| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 2/28/1993 |
CERCLA PA |
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).
Residents of Saint Paul report NOAA and NMFS landfills were located along the beach between the city of Saint Paul and Reef Point. The southern portion of this area, which includes the NOAA landfill is now part of the Reef Point Seal Rookery. It was reported that for 2 or 3 seasons from the late 50s to early 60s. This landfill was reportedly used for the incidental burning of wastes such as wooden pallets and plywood. TDX representatives did not remember metal wastes being disposed of at this location (Philemonoff and Krukoff 1993). Residents reported that refuse was burned on the surface and then covered. Recommendation: determine if any waste remains. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 9/30/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
U.S. EPA letter from Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment Manager to Sharon Lundin Chief USDOC, WASC, Facilities and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115. The letter is to inform NOAA that EPA Region 10 has completed its review of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island National Marine Fisheries Site located on the Pribilof Islands. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the facility could score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, additional information is needed for EPA to complete the evaluation of the site. Specifically, a Site Inspection should be completed at the facility. Soil samples (surficial and subsurface) should be collected from the source areas to characterize the type of contamination present and delineate the size of the individual sources. Sediment samples should be collected from streams, wetlands and bays located near sources. Soil and sediment samples should be collected to determine background conditions for the area. All samples should be analyzed for the complete EPA Target Compound List (TCL) (organic) and Target Analyte List (TAL) (inorganic). Data generated should be equivalent to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) level 4 data quality. Please include the information requested on Enclosure A in the final Site Inspection report.
Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act requires EPA to assure that a PA/SI is conducted for all facilities listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Executive Order 12580 (1/23/87) establishes individual federal facilities as the responsible party to provide sufficient information for EPA to conduct an HRS evaluation. As such, EPA requests that you provide us with the above information within 180 days of receipt of this letter. If your facility anticipates an inordinate amount of delay in compiling this information, please send us with 30 days of receipt of this letter, a schedule of when we may expect to receive the required information. EPA would like to be involved in the development of the work plan for the site. Please contact EPA to schedule a meeting to discuss sampling locations for the Site Inspection. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 10/19/1993 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from DOC/NOAA WASC Sharon Lundin to U.S. EPA Mark Ader in response to the September 30, 1993 letter informing NOAA of the need to complete a Site Inspection (SI) for Saint Paul Island. NOAA recognizes its responsibility to comply with all statutory requirements under Section 120 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. However, there are some unalterable circumstances that will prevent NOAA from providing EPA the required information within the 180 days allowed in the regulation.
Saint Paul Island is located approximately 800 miles west of Anchorage, Alaska, in the middle of the Bering Sea. The island's location and arctic weather conditions provide a very limited construction season, usually a window from May until September. Additionally, because of the remoteness of the island, the availability of equipment is extremely limited. NOAA must lease equipment from the island entities (City of Saint Paul or TDX Corporation) for any work they do. Although this may sound like a simple process, they must compete with other contractors and/or City and Corporation for whatever equipment is available. This summer, the Island was in a boom period, with fisheries processing facilities being constructed around the clock. Because of this competition for equipment, it will be necessary for us to negotiate for its use far in advance of when we actually need it.
The current construction season has passed, to allow us the necessary time to schedule the equipment, NOAA requests an extension of 180 days. We anticipate beginning the planning process immediately. We will begin work as early as May, 1994 as weather permits. We will provide you with the information you have requested no later than August 30, 1994. Again, NOAA understands their obligation to comply with these requirements and will do everything they can to expedite the process of obtaining it. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 11/2/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
EPA Mark Ader Federal Facilities Site Assessment manager sent letter to Sharon Lundin, Chief U.S. DOC Western Administrative Support Center, Facility and Logistics Division WC4, 7600 Sand Point Way, Bin C15700; Seattle, WA regarding EPA Region 10 has completed the review of Site Inspection (SI) for the currently owned portion of the Saint Paul Island, National Marine Fisheries Site located in the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. The report has been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
From our evaluation, EPA has determined that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests your portion of the facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation will NOT relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska State regulations. The Superfund amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 Section 120(a) (4) requires federal facilities (including NOAA/NMFS) to comply with State cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance docket, but as noted earlier in the letter, will be listed for no further action.
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 |
| 12/19/1994 |
Update or Other Action |
Simon Mawson ADEC Letter to NOAA dated December 19, 1994 to Kelly Sandy-Re: outstanding issues regarding the substantial endangerment as it applies to the school yard dump and whether or not the State of Alaska solid waste disposal regulations require excavation of and removal of the solid waste in old dumps for closure purposes.
NOAA's letter 12/8/1994 from Kathleen Chorestecki seems to limit NOAA's concern to subsidence at the old dump and safety issues that may be associated with subsidence. Her letter indicates that this matter seems to be "driving factual element" behind the substantial endangerment argument and that "rumors" of subsidence cannot be substantiated. ADEC does not agree that subsidence is the only concern or even the primary concern. For many years the island of Saint George was operated by NOAA. There is no indication it was NOAA's practice to export waste materials from the island. To the contrary, the presence of three dumps (*note to file-see TPA 4 STG Active landfill, TPA 5 STG Open Dump Site, TPA 7 Ballfield and Former landfill on STG) tend to support the argument that these wastes materials were routinely disposed of on the island.
These wastes would be those typical of operation of a small municipality and fur seal harvesting operation. NOAA leased houses to the island residents and operated all of the utilities in support of the community. All fuel, solvents, medical supplies and equipment were shipped to the island primarily by barge. Wastes were disposed of by generally accepted practice at the time of operation which was in the dumps. Additionally, residue from spills typical of bulk fuel storage operations at the time were also not cleaned up. It is the disposition of these materials that gives ADEC primary concern for risk to residents of the islands, not just subsidence of the approximately 3,000 drums that were disposed of in the schoolyard dump.
18 AAC 60 Article 4 is the regulation that describes actions that must be taken for closure of solid waste disposal facilities. These regulations do not require that solid waste materials be excavated and removed for proper disposal from illegal dumps. Rather they describe some specific criteria and performance measures that must be met when dumps are closed out. These regulations do not preclude excavation and proper disposal of waste materials and based on the evaluation of alternatives and costs associated with each alternative as well as location of the illegal dump, excavation and removal of these materials may be the preferred and required alternative. Several requirements of 18 AAC 60 should be considered, 18 AAC 60.401(b)(4) "ensuring that the cap is revegetated or otherwise treated in a manner appropriate to the long term use of the facility" as well as the long term monitoring requirements. |
Simon Mawson |
| 6/1/1995 |
Site Added to Database |
Landfill. |
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 |
| 8/10/1995 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated material exist in and around this landfill. Property owned by NOAA and under COBC are preparing closure plans. Hart Crowser is the contractor. |
Ray Dronenburg |
| 6/30/1996 |
Update or Other Action |
Hart Crowser Draft Expanded site investigation received. A maximum concentration of lead was detected at 2,700 mg/kg from sample SS-2 out of five soil samples collected at the site. Consultant recommends NFA and debris left in place since environmental damage to fragile hillside environment would occur. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/20/1998 |
Update or Other Action |
Laura Ogar Solid Waste Program re: Expectations for Remaining Work and Regulatory Compliance for Solid Waste Projects Pribilof Islands. Of primary importance to the Department will be NOAA's assessments of the source areas (SA) to identify the extent of solid waste and any solid waste impacts at each site. Specific expectations for the SA's include:
Documentation at SA's containing buried waste must include and estimation of the footprint area and depth of the waste material and include the site longitude and latitude to accurately identify the waste disposal area. Information on groundwater (depth to, gradient, etc,) must also be provided.
Information must be provided on the depth to groundwater as a potential receptor for contamination if buried waste is present and/or suspected surface contamination is sufficient to warrant concerns for leaching. Where surface debris has been removed, the Site Investigation will be required to include evidence to support a conclusion that surface contamination does not exist.
Any surface debris removal must be fully documented to include a description of the volumes and types of wastes removed, and identify the approved final disposal location of any wastes removed from a SA through tipping fees, shipping records, etc.
Locations where buried waste will remain in the ground, solid waste landfill closure standards of 18 AAC 60 must be met. Typical landfill closure standards include the placement of final cover over the buried waste footprint to minimize infiltration and erosion. The applicable closure standards for the individual sites should be discussed with the SW Program staff prior to the development of a closure plan being developed. A closure plan must be submitted to the SW Program for review and approval prior to work being performed.
Permanent markers or survey monuments must be established from which the exact location of a facility can be determined. A notation must be recorded on the deed of the property containing the waste disposal site stating that the land has been used as a landfill and future use of the land may be restricted in order to protect and maintain the final cover and any monitoring devices in place.
Post closure monitoring for a period of five (5) years following the placement of final cover and landfill closure. Post closure monitoring will include but may not be limited to annual visual monitoring of the sites and required looking for signs of damage settlement or erosion. Surface and or ground water monitoring may be required if the department finds that pollution from the facility is likely to endanger public health or cause a violation of the water quality standards in 18 AAC 70. |
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. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/11/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
ADEC (L. Dietrick) Director of SPAR sent a letter to Mr. John Lindsay Pribilof Project Manager NOAA, OR&R, Bldg. 4 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E. Seattle, Washington 98115: As required by paragraph 42 of the Two-Party Agreement you are advised that Mr. Louis Howard is hereby designated as Interim Pribilof Project Manager for the Department of Environmental Conservation. Please consider this modification to the agreement as effective May 15, 1999. As required by the agreement please direct all official communications regarding the agreement through Mr. Howard. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Letter from Jennifer Roberts which states that ADEC is halting further accrual of stipulated penalties against NOAA for failure to fulfill and meet the requirements of the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement in 1998 and part of calendar year 1999. |
Louis Howard |
| 9/30/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Site information updated to comply with Two Part Agreement naming nomenclature. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/10/1999 |
Update or Other Action |
Revised site schedules received to prevent recurring stipulated penalties. Corrective action plan to be reviewed and commented on by ADEC on 2/04/2000. Fieldwork to begin May 2000. |
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 |
| 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 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 |
| 11/21/2001 |
Update or Other Action |
Site Closure Report DRAFT NOAA Landfill: Cliffside Dump and Reef Point Shoreline Site TPA Site 8. The NOAA/NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) "traditional" landfills, referenced as TPA Site 8, are formally classified as abandoned landfill sites under the Two Party Agreement. Two distinct landfills were identified in creating this debris removal site: the first, Cliffside Landfill, is located along the northern shore of Zolotoi Bay directly south of (and below) the City of St. Paul. The other is located along the northern shore of the peninsula which stretches from East Landing to Reef Point. The Reef Point "landfill" is shown on the TPA documents to extend along the rocky and steep northern coastline that makes up the Reef Point Seal Rookery.
Refuse discarded in the Cliffside Landfill included generations of household wastes that (reportedly) were burned prior to disposal. The Reef Point Landfill was reportedly used for two or three seasons during the 1950s and 1960s to incinerate wood debris. The resulting ash was buried at the site. Residents interviewed during previous investigations at the site could not recall whether metallic debris was also disposed at the site.
A small quantity of less than one (1) cubic yard of suspected lead-contaminated soils from under the "footprint" of a broken lead-acid battery was removed on two separate occasions, and subsequently manifested and transported by freighter to Seattle for proper hazardous waste disposal. Based on a review and analysis of available project photographs, Daily Reports, and limited field observations, NORTECH has arrived at the following environmental conclusions:
The very limited quantity of lead-contaminated soil that remains trapped in the pockets of basaltic rock at this site (less than 2 cubic feet) are not readily retrievable by conventional, mechanical methods. NORTECH believes that since only a "de-minimus" quantity of lead contaminated soil remains it will not likely cause appreciable harm to human health or the environment.
Groundwater contamination is considered unlikely at this debris removal site, given the lack of nearby groundwater and the lack of evidence indicating the presence of any significant spills, leaks, or other petroleum hydrocarbons releases at this site.
Based on these conclusions, NORTECH recommends the following: No Further Action decision for this TPA debris removal site. |
Louis Howard |
| 12/19/2001 |
Site Closure Approved |
Staff reviewed and commented on the draft closure report for the TPA 8 Cliffside dump and Reef Point dump. Based on a review of the data presented in the report, ADEC concurs no further remedial action (NFA) is required for the site known as NOAA TPA - Cliffside Landfill (Dump) and Reef Point Landfill (Dump) located adjacent to Zolotoi Bay and Reef Point Seal Rookery respectively.
This NFA determination is only for TPA 8. TPA 8 will not be assigned a closed status in ADEC’s contaminated site database since the levels of lead contamination are above those levels, which would allow for unrestricted use. The NFA decision is based on the following facts presented in the document:
a) the steepness of the slope adjacent to the Cliffside landfill which requires special equipment and logistics to get to the site which is a limiting factor for access by people;
b) all loose granular (contaminated) soils acting as a source of contamination were removed to a hard basaltic shelving underlying the former battery site;
c) no indications of soil staining or other possible petroleum contamination was observed at the site;
d) groundwater is not threatened by the residual contamination since groundwater is not present at the site nor is the site within an area which could be considered a groundwater recharge zone for drinking water source(s);
e) the residual contaminated soil (less than 2 cubic feet), is largely inaccessible by conventional excavation techniques and may already be displaced by the scouring action of Saint Paul’s periodic and intensive shore-side storm activity.
However, further investigation and/or remedial actions will be requested of NOAA by ADEC at TPA 8 based on an ADEC determination that the cleanup is not protective of human health, safety, or welfare, or of the environment, which includes, but is not limited to: area of public concern, ecological receptors, environmentally sensitive areas and marine waters.
ADEC reserves its rights, under 18 AAC 75 Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control regulations and AS 46.03 to require NOAA to conduct additional assessment and/or corrective actions, if information indicates the site conditions at TPA 8 pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, or welfare, or to the environment.
NOAA needs to be aware of 18 AAC 75.396 Local Control which also states: Subject to AS 29.35.020, AS 46.04.110, and AS 46.09.060, the requirements of 18 AAC 75.300 - 18 AAC 75.390 do not preempt local control that is as stringent as, or more stringent than, those requirements, and that is consistent with a regional master plan prepared under AS 46.04.210. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/11/2004 |
Site Number Identifier Changed |
Changed Workplan from 01 to 09 because of presence of lead contamination above cleanup levels. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/1/2008 |
Update or Other Action |
NOAA files with the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources a notice to deed # 2008-000215-0 Recording District:305-Aleutian Islands 5/1/2008 6 pages. Notice of Environmental Cleanup and Groundwater Contamination at TPA 08, NOAA (Village) Landfill, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Pursuant to 18 AAC 75.375, Tanadgusix Corporation as the owner, and the U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as the operator of the subject property hereby provide public notice that the property located at Rim Rock Drive at the intersections of Pribilof Street and Gorbatch Street, St. Paul, St. Paul Island, Alaska 99660 is contaminated and has buried solid wastes. More specifically, the site described as follows: Township 35 South, Range 132 West, Tract A of the Seward Meridian, Alaska; and located at 57 degrees, 7 minutes, 9.74 seconds North Latitude; 170 degrees, 16 minutes, 58.47 seconds West Longitude (Figures 1 and 2) has been subjected to lead contamination and solid waste, as a result of a discharge, or release and subsequent cleanup of oil or other hazardous susbstances, regulated under 18 AAC 75, Article 3 as amended October 2005 and solid waste disposal, which is regulated under 18 AAC 60 as amended August 2003. If contaminated soil or solid wastes are exposed in the future, they must be managed in accordance with laws applicable at that time. These releases and cleanup are documented in the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) contaminated sites database under the site number CS Reckey # 1994250119613; File ID 2644.38.023.011.
Following corrective action, NOAA submitted a request for conditional closure to the ADEC. NOAA's request stated further cleanup was impracticable because contaminated soils remained buried at the soil horizon where consolidated material (rock) impeded excavation (NOAA 2004). ADEC determined, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.325(f)(1) that site cleanup has been performed to the maximum extent practicable even though residual petroleum contaminated soils, primarily diesel range organics and benzene exist on the site property. ADEC granted a conditional closure, in part to this institutional control (deed notice), and confirmed that no further remedial action was required at the site unless new information becomes available that indicates to ADEC that the site may pose an unacceptable risk to human health, safety, welfare to the environment (NOAA 2004).
Grantees: the Tanadgusix Corporation (grantee of the surface estate), 4300 B Street, Suite 402, Anchorage, AK 99503-5946
The Aleut Corporation (grantee of the surbsurface estate), 4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK 99503
Recording District: Aleutian Islands.
This notice remains in effect until a written determination from ADEC is recorded that states that soil and/or groundwater at the site has been shown to meet the most stringent soil cleanup levels in Method Two of 18 AAC 75.341(c) and/or groundwater meets the cleanup levels in Table C in 18 AAC 75.345, and that off-site transportation of soil and/or groundwater is not a concern. |
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 NOAA (NMFS) Reef Point Landfill (Site 8a) has surface debris. NOAA Village Landfill (Site 8b) has surface debris, solid waste and contaminated sol.
NOAA (NMFS) Reef Point Landfill site conditions: TPA Figure 4-2 depicts a “landfill” along the northern shoreline of Reef Point; the “landfill” site was purportedly used two or three times to burn wood debris, and the ash was buried at the site. Tetra Tech (December 2000) identified other disposal locations and removed debris at Reef Point. Nortech (2001) surveyed the area removed some surface debris.
NOAA (Village) Landfill site conditions: De minimis quantities (<1 yd3) of residual lead contaminated soil lies within basaltic rock fractures, and buried solid waste remains on a vegetated steep slope; deed notice.
Cell "B" drum dump site conditions: Residual soil contaminated with DRO and RRO remains beneath City of St. Paul working pad circa 25 ft bgs; long-term groundwater monitoring at least until spring 2013 as part of the Cell C monitoring effort; deed notice.
Reef Point Landfill Property Owner as of November 6, 2007 is NOAA. NOAA (Village) Landfill property owner is Tanadgusix Corporation (TDX) for the surface estate. |
Jennifer Roberts |
