the former power plant contaminated with diesel range organics (DRO) at a maximum concentration of 4,100 mg/kg, residual range organics (RRO) at 3,100 mg/kg, and estimated volume of soil exceeding level B criteria at 170 cubic yards. Recommendations listed in the report for the inactive power plant were to excavate and remove "accessible" soil. Level B cleanup criteria for DRO is 200 mg/kg and RRO is 2,000 mg/kg.
ADEC requests NOAA provide documentation showing the contaminated soils listed in the HC document were removed and remediated to at least level B criteria. If NOAA can document the soils were properly remediated and disposed of, then ADEC may consider granting a no further action decision for this site as proposed in section 7.0 of the demolition report. |
Louis Howard |
| 2/11/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff has reviewed and commented on the revised Site Activity Schedule for FY 2002 and projected future work beyond 2002 during a meeting with NOAA on February 5, 2002.
The submittals are being accepted by the ADEC under the Modification clause of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement section 82 page 20. “Modifications, extensions, and/or actions taken pursuant to 6-13 (Review and Comment on Documents); 14-17 (Subsequent Modification); 41 (Briefings and Progress Reports); 50-53 (Sampling and Data/Document Availability); 63-65 (Extensions/Force Majeure) and Attachment B* may be effected by the agreement of the Project Managers. Any modification approved orally under this Paragraph must be reduced to writing within ten (10) Days and signed by both Project Managers. The ADEC’s approval does not preclude nor eliminate the annual review required by the ADEC and NOAA to update the deadlines in Attachment B based on preliminary assessments, site investigations, or other information obtained during the preceding field season.
*Except as otherwise agreed to by the Parties, NOAA shall prepare the documents identified in Attachment B to this Agreement by the corresponding deadlines established in Attachment B. Attachment B shall be reviewed and updated annually by the Parties, based on the site assessment and other information obtained during the course of the preceding year, and may be modified at any time in accordance with Paragraphs 81- 82. Annual review of Attachment B shall commence in January of each year and shall be completed by March 31 of the same year.
The ADEC also wishes to point out to NOAA that the TPA states: “NOAA shall submit to the ADEC (at) a minimum of sixty-five (65) Days prior to the start of field work or construction at any source area, all draft final work plans for field work, site assessments or remedial actions (both interim and final at such source area(s). Site Assessment and Remedial Action draft reports must be submitted to the ADEC within 120 Days after completion of field work.” For example, work that NOAA has scheduled to begin on May 15 would require work plans to be submitted no later than March 11, 2002 for ADEC review and comment.
With respect to the sites that NOAA has identified as formerly used defense sites (FUDS) sites, the ADEC does not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination of whether the schedule for these sites should be extended under the force majeure provisions of section 66 of the TPA because of a lack of funding to NOAA due to the appropriation restrictions in Public Law 106-52 (Pribilof Island Transition Act) Sec. 107(f)(2).
In order for the ADEC to make this determination, ADEC requests that NOAA submit reports and associated supporting data from the investigation and other work performed at the TPA sites or the portions of those sites NOAA is identifying as FUDS sites. The ADEC requests that NOAA also submit maps and location descriptions of those TPA sites or portions thereof that NOAA believes are FUDS sites. The ADEC will then seek a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers whether it concurs that theses are FUDS sites and whether the Corps will reopen the sites based upon the new information prepared by NOAA.
NOAA has not fully funded the work necessary to meet all of the conditions of the TPA. Item 66 of the TPA states: It is the expectation of the Parties to this Agreement that all obligations of NOAA arising under this Agreement will be fully funded. NOAA shall request, through the normal Department of Commerce budget process, all funds and/or authorizations necessary to meet the conditions of this Agreement,
1) If sufficient funds are not appropriated by Congress as requested and existing funds are not available to achieve compliance with the schedules provided in this Agreement, and NOAA reports the lack of funds in accordance with Paragraph 67, then the compliance schedule shall be revised as necessary.
NOAA has submitted the necessary revised schedules for Attachment B based on available funding.
2) If the Congressional budget appropriation available for the activities to be performed under this Agreement is lower than the budget request for such activities, and NOAA cannot mitigate the impact on its performance under this Agreement by seeking supplemental appropriations, NOAA may elect to reduce allocations for specific field projects based on the priorities identified by the Community Advisory Committee established under Paragraph 56 of this Agreement, and, if the Community Advisory Committee members agree, may reallocate funds from one island to another. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the Draft Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report 2001 St. Paul Island March 2002 Project 823255.01030000. 2.3 Village Hill Plume Pages 2-5 and 2-6.
The text states that chromium was detected in samples collected from all four wells up to 5,200 ug/L. NOAA used a Hach kit to perform hexavalent chromium analyses (Diphenyl-carbazide method) screening. The kit uses a Diphenyl-carbohydrazide (DPC) to form an intensely colored complex with Cr(VI). The complex is measured quantitatively by its visible absorption at 520 nm.
However, as in any colorimetric analysis, this test is subject to positive interferences from other colored materials in the sample as well as from other elements that form colored complexes with DPC. The Department views the Hach kit testing as a field screening method and data gathered by field screening never is substituted for laboratory analyses. The only acceptable determination on whether the Cr(VI) is present in a water sample is through laboratory analyses. For example, there are methods available such as:
EPA method 218.6, or SW-846 Methods 7000 series method 7195 (coprecipitation) is used to determine Cr(VI) in EP extracts and groundwater, or method 7198 differential pulse polarography used to determine Cr(VI) in natural and wastewaters and in EP extracts, or method 7199 often used for determination of Cr(VI) in drinking water, groundwater and industrial wastewater effluents by ion chromatography.
The Department requests NOAA confirm the validity of Hach kit test results through a strict laboratory analyses using an approved Cr(VI) analytical method for groundwater results where chromium was detected in the groundwater. After determining through laboratory analysis that hexavalent chromium is not present above the Table C Groundwater Cleanup level of 100 ug/L, then NOAA may discontinue analysis for this particular parameter.
2.6 Recommendations for Central Tract 46 Page 2.8
See comments above regarding laboratory analysis of water for hexavalent chromium Cr(VI) to validate the field screening with Hach kits. The Department concurs with semi-annual monitoring of contaminants of concern (COCs) at Tracts 43 and 46. The Department will require monitoring for the following COCs : gasoline range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO), residual range organics (RRO), benzene, toluene, lead, selenium, hexavalent chromium, and tetrachloroethylene.
The Department requests groundwater monitoring of tetrachloroethylene not be limited to MW46-9, but also include MW46-23. MW46-23 will act as a sentinel well to ensure that tetrachloroethylene is not spreading beyond MW46-9. The Department requests that groundwater flow direction be described in the text and shown on the figures for the sites. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/30/2002 |
Cleanup Level(s) Approved |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) has received the draft final groundwater use and classification in the vicinity of Tract 46 TPA 9 on May 6, 2002. Department staff also attended and participated in a briefing given by NOAA regarding the 18 AAC 75.350 10X Table C groundwater cleanup levels in the Tract 46 (TPA 9) area on May 9, 2002. Below are the Department’s general comments regarding NOAA’s request for a 10X rule determination for groundwater at Tract 46. Specific comments regarding the document referenced above will be addressed in another letter to NOAA.
General Comments
After reviewing the data and hearing NOAA’s briefing, the Department will approve the use of a 10X rule for groundwater cleanup levels in Tract 46. This approval does not modify the Water Quality Standards found in 18 AAC 70, which NOAA must comply with where applicable. The rationale for the Department’s approval is based on these site-specific conditions listed below:
-The groundwater in the Tract 46 area is impacted by saltwater intrusion from the nearby Bering Sea, which makes it unfit for drinking water consumption. This is demonstrated with the high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the Tract 46 area.
-The groundwater is not currently used for drinking water and there is no anticipated future use of groundwater in the study area.
-All residents obtain their drinking water from the public water supply system two miles northeast from the city.
-There is no current or future need for the groundwater within the study area to be used as a potential drinking water source. The existing water supply located two miles away from Tract 46 is adequate to meet all anticipated needs for drinking water.
The Tract 46 area includes sixteen (16) distinct soil contaminated sites-e.g. Tract 43, Parcel 6f and Tract A north of Bartlett Ave. and west of Airport Rd. encompassing 45 acres. Department approval is contingent upon NOAA resolving the following issues.
1. NOAA shall consult with the current and future landholders of the property it has transferred and will transfer regarding: a) the 10X rule for groundwater cleanup levels and corresponding migration to groundwater cleanup levels for soil, b) proper handling and disposal of contaminated soils excavated in the Tract 46 area in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i) and 18 AAC 75.370 and, c) prohibition of installation of groundwater wells and restrictions on groundwater use for drinking water or other uses.
2. NOAA shall conduct, with DEC participation, a public meeting to discuss the 10X rule for cleanup levels in groundwater, institutional controls on current and future landowners, restriction on groundwater use, proper soil handling and disposal requirements when excavating soil, which is contaminated.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/30/2002 |
350 Determination |
18 AAC 75.350 determination granted by ADEC. TPA Site 9, also known as Tract 46, has 16 distinct soil-contaminated sites identified by investigations subsequent to the signing of the TPA. TPA 9 sites & TPA 12 are covered by the determination.
The groundwater in the Tract 46 area is impacted by saltwater intrusion from the nearby Bering Sea, which makes it unfit for drinking water consumption. This is demonstrated with the high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, & electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the Tract 46 area. The groundwater is not currently used for drinking water & there is no anticipated future use of groundwater in the study area.
All residents obtain their drinking water from the public water supply system two miles northeast from the city. There is no current or future need for the groundwater within the study area to be used as a potential drinking water source. The existing water supply located two miles away from Tract 46 is adequate to meet all anticipated needs for drinking water. See site file for additional information. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 8/29/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC Staff sent response to TDX attorney letter regarding use of 10 times (10X) rule in Tract 46 area.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department) received your letter of August 1, 2002 on behalf of Ron Philemonoff, CEO of the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX). Your letter inquired about the impact of the 18 AAC 75.350 ten times (10X) groundwater cleanup levels to the Two-Party Agreement (TPA) site 9 commonly referred to as Tract 46 (the study area) on St. Paul Island.
The 18 AAC 75 Contaminated Sites regulations defines “cleanup” and “cleanup levels” as follows: “cleanup” means efforts to mitigate environmental damage or a threat to human health, safety, or welfare resulting from a hazardous substance , and includes removal of a hazardous substance from the environment, restoration, and other measures that are necessary to mitigate or avoid further threat to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment; and “cleanup level” means the concentration of a hazardous substance that may be present within a specified medium and under specified exposure conditions without posing a threat to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment.
The higher cleanup levels NOAA is requesting for the study area is literally ten times (10X) those found in 18 AAC 75.345 Groundwater Cleanup Levels Table C and in most cases, those levels found in 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1 Method Two. For example, if diesel contamination were detected in the groundwater above Table C cleanup levels, then the cleanup level for diesel in soils would be 10X the migration to groundwater level.
If diesel contamination were detected at or below the Table C cleanup levels in groundwater, then soil cleanup levels for diesel contamination would have to meet the more restrictive migration to groundwater level and would not be eligible for the 10X rule application. These higher soil cleanup levels would only apply to the migration to groundwater cleanup level and, in no case, will not exceed the ingestion, inhalation, or maximum allowable soil cleanup levels (whichever value is less).
After reviewing NOAA’s data, the Department has determined that applying the 10X rule for groundwater cleanup levels in the study area is appropriate. This approval does not modify the Water Quality Standards found in 18 AAC 70, which NOAA must comply with whether or not a 10X rule determination is made. For example, where groundwater is closely hydrologically connected to surface water, water quality standards in 18 AAC 70 must be met for surface water and sediment.
The rationale for the Department’s approval is based on the site-specific conditions listed below:
The groundwater in the study area is impacted by saltwater intrusion from the nearby Bering Sea, which makes it unfit for drinking water consumption. This is demonstrated with the high levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, and electrical conductivity NOAA has measured in the study area. The groundwater is not currently used for drinking water and there is no reasonable expectation of a future use of groundwater as a drinking water source in the study area. All residents obtain their drinking water from the public water supply system located two miles northeast from the city.
There is no current or future need for the groundwater within the study area to be used as a potential drinking water source. The existing water supply located two miles away from the study area is adequate to meet all anticipated future needs for drinking water.
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/5/2002 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Breck Tostevin Attorney General's Office
Re: NOAA Environment Cleanup on Pribilof Islands.
AGO File No. 661-95-0126: Draft City of St. Paul Ordinance Concerning Water Wells
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has asked that I provided comments on a draft City Ordinance No. 02-05 addressing groundwater use on St. Paul Island, received by DEC on November 1. I have some general comments on the subject of institutional controls under DEC’s cleanup regulations and some more specific comments on the proposed ordinance itself.
As you may know, DEC has had discussions with NOAA, the City of St. Paul, the Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) and other stakeholders concerning cleanup issues associated with the downtown site commonly referred to as Tract 46 (the study area) on St. Paul Island.
One of the issues under discussion is selection of cleanup levels and the establishment of “institutional control” measures designed to ensure that the cleanup measures remain protective of human health and the environment. See attached letter from DEC to Ron Terry Turner, counsel to TDX.
The establishment of legal mechanisms to ensure that cleanup levels are protective is described in DEC’s regulations at 18 AAC 75.375. Institutional controls include a variety of measures including
“(1) the requirement for and maintenance of physical measures, such as fences and signs, to limit an activity that might interfere with cleanup or result in exposure to a hazardous substance at the site;
(2) the requirement for and maintenance of engineering measures, such as liners and caps, to limit exposure to a hazardous substance;
(3) restrictive covenants, easements, deed restrictions, or other measures that would be examined during a routine title search, and that limit site use or site conditions over time or provide notice of any residual contamination; and
(4) a zoning restriction or land use plan by a local government with land use authority.”
Under 18 AAC 75.375(c), the “use of institutional controls must, to the maximum extent practicable, be
(1) appurtenant to and run with the land so that the control is binding on each future owner of the site; and
(2) maintained by each responsible person or owner of the site."
For additional information see site file. |
Louis Howard |
| 6/17/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA provides information on the locations of contaminated sites in the groundwater "study area" in Tract 46 St. Paul Village Study area and the future land owners of the U.S. Government property on St. Paul Island. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/2/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and commented on the TDX workplan for concurrent sampling. Staff requested clarification on whether or not the sampler would be a "qualified person" as required under 18 AAC 75/78. Sampling for volatile organic contaminants does not allow for homogenizing soil samples in a mixing bowl prior to analysis. Any stirring or mixing would cause the samples to be biased low due to volatiles being lost. |
Louis Howard |
| 10/20/2003 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff reviewed and approved the draft groundwater monitoring management plan for St. Paul Island. Staff's review and concurrence on the document is to ensure the proposed work is in accordance with State of Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While staff may comment on other state and federal laws and regulations, our concurrence on the document does not relieve the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or its consultants, contractors, subcontractors or other personnel hired to work on this project with the need to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/28/2004 |
Conditional Closure Approved |
ADEC Staff reviewed the draft corrective action report for the Decommissioned Power Plant Annex (TPA 9D).
The Department finds the soil contaminated with diesel range organics (DRO) has been removed to the maximum extent practicable by NOAA. At the DPPA, there were buried utilities (live electrical line), active fuel lines, an existing road to the north and a concrete pad which restricted further excavation by NOAA of remaining petroleum contaminated soil. NOAA has already removed 250 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soil associated with this site. These facts, combined with the remaining site conditions, the Department has determined that no further remedial action is required for TPA Site No. 9D, which is equivalent to certification by the Department that corrective action is complete under TPA section 59. Closure of Sites of Operable Units.
It states: “… NOAA may request from ADEC written confirmation that all corrective action has been completed at a site(s) or operable unit(s) in accordance with this Agreement. Within thirty (30) Days of its receipt of such request. ADEC shall: (1) provide written confirmation that no further corrective action is required at the subject site(s) or operable unit(s). ADEC shall not deny certification that corrective action is complete at any site(s) or operable unit(s) solely on the basis that post-remedial measures, such as monitoring, shall remain in place for a period of months or years.”
In the event that the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible by the removal of the soil located in the vicinity of SP19-CS-028-150 (10,000 mg/kg DRO), SP19-CS-034-150 (9,600 mg/kg DRO), the land owner and/or operator will be required under 18 AAC 75.300 to notify the Department. Also, any transport or disposal of contaminated soil excavated from the site outside of the ten-times rule area requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
The Department reserves all of its rights, under A.S. 46.03, 18 AAC 75, and 18 AAC 78 to require NOAA to conduct additional site assessment, remediation, and/or other necessary actions deemed appropriate by the Department at TPA 9D and TPA 9P, if information becomes available that contamination is present at these sites which pose an unacceptable risk to human health or safety, welfare, or the environment. Please provide the Department with a description and map of the location of any monitoring wells located near the sites which may be used to monitor any potential migration of contaminants from these sites.
The following policy applies for soil regulated under 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78 that is proposed for disposal off site from where it was generated. If the following criteria is met, ADEC approval and/or an institutional control(s) are not required:
1. The soil meets the most stringent Method Two, Migration to Groundwater, Table B2 cleanup level, and the most stringent standards for those chemicals under Table B1;
2. The soil may only be disposed of at any non-environmentally sensitive location in the Under 40" or Over 40" annual precipitation zone;
3. The soil is not placed within 100 feet of water wells, surface waters, and drainage ditches; and
4.The written approval from the landowner of the off-site location is required.
The off site disposal of all other soil subject to the site cleanup rules that does not meet the criteria above shall be reviewed by the ADEC project manager in order to determine if the off-site disposal action poses a current or future risk to human health or the environment. The final approval to dispose of soil off site that does not meet the criteria shall be made by the ADEC Section Manager.
For additional information see site file.
|
Louis Howard |
| 1/28/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
Future activities should include periodic groundwater sampling of monitoring wells in the vicinity of the DPPA. Two wells have been identified: MW46-30, located south of the DPPA; MW46-9, located north of the DPPA. Figures 4-1 and 4-3 illustrate the locations of these monitoring wells. Monitoring will be required to demonstrate that DRO (and any other contaminant attributed to the sites) is at or below the ten times rule cleanup level for groundwater established for this area. |
Louis Howard |
| 1/28/2004 |
Institutional Control Record Established |
In the event that the remaining contaminated soil becomes accessible by the removal of the soil located in the vicinity of the Decommissioned Power Plant Annex TPA 9D, the land owner and/or operator will be required under 18 AAC 75.300 to notify the Department. Also, any transport or disposal of contaminated soil excavated from the site outside of the “Village Area” requires approval from the Department in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(i).
|
Louis Howard |
| 9/14/2004 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA sent a request for NFRAP designation at the site sent to ADEC. ADEC concurred. In accordance with Paragraph 59 of the Two Party Agreement, this is to confirm that all corrective action has been completed at the Decommissioned Power Plant Annex, TPA Site 9d/Site 19 in accordance with the Agreement and that no plan for further remedial action is warranted.
However, please note that DEC reserves all of its rights under 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 60, and AS 46 to require NOAA to conduct further investigation and/or remedial action if information indicates conditions at the Decommissioned Power Plant Annex TPA Site 9d/Site 19 pose a risk to human health, safety and welfare, and of the environment. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/17/2006 |
Update or Other Action |
The Critical Water Management Area (CWMA) precludes the use of groundwater from the aquifer within the boundary of the CWMA. The City of St. Paul provides an abundant and clean source of water to the homes and businesses within this area. The monitoring of the water quality in the CWMA will continue into the future, when and if the water quality improves to the point where it can be used, the designated CWMA can be revoked or amended to allow for full or limited use.
The extensive public notice and hearing process required to establish a CWMA resulted in no adverse comments to DNR’s designating the proposed area a CWMA. The establishment of the CWMA will keep current and future landowners with the CWMA from drilling, digging a well or otherwise removing groundwater from the CWMA.
NOAA has the intent and ability to meet the requirements required by ADEC to establishment a 10X rule for contamination clean up in the area of the CWMA . The CWMA establishes an institutional control over the removal of groundwater from the contaminated area, which is required under the 10X rule. This is a benefit to the applicant in that a more intensive and expensive clean up would not be required. The applicant has no need to remove water other than for water quality testing from a series of monitoring wells.
The CWMA establishes an institutional control over the removal of groundwater from the contaminated area, which is required under the 10X rule. This is a benefit to the applicant in that a more intensive and expensive clean up would not be required. The applicant has no need to remove water other than for water quality testing from a series of monitoring wells. The establishment of the CWMA will in no way effect the ability of the public to access navigable or public waters. |
Louis Howard |
| 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 Decommissioned Power Plant annex Site 9d has contaminated soil, building demolition debris and contamination associated with either a UST/AST/Pipeline.
Site conditions:Residual soil contaminated with DRO remains on north side of the Annex; GRO and DRO remain on the eastside of the Annex along buried utilities and potentially below the concrete pad; east side soils exceed CWMA criterion in limited areas. Residual soil benzene remains along buried utilities; benzene does not exceed 1991 criterion of 0.5 mg/kg; long term groundwater monitoring (DRO contamination); deed notice.
Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. Site is within the Critical Water Mgt. Area (CWMA). |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 4/30/2012 |
Update or Other Action |
Staff received the Tract 46 Quit Claim Deed from NOAA for review and comment.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (hereinafter "NOAA" or
"Grantor"), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, pursuant to its authority
under Section 205(a) the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1165(a)), and in
fulfillment of Paragraph 5(a) and (b) of the Transfer of Property Agreement (TOPA), dated
February 10, 1984, does hereby convey and quitclaim all of its right, title and interest in the
below-described real property to the Tanadgusix Corporation, the village corporation on St. Paul
Island, Alaska (hereinafter the "TDX" or "Grantee"), to wit:1
Tract 46, Sec. 25, T. 35 S., R. 132 W., Seward Meridian, Alaska, as shown on
Dependent Resurvey of a Portion of Tract A, U.S. Survey No. 4943, St. Paul
Townsite and the Dependent Resurvey of Portions of and Subdivision of Tract 41
into Tracts 45 and 46 plat of survey, officially filed June 3, 1997,
a true and correct copy of which survey is attached hereto as Exhibit A, commonly known as the
“Plant Site and Industrial Building Area (formerly known as Tract 41)” and the “West Landing
Area”, together with all rights, privileges, immunities, and appurtenances thereto belonging
(hereinafter referred to as the "Property").
The TDX hereby acknowledges the conditions of the Property and, with the sole
exception of the covenants made hereunder pursuant to Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42. U.S.C. § 9620(h) (CERCLA),
accepts the Property without warranty or representation under this quitclaim deed, and without
recourse to the NOAA or the United States pursuant to this quitclaim deed.
Ingress and egress to nineteen monitoring wells as indicated on Exhibit B, including periodic
sampling from the monitoring wells, and closure of the monitoring wells consistent with
direction from the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
Grantor states that in accordance with the direction of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation ("ADEC"), an agency of the State of Alaska, corrective action has
been taken on the Property and completion of such corrective action is further evidenced by a
certain "Closure of the St. Paul Island, Alaska Operable Unit" letter dated June 4, 2008,
concurred with by ADEC, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Corrective action locations specific to the Property are listed in Exhibit D as NOAA Sites 18
(TPA Site 9c), 19 (TPA Site 9d), 20 (TPA Site 9e), 21 (TPA Site 9f), 22 (TPA Site 9g), 23 (TPA
Site 9h), 25 (TPA Site 9j), 27 (TPA Site 9l), 28 (TPA Site 9m), 29 (TPA Site 10), 49 (TPA Site
9n), and 51 (TPA Site 9p). |
Louis Howard |
| 6/14/2013 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 73151 name: auto-generated pm edit TPA 09D STP Decomm Power Plant Annx |
Louis Howard |
