-
ACAT FOIA Repository 1
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 8, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 1992
Pages: 96
Document Title: Inventory Report for Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site
Agency/Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Document Summary:
This inventory documents materials deemed eligible for either investigation or cleanup under the present Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) at formerly used defense sites in the vicinity of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Previous investigations performed at Gambell in 1985 and 1986 by URS Corporation identified 13 sites that potentially qualified for investigation or cleanup under a previous DERP program. Five additional sites were identified following a site reconnaissance and interviews performed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) in 1991 and 1992 with Gambell residents who were present during the Department of Defense occupation. Fifteen of the 18 sites contain significant amounts of material eligible for either investigation or cleanup under DERP guidelines.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 8, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 1992
Pages: 96
Document Title: Inventory Report for Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site
Agency/Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Document Summary:
This inventory documents materials deemed eligible for either investigation or cleanup under the present Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) at formerly used defense sites in the vicinity of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Previous investigations performed at Gambell in 1985 and 1986 by URS Corporation identified 13 sites that potentially qualified for investigation or cleanup under a previous DERP program. Five additional sites were identified following a site reconnaissance and interviews performed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) in 1991 and 1992 with Gambell residents who were present during the Department of Defense occupation. Fifteen of the 18 sites contain significant amounts of material eligible for either investigation or cleanup under DERP guidelines.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat1SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 1," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FINALKP6060 A049INVENTORY REPORTGAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITEST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAContract No. DACA85-91-D-0003Delivery Order No. D0010ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.December 1992Prepared for:ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ALASKA DIVISIONDouglas Blaisdell, Project ManagerU.S. Army Engineer DistrictPouch 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898ecology and environment, inc.840 K STREET, ANCHORAGE; AK 99501,TEL. (907) 257-5000International Specialists in the Environment200-lerecycled paperF1OAK069603J) 1.09_0004_aFINALTABLE OF CONTENTSPageEXECUTIVE SUMMARY1INTRODUCTION1-11.1PURPOSE OF REPORT1-11.2SITE BACKGROUND.1-21.2.1• Site Description1-21.2.2Site History1-21.2.3Previous Investigations1-2SITE DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATION2-12.1PHYSIOGRAPHY2-12.2ECOLOGY. .'•. .2-12.2.1Vegetation2-12.2.2Birds2-22.2.3Mammals2-22.2.4Fish2-22.3GEOLOGY2-32.4HYDROLOGY2-32.4.1Surface Water2-32.4.2Groundwater2-3inI9-XW060 AO4WI/28/93-FIrecycled paper.•i-ol»t*>FINALTable of Contents (Cont.)age2.5CLIMATE2-52.6SITE HISTORY2-52.6.1Island History2-52.6.2Land Ownership2-62.6.3Demographic Characteristics2-6DERP ELIGIBILITY3-13.1SITE NO. 1: NORTH BEACH3-73.1.1DERP Eligibility3-83.1.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTW3-93.1.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination3-103.1.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-103.1.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-103.1.2.4Potential Receptors3-113.1.33.2Recommended Sampling and Analytical Parameters . . 3-11SITE NO. 2: FORMER MILITARY HOUSING/OPERATIONS AREA3-113.2.1DERP Eligibility3-123.2.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR, HTW. and CON/HTW3-133.2.33.3....3.2.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . . 3-133.2.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-143.2.2-3Potential Routes of Migration3-143.2.2.4Potential Receptors3-14Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-14SITE NO. 3: FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY .3-153.3.13-16DERP EligibilityIV19:KP6060_ A049-OI /28/93-FIrecycled papert»ti«| environmentTable of Contents (Cont.)FINALSection•3.3.23.3.33.4recycled paperEstimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibieBD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTW3-163.3.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .3-163.3.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-173.3.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-173.3.2.4Potential Receptors3-17.Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-173-183.4.1DERP Eligibility3-203.4.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTW3-203.4.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .3-213.4.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-223.4.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-223.4.2.4Potential Receptors3-22Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-22SITE NO. 5: FORMER TRAMWAY SITE3-223.5.1DERP Eligibility3-233.5.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR. HTW, and CON/HTW3-243.5.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .3-243.5.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-243.5.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-253.5.2.4Potential Receptors3-25Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-253.5.33.6^SITE NO. 4: SEVUOKUK MOUNTAIN3.4.33.5Pa eSITE NO. 6: MILITARY LANDFILL3-253.6.1DERP Eligibility3-263.6.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR. HTW, and CON/HTW3-26(»«i\J U K I '"IIV l l ' i H J I ' i i - t l lTable of Contents (Cont.)FINALSectionPage3.6.33.73.103-273.6.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-273.6.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-273.6.2.4Potential Receptors3-27Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-27.3-28DERP Eligibility3-283.7.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTW3-293.7.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .3-293.7.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-293.7.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-293.7.2.4Potential Receptors3-29Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-30....SITE NO. 8: WEST BEACH3-303.8.1DERP Eligibility3-313.8.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EligibleBD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTW3-323.8.2.1Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .3-323.8.2.2Potential Sources of Contamination3-323.8.2.3Potential Routes of Migration3-323.8.2.4Potential Receptors3-33Recommended Sampling and AnalyticalParameters3-33SITE NO. 9: ASPHALT BARREL CACHE3-333.9.13-34DERP EligibilitySITE NO. 10: SEVUOKUK MOUNTAINTRAIL SYSTEM3-343.10.13-34DERP EligibilityVII9JO>«XOrecycled paper..3.7.13.8.33.9Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . .SITE NO. 7: FORMER MILITARY POWER FACILITY3.7.33.83.6.2.1.,-.•..i.,»> ,.i. amiFINALthe sonar cable is rubber-coated and no sharp metal is exposed, it is also not consideredinherently dangerous.3.1.2 Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EIigible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWUnsafe surficial BD/DR, CON/HTW, and HTW present at the North Beach Siteinclude:Air Force Landing AreaItemDrum remnants associated withpotential hazardous wasteSheets of landing matStrips of sheet metalTar-stained gravelQuantityDERP Category40 Ibs.601bs.5 Ibs.20 sq. ft.HTWBD/DRBD/DRHTWArea between Air Force Landing Area and Army Landing AreaItemSheet metalLanding mat2-inch-diameter steel cable1-inch-diameter steel cableQuantity40 Ibs.965 Ibs.50 feet10 feetDERP CategoryBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRQuantity20 feet100 feet2,160 Ibs.20 Ibs.500 Ibs.DERP CategoryBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRArmy Landing AreaItem2-inch-diameter steel cable3-inch-diameter steel cableLanding matCorrugated sheet metal roofing materialSteel weasel tracksArea Between Army Landing Area and West Beach (Site No. 8)ItemEmpty drumsCorrugated roofing materialPipingLanding matI-inch-diameter braided metal cablei .5-inch-diameter steel cableMiscellaneous steel heavy machineryparts3-9I9-.KP6060 A04*«!/28/93-Flrecycled panerQuantity1615 Ibs.30 feet2,280 Ibs.120 feet30 feetDERP CategoryCON/HTWBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DR790 Ibs.BD/DR.FINALPotential CON/HTW which could not be quantified includes the allegedly buried crane,engines, and drums.3.1.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThe nature and extent of surface soil staining, subsurface soil contamination, andgroundwater contamination at Site No. 1 must be determined through a samplinginvestigation.3.1.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationMost potential sources of contamination associated widi the Army Landing Area arelocated underground. These potential sources are based on reports by residents of Gambell.Such sources include large engines formerly used to run pulley systems attached to burieddeadman anchors, a 100-foot crane, and drums with unknown contents. Potential sources atthe Air Force Landing Area include a decaying drum that has released an unknown tar-likematerial onto the beach berm and a 5-foot by 4-foot patch of tar-stained gravel. In addition,drums of heavy-weight oils, tars, and asphalt are allegedly buried beneath the Air ForceLanding Area. The quantity and exact location of these drums are unknown.3.1.2.3 Potential Routes of MigrationGroundwater is the primary potential migration pathway associated with suspectedcontaminants at Site No. 1. Given the hydrogeologic conditions present in the Gambell spitdiscussed in Section 3, any leaking hazardous or toxic substances from the buried drums,equipment, debris, and waste could migrate to subsurface soils or groundwater. Infiltratingwater may leach any contaminants sorbed onto subsurface soils and cause them to migrate togroundwater. Groundwater at the site may be hydraulically continuous with the Bering Sea,which may influence groundwater migration.Surface water is another potential migration route due to the potentially contaminatedsurface soils.During storms or high tides, the beach berm may erode to expose buriedmaterial. Wave action may relocate the buried material.As discussed previously,precipitation infiltration is expected to be rapid due to nature of die soil; therefore, runoff isnot expected to play a role in off-site migration.3-1019:KM060 AO*W)l/28/93-Flrecyded paperi-t-tiU.pj anil i-mii-onmemFINAL3.1.2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from this site include the users of thefreshwater aquifer, fish, wildlife, vegetation in the Bering Sea, and people who subsistencefish and hunt in the area.Dermal contact with or ingestion of the stained soils or exposed buried material, ifthey are hazardous, could present a risk to public health.3.1.3 Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersSurface soil sampling should be conducted in areas of stained soil at the Air ForceLanding Area to determine whether the staining is caused by hazardous materials. Due to thepotential presence of heavy oil and asphalt, surface soil samples should be analyzed for totalresidual petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), base/neutral and acid extractables (BNA), PCBs,and toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium,chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver). Subsurface soil sampling should occur inand around the areas in which debris, drums, and waste are reportedly buried to determinewhether any hazardous substances are leaching from buried material. Subsurface soil samplesshould be analyzed for gasoline-range organics (GRO), diesel-range organics (DRO), TRPH,volatile organic compounds (VOC), PCBs, and TCLP metals. In addition, monitoring wellsshould be installed and groundwater sampled to determine whether any hazardous or toxicsubstances have leached from the buried material or soils ta groundwater. Groundwatersamples should be analyzed for GRO, DRO. TRPH. VOCs, PCBs, and total metals.3.2 SITE NO. 2: FORMER MILITARY HOUSING/OPERATIONS AREAThe Former Military Housing and Operations Site reportedly includes: FormerMilitary Housing/Operations Burial Area, a Power Plant Burial Area, and an Ordnance BurialSite, all of which are located in the southeast portion of the site (see Figure 3-3). TheFormer Housing/Operations Area is estimated to be approximately 365 feet by 150 feet. TheOrdnance Burial Site is supposedly located at the southern end of the FormerHousing/Operations Area. Mr. James estimated that the Power Plant Burial Area isapproximately 110 feet by 70 feet (E & E 1992).3-11!9:KP6060_A04M>l/2g/93-FIrecycled paperrrol«»«v iind rnvirmimrntFINALAll facilities associated with these areas were demolished, and the debris was buriedat Site No. 2. The Former Housing/Operations Area included two rows of six quonset hutsoriented north to south. North of the quonset huts was a mess hall and a utility building.The utility building contained showers and a day room. The remnants of an apparentfireplace and a concrete pad, pieces of burned wood, and metal debris are scatteredthroughout the area (see Appendix A). There are two locations of discolored gravel in theFormer Housing/Operations Burial Area; one apparently rust-stained area is located in thenortheast corner and the other 2-foot-square area is located near the center of the area andincludes burned wood (E & E 1992).The Ordnance Burial Site reportedly contains 20-mm ammunition, 30- and 50-calibreammunition, carbine ammunition, and hand grenades in metal and creosote-coated woodenboxes buried approximately 6 feet bgs (E & E 1992). It is assumed that USAGE will referthis problem to the Explosive Ordnance Demolition Division.East of the Former Housing/Operations Area was a small power plant. The powerplant and all associated machinery were reportedly buried in the Former Power Plant BurialArea. On the surface of the former Power Plant Burial Area is a large gear, and rectangularmetal boxes are located in the southeast corner of the area. Part of a tiltdozer blade protrudesfrom the ground at the northwest corner of this area. Adjacent to the tiltdozer blade is aportion of a weasel track and rusted metal fragments. The underlying gravel is rust stained(E & E 1992).North of the Former Housing/Operations Area is mounded gravel that reportedlycovers the remains of a buried machine gun nest. Fibrous material which may potentiallycontain asbestos was observed in the gravel mound during the site inventory. Mr. Jamesexplained that the machine gunners would sit on this material to insulate themselves from theground (E & E 1992).3.2.1 DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of potentially contaminated soils, CON/HTW, and unsafedebris that are reportedly attributable to DOD activities. All items have been categorizedaccording to DERP guidelines using the assumptions described in Section 3.3-1219:KP«0«)_ AO*W) I mm-FIrecycled paper,.,,,i...;i ,m,l .-mi,,,,!,,,, ,uFINALThe BD/DR jocated at Site No. 2 is included as potentially eligible for DERP-fundedcleanup due to the possible hazard it presents to Gambell residents in a commonly usedsection of the village (see Section 3). Protruding hazardous debris, such as the miscellaneousmetal and piping listed below, is a result of inadequate burial by the military. These itemsprotrude from the gravel surface such diat a possible hazard exists to vehicle operatorstraveling through the area. Potential ACM is also present among the debris. This material isin a friable state and is therefore a potential health hazard to Gambell residents who couldinhale airborne fibers. The CON/HTW and potential HTW located at Site No. 2 could havecontributed to surface or subsurface contamination and is therefore potentially eligible forDERP-funded investigation.Items which are not inherently dangerous or a hazard to persons exercising reasonablecare are 55 pounds of wood, 2 pounds of ceramic pipe, and 50 pounds of concrete. Thesematerials are not eligible for DERP-funded cleanup. The reportedly buried ordnance ispotentially DERP-eligible for investigation. The amount of potentially buried ordnance couldnot be quantified.3.2.2 Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-Eligible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWUnsafe BD/DR, CON/HTW. and HTW at Site No. 2 include:• ItemMiscellaneous metalMetal pipingEmpty drumDiscolored GravelQuantity30 Ibs.100 Ibs.12 sq. ft.DERP-CategoryBD/DRBD/DRCON/HTWHTW.The potential ACM (5 pounds) at Site No. 2 could be classified as DB/DR if samplingconfirms that it actually is asbestos.3.2.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThe nature and extent of surface soil staining, subsurface soil contamination, andgroundwater contamination at Site No. 2 must be determined through a samplinginvestigation.3-13l9:KP«)60_A04*OI/2«/93-FIrecycled paperFINAL3.2.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationPotential sources of contamination include stained soil and buried ordnance. Potentialunderground sources of contamination include military ordnance that is reportedly buried inwooden boxes at 6 feet bgs. Potential sources of surtlcial contamination consists ofdiscolored and darkened gravel (black coating).3.2.2.3 Potential Routes of MigrationThe potential routes available for contaminant migration include groundwater, surfacewater and air. Given the hydrogeologic conditions present in the Gambell spit, discussed inSection 3, any leaking hazardous or toxic substances from the buried power plant equipmentor ordnance could migrate to subsurface soils or groundwater. Infiltrating water may leachany contaminants sorbed onto subsurface soils and cause them to migrate to groundwater.Groundwater at the site may be hydraulically continuous with an underlying unconsolidatedgravel aquifer which may be hydraulically connected to the Bering Sea and Troutman Lake.Since there are potentially contaminated soils, surface water represents a potentialpathway.As discussed previously (Section 3), precipitation infiltration is expected to berapid due to the nature of the soil; therefore, runoff is not expected to play a role in off-sitemigration.3.2.2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from this site include users ofgroundwater, vegetation, fish, and wildlife of the Bering Sea, and people who subsistence fishand hunt in the area. Dermal contact with or ingestion of the stained soils, if they arehazardous, could pose a risk to public health.3.2.3 Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersSampling at this site should include both surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,and the fibrous material. Since staining appears to be petroleum related, surface soil samplesshould be collected in areas of visible staining (other than rust) and analyzed for TRPH.BNA, and TCLP metals. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples should be collected on theperimeter of areas reported to contain buried debris and ordnance to determine whether3-14recycled paperFINALcontaminants are leaching through interaction with groundwater. Subsurface soil samplesshould be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, TCLP metals, VOCs, and ordnance.Groundwater samples should be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOCs, total metals, andexplosives. Asbestos sampling is also recommended for exposed fibrous materials.3.3 SITE NO. 3: FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITYThe Former Communications Facility Site is located parallel to the 100-foot contourof Sevuokuk Mountain. It extends from the southeast corner of North Beach (Site No. 1) tothe north boundary of the former Tramway Site (Site No. 5; see Figure 3-4). The site has anorth-to-south dimension of 1,875 feet and an east-to-west dimension that varies from 250 feetto 435 feet. The site includes debris (drums and drum remnants) scattered the entire length ofthe site and the area in which the communications facility was allegedly buried (E & E1992).The suspected Former Communications Facility Burial Area is a slightly irregularrectangular area estimated to be approximately 75 feet by 45 feet. Two Jamesway huts and a10- to 15-kw power plant are reportedly buried in the area. The power plant probablycontained auxiliary generators, transformers, oils, fuels, and batteries which may have-beenburied in the area. In addition, approximately 12 5- to 10-gallon glass carboys of sulfuricacid were reportedly buried on site (URS 1986; E & E 1992).Currently, one drum, some pipe, anchors for guy wire, and a 275-gallon tank arescattered on the surface, most of which are located on the eastern half of the Burial Area (seeAppendix A). The following identifying marks are on the 275-gallon tank:Stainless Steel Products, Co.Manufacturers 275 GalSt. Paul - Minnesota.A 1.5-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well point, apparently from the URSinvestigation, is located near the center of the area. In contrast to the URS findings, there isno apparent staining or stressed vegetation remains in the suspected burial area (URS 1986;E & E 1992).3-15I9-XKO60 AO*M)l/2g/93-FIrecycled paper-in iritfinirntFINAL3.3.1 DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of CON/HTW and unsafe debris that are reportedlyattributable to DOD activities. All items have been categorized according to DERP guidelinesand using the assumptions described in Section 3.The BD/DR located at Site No. 3 is included as potentially eligible for DERP-fundedcleanup due to the possible hazard it presents to Gambell residents in this frequently traveledarea. Debris such as weasel track and metal protrudes from the native gravel surface so that apossible hazard exists to vehicle operators traveling dirough the site. Sharp metal edges mayalso present a hazard to children playing in the vicinity.The CON/HTW could possibly have contributed to surface or subsurfacecontamination and is therefore eligible for DERP-funded investigation.Sixty pounds of miscellaneous wood identified at Site No. 3 is ineligible for DERPfunded cleanup since it does not present a hazard to persons exercising ordinary andreasonable care and is not inherently dangerous.3.3.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-Eligible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWUnsafe BD/DR and CON/HTW at Site No. 3 includes:ItemWeasel trackEmpty drumsDrum remnantsEmpty fuel 275-gallon storage tankMiscellaneous metalQuantity200 Ibs.1920 Ibs.1500 Ibs.DERP CategoryBD/DRCON/HTWBD/DRCON/HTWBD/DR.Potential CON/HTW which could not be quantified includes reportedly buried generators,glass carboys, transformers, and batteries.3.3.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThere was no visibly stained surface soil at this site. The nature and extent ofsubsurface soil and groundwater contamination must be determined through a samplinginvestigation.3-16}:KPl /ffi/93-Flrecycled paperi-roltijjv and «*m irnFINAL3.4.1DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of potentially contaminated soils, CON/HTW, and unsafedebris that are reportedly attributable to DOD activities. All items have been categorizedaccording to DERP guidelines using the assumptions described in Section 3.Since this site is somewhat distant from the major traffic and living areas of theGambell residents, many of the inventoried items mentioned above are considered lesshazardous than similar objects present in more commonly used areas. Also, the geography ofSite No. 4 is rocky terrain, where upon some of the debris is strewn, therefore making it lesslikely to interfere with vehicular traffic. For these reasons, items such as cable and wire(3,530 feet), wood debris (110 pounds), tar paper (50 pounds), rusted cans (20 pounds), fireextinguishers (200 pounds), and sonar cable (three spools) are not likely to be hazardous topersons exercising reasonable care in the area.However, since portions of this site are visited by villagers who hunt, trap smallgame, or collect sea bird eggs, or by children and adolescents who may explore areas withconcentrated amounts of debris, much of the inventoried BD/DR is included as potentiallyeligible for DERP-funded cleanup. Potential ACM is also present among the debris. Thismaterial is in a friable state and is therefore a potential health hazard to persons who couldinhale airborne fibers. Items such as metal sheeting, quonset hut framing, and landing matare a hazard due to sharp edges. Other BD/DR near the quonset hut area such as steel poles,triangle frame supports, and triangle metal framing poses a hazard to persons operating ATVsor snow machines since the debris may be up to 6 feet high in areas accessible by thesevehicles. Foggy conditions which reduce visibility are common on the mountain top,increasing the chance of possible collision.The CON/HTW and potential HTW present at Site No. 4 are reportedly formermilitary property and could have contributed to surface or subsurface contamination and aretherefore potentially eligible for DERP-funded investigation.3.4.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-Eligible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWThe surficial unsafe BD/DR, CON/HTW, and HTW at the Air Force Radar Stationlocated in the northern end of Site No. 4 include:3-20_ A04*o i rxm-t \recycled paper,.,.,, i, ,.^ ,ul,i,.,,,ir ..... „,.„,FINALItemMetal gas tankMiscellaneous metal debrisMetal sheetingEmpty drumsGenerators (Howelite)Engine blockStained soilDERP CategoryQuantityCON/HTW1BD/DR890 Ibs.BD/DR15 Ibs.CON/HTW4CON/HTW7(2) 200 Ibs. CON/HTWHTW.30 sq. ft.The unsafe BD/DR and CON/HTW in and around the quonset hut area located in SiteNo. 4 include:ItemSteel polesTriangle frame supportsTriangle metal framingSteel supportsFraming structureEmpty drumsTransformersGeneratorSheet metalMiscellaneous metalBarbed wireQuantity450 Ibs.150 Ibs.60 Ibs.90 Ibs.4,000 Ibs.3421,000 Ibs.30 Ibs.50 Ibs.275 feetDERP CategoryBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRCON/HTWCON/HTWCON/HTW.BD/DRBD/DRBD/DR.The unknown quantity of potential ACM may be classified as BD/DR, if analysis proves thatit actually is asbestos.The unsafe BD/DR and CON/HTW near the transformer and miscellaneous area(south-end of Site No. 4) include:ItemTransformersSheet metalQuonset hut framingLanding matQuantity370 Ibs.500 Ibs.100 Ibs.DERP CategoryCON/HTWBD/DRBD/DRBD/DR.3.4.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThe nature of the stained soil at Site No. 4 must be determined through a samplinginvestigation.3-21I9JCP6060 AO*WI/2S/93-FIrecycled paperFINAL3.4.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationPotential sources of contamination include the CON/HTW and stained soils.Transformers, generators, engine blocks, and drums may have contained petroleum, oil, andlubricants (POLs); PCBs: and metals.3.4.23 Potential Routes of MigrationThe routes available for contaminant migration are surface water (runoff or snowmelt) and possibly groundwater. Contaminants in surface soils at Site No. 4 may becomeentrained in surface water runoff. Sustained runoff is only expected on the exposed bedrockon the top and western flank of Sevuokuk Mountain. Runoff flowing over the exposedbedrock is expected to rapidly infiltrate into the sediments on the flank of the mountain andthe gravels at the base. Therefore, potentially contaminated runoff could enter theunconsoiidated gravel aquifer if it exists at the base of the mountain.3.4.2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from tiiis site include users of thefreshwater aquifer, vegetation, fish and wildlife of the Bering Sea, and people whosubsistence fish and hunt in the area.Dermal contact with or ingestion of the stained soils, if they are hazardous, couldpresent a risk to public health.3.4.3Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersSurface soil and sediment sampling should be conducted in areas of stained soil. Soiland sediment samples from the soil adjacent to each transformer should be analyzed forPCBs. Surface soil samples collected from the burned area should be analyzed for TRPH,BNA, dioxin, PCBs, and TCLP metals. Fibrous material located near the quonset hut areashould be sampled and analyzed for bulk asbestos.3.5 SITE NO. 5: FORMER TRAMWAY SITEThe Former Tramway Site extends approximately 2,400 feet from the southeastcorner of the Former Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) to the southwest corner of Site No.3-22recyclea paperFINAL4 (see Figure 3-5). The north-to-south dimension of Site No. 5 varies from approximately125 feet to 315 feet. The Former Tramway Site includes two areas of suspected debris andpotential HTW burial that are referred to as the Cable Burial Area and the SecondaryTransformer Burial Area. The Cable Burial Area was estimated by Mr. James to beapproximately 100-feet by 55-feet and the Secondary Transformer Burial Area to be 70 feetby 50 feet (E & E 1992).Remnants of the steel cable, sonar cable, and miscellaneous metal debris from amilitary tramway remain on the mountain east of the burial areas. Power cables reportedlyextended from the primary transformers at the Former Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) tosecondary transformers at the base of the mountain to the tertiary transformers on themountain ridge, and reportedly continued to the quonset huts and the Air Force radar stationin Site No. 4. The Navy placed sonar cables up the mountain that followed the same route,which is known as the Communications Cable Route (Site No. 11). Most of the tramway hasbeen removed, and the power cable is reportedly buried in the Cable Burial Area west of theSecondary Transformer Burial Area (URS 1986; E & E 1992). There is no visible stainingin this area or jn the Cable Burial Area.Six secondary transformers are reportedly buried near the base of the mountain (seeFigure 3-5). These transformers were reported to be 8 to 10 feet in height. No debris isvisible on the surface, but there is a mound in the middle of the area. An ATV trail extendsbetween the suspected burial areas (E & E 1992).Debris is scattered on the ground between the Former Military Power Facility (SiteNo. 7) and the present power plant. The military buried bottles and cans of beer, whiskey,and soft drinks near the power plant. Other debris in this area includes concrete, cable,miscellaneous metal objects, and drums.3.5.1 DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of CON/HTW and unsafe debris that are reportedlyattributable to DOD activities. All items have been categorized according to DERP guidelinesand using the assumptions described in Section 3.3-2319:KP60«0_A04««l/28/93-FIrecycled papermirmmirntFINALThe BD/DR located at Site No. 5 is included as potentially eligible for DERP-fundedcleanup due to the possible hazard it presents to Gambell residents frequenting this area,either by traveling through to other destinations or to gather artifacts from nearbyarchaeological sites (see Figure 3-5). Debris such as sharp-edged miscellaneous metal andlarge quantities of cable and conduit could become entangled with ATVs or snow machinescausing potential injury to vehicle operators. This presence of hazardous debris is a result ofinadequate burial by the military during operations at Gambell, as discussed in Section 3.The CON/HTW located at Site No. 5 could possibly have contributed to surface orsubsurface contamination and is therefore potentially eligible for DERP-funded investigation.The approximately 5,544 pounds of concrete located in the area is not inherentlydangerous or hazardous to a person exercising reasonable care and is therefore not eligible forDERP-funded cleanup.3.5.2Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-Eligible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWUnsafe surficial BD/DR and CON/HTW at Site No. 5 include:ItemMiscellaneous metalSteel cable of various diametersConduitDrumQuantity105 Ibs.525 feet10 feetIDERP CategoryBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRCON/HTW.Potential CON/HTW which could not be quantified are the allegedly buried secondarytransformers and drums.3.5.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThere were no visibly stained surface soils at this site. The nature and extent ofsubsurface soil and groundwater contamination must be determined through a samplinginvestigation.3.5.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationPotential sources of contamination are the partially buried drum of unknown contentsand the reportedly buried secondary transformers.3-24I»:ICP60«) A04WII/3/93-F1recycled paperFINAL3.5.2.3 Potential Routes of MigrationGiven that there are only reportedly buried materials at this site, the only probableroute available for contaminant migration is groundwater. Due to the hydrogeologicconditions present at the Gambell spit, contaminants from the potentially leaking transformerscould migrate to subsurface soils or groundwater. Infiltrating water may leach anycontaminants sorbed onto subsurface soil and cause them to migrate to groundwater.Groundwater at the site may be hydraulically continuous with the underlying unconsolidatedgravel aquifer. As previously discussed, the aquifer may be hydraulically connected to theBering Sea and Troutman Lake.3.5.2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from this site through groundwatermigration include users of the freshwater aquifer, vegetation, fish, and wildlife of TroutmanLake and the Bering Sea, and people who subsistence fish and hunt in the area.3.5.3Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersSubsurface soil and groundwater samples should be collected in, and on the perimeterof, the vicinity of the reported buried transformers to determine whether hazardous substanceshave been released. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples should be analyzed for GRO,DRCX TRPH, and PCBs.3.6 SITE NO. 6: MILITARY LANDFILLThe Military Landfill is located north of Gambell High School. The Army reportedlyburied approximately 3,000 barrels of lime-stabilized human waste in an estimated 275-footby 135-foot area (see Figure 3-5). According to Mr. James, the Army excavated an area atthis site to a depth equal to the height of a drum. Over a period of six years, the Army filled. the excavation from south to north, placing drums side by side (E & E 1992). Landfilledmaterial may have included materials generated from the Former Military Power and FormerCommunication Facility (site nos. 7 and 3, respectively; URS 1986).The entire landfill surface is characterized by mounded gravel. Drum tops andremnants of approximately 20 drums protrude through the gravel surface throughout the site3-25]9:KPffXOA04WH/28/W-FIrecycled peperFINAL(see Appendix A). Two drums and weasel tracks are .on the surface at the east end of thesite. A 1.5-inch-diameter PVC riser pipe, an apparent well point from the 1985 URSinvestigation, is located in the southeast quadrant of the site. No organic vapors weredetected using an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) in the well casing or from any of theexposed drums (E & E 1992).Particular concern is posed by Site No. 6 due to the site's proximity to the village andthe desirability of the area for future community growth (URS 1986).3.6.1 DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation due tothe presence of CON/HTW that is reportedly attributed to DOD activities. The debris hasbeen categorized according to DERP guidelines and using the assumptions described inSection 3.The items inventoried below, drums of human waste reportedly buried during militaryactivity at Gambell, are considered as potentially eligible for DERP-funded investigation asCON/HTW. Surficial drum remnants, mostly drum lids, could be in contact with possibleHTW contained in the remaining buried drums or could be considered as potentiallyhazardous BD/DR due to the possibility of collapse or cave-in under the weight of personswalking or driving in the area. This location is well traveled and very close to the center ofvillage activity. For these reasons, the drum remnants are also considered potentially eligiblefor DERP-funded investigation or possible cleanup.3.6.2 Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-EHgible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWThe site contains the following quantity of CON/HTW:ItemDrums remnants associated withpotential hazardous wasteQuantity30 Ibs.DERP CategoryHTW or BD/DR.The drums of buried human waste could potentially be classified as CON/HTW.URS reported the quantity to be 3,000 drums; E & E could not confirm this number.In addition, the landfill is reported to contain an unknown quantity of waste generatedat the Former Military Power and Former Communication Facility.3-26l9:KP60eO A049OI/B/93-FIrecycled paper,-,-.>|(,py uii«lFINAL3.6.2.1 The Nature and Extent of ContaminationNo surface soil staining other than rust was noted at Site No. 6. The nature andextent of gfoundwater contamination must be determined through a sampling investigation.3.6.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationPotential sources of contamination at this site include potential leachate producedfrom the 3,000 barrels of reportedly buried human waste and unknown allegedly buriedmaterial from the Former Military Power and Former communication facilities. Severaldrums were protruding from the ground surface and could cause previously buriedcontaminants to migrate onto the surface soils.3.6.2.3 Potential Routes of MigrationGroundwater is the primary route of contaminant migration from this site. Anysubstance leaking from the potentially buried decaying human waste drums or wastes from theFormer Military Power or Former Communications facilities could migrate to subsurface soilsor groundwater. -Infiltrating water may leach any contaminants sorbed onto to subsurfacesoils and cause them to migrate to groundwater. Groundwater at the site may be hydraulicallycontinuous with the underlying unconsolidated gravel aquifer. As'discussed in Section 3, theaquifer may be hydraulically connected to the Bering Sea and Troutman Lake.3.6*2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from this site through groundwater areusers of the freshwater aquifer, vegetation, fish, and wildlife of the Bering Sea and TroutmanLake, and people who subsistence fish and hunt in the area.3.6.3 Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersGroundwater samples should be collected on the perimeter of buried drums of humanwaste to determine whether a hazardous leachate is being produced and the nature of theleachate, and to determine whether it has entered the groundwater. Due to the presence ofhuman and unknown wastes, groundwater samples should be analyzed for GRO, DRO,TRPH, VOCs, ammonia, nitrates, sulfates, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids,3-27]9:KPttW) A04W)l/2g/93-F]recycled paper,FINALcoliform and fecal bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and totalmetals. Since the primary concern at this site is potential groundwater contamination, nosurface or subsurface soil samples are recommended for collection at this time.3.7 SITE NO. 7: FORMER MILITARY POWER FACILITYThe Former Military Power Facility was allegedly buried north of the municipalbuilding in an estimated 375-foot by 85-foot area. The primary transformers associated withthe facility were reportedly buried within the 35-foot by 60-foot area in the southwest cornerof the site (see Figure 3-5).An .area of mounded gravel with protruding power cable, copperwire, and rusted metal is located within the Primary Transformer Burial Area (see AppendixA; E & E 1992).A diesel/gasoline pipeline runs south from North Beach and branches east and westnear the center of the site. There are seven areas of stained gravel on the west side of thepipe junction, and there is a concrete pad near the east end of the site (see Appendix A).Burned wood, sonar cable, and landing mat are located near the concrete pad. Some residentsremember a motor pool that was adjacentrto the concrete pad and an area next to the motorpool in which military personnel worked on pipes (see Appendix A; E & E 1992).3.7.1DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of HTW, CON/HTW. and unsafe debris reportedlyattributable to DOD. Although visibly stained soil is apparent at the site, it is doubtful that itis attributable to DOD, but this must be determined through a sampling investigation. Allitems have been categorized according to DERP guidelines using the assumptions described inSection 3.The BD/DR located at Site No. 7 is included as potentially eligible for DERP-fundedcleanup due to the possible hazard it presents to Gambell residents traveling through this wellused section of town. Debris such as sharp-edged metal and quantities of various-sized cableand wire could become entangled with ATVs or snow machines causing potential injury tovehicle operators. This hazardous debris is a result of inadequate burial by the militaryduring its occupation at Gambell.3-28recycled paper«-oi«,.> mi,i ,,ii,i ,-iivir..imu-iuFINALcrates of live ammunition, including hand grenades, 30- and 50-calibre shells, and TNT atapproximately 3 to 6 feet bgs. Currently, the Ordnance Burial Site contains two pits in thenorthwest corner of the area and some surface debris. There is no visibly stained soil(E & E 1992). It is assumed that USAGE will refer the alleged ordnance problem to theExplosive Ordnance Demolition Division.The Army Landfill-adjacent to Nayvaghaq Lake is approximately 145 feet by 145feet. The southern boundary of the area is the high water mark of the lake. The Armyreportedly excavated the area and filled the excavation with several loads of material butnever graded the area. Currently, there is no visible debris or stained soil on the surface, butthere are two 4-foot-deep pits on die south side of the suspected landfill area (E & E 1992).3.8.1 DERP EligibilityThis site is potentially eligible for DERP-funded hazardous waste investigation andBD/DR cleanup due to the presence of CON/HTW, unsafe debris, and ordnance that arereportedly attributable to DOD. The CON/HTW and unsafe debris have been categorizedaccording to DERP guidelines and using the assumptions described in Section 3. Allordnance has been assumed to be eligible for investigation with DERP funding. The quantityof ordnance provided by Mr. James could not be confirmed by E & E.The BD/DR located at West Beach is included as potentially eligible for DERPfunded cleanup due to the possible hazard it presents to Gambell residents who frequentlytravel in diis area of die village. Large quantities of landing mat are present. Some of theprotruding hazardous debris is a result of inadequately buried BD/DR during militaryoccupation. Much of the debris scattered throughout the site is landing mat. Mr. Jamesreported that odier state and federal agencies (FAA), as well as the Army and Air Force,utilized landing mat at Gambeil; however, it is difficult to attribute the occurrence of landingmat in specific areas to a particular governmental branch. FAA reportedly dismantled thelanding mat runway in an attempt to build a sea wall; however, the Army and Air Forcereportedly utilized landing mat wherever they had installations, subsequently leaving it behindin bundles or burying it as a means of disposal. Wave action and storm winds have alsocontributed to the widespread occurrence of landing mat throughout Site No. 8. Since it is3-31recycled papertimi «MI% ironnuMiFINALimpossible to ascertain the percentage of inventoried landing mat attributable to DODactivities, the total amount is listed as potentially eligible for DERP-funded cleanup.The CON/HTW present at West Beach could possibly have contributed to surface orsubsurface contamination and is therefore potentially eligible for DERP-funded investigation.3.8.2 Estimated Quantity of Potentially DERP-Eligible BD/DR, HTW, and CON/HTWBD/DR and CON/HTW present at Site No. 8 include:ItemLanding matEmpty drumsDrums containing asphaltSteel cable and wire (various diameters)Metal crate strappingCorrugated roofing metalMetal grateHot water heaterMetal sledMiscellaneous metalQuantity121,910 Ibs.6682,335 feet235 Ibs.135 Ibs.300 Ibs.100 Ibs.1,000 Ibs.600 Ibs.DERP CategoryBD/DRCON/HTWCON/HTWBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DRBD/DR.The landing mat that is exposed along the road and runway has not been quantifiedbecause its removal would involve destroying portions of the airstrip. However, the landingmat is a physical hazard and more of it will become exposed as a result of erosion.3.8.2.1 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThere is no visibly stained soil at Site No. 8. The nature and extent of potentialsubsurface soil and groundwater contamination -at the Army Landfill must be determinedthrough a sampling investigation.3.8.2.2 Potential Sources of ContaminationPotential sources of contamination include the reported 2,000 pounds of buriedordnance and allegedly buried material at the Army Landfill north of Nayvaghaq Lake.3.8.2.3 Potential Routes of MigrationThe potential route for contaminant migration from Site No. 8 is groundwater. Anydeteriorating ordnance could contaminate subsurface soils or groundwater. Infiltrating water3-32recycled caperFINALmay leach any contaminants sorbed onto to subsurface soils and cause them to migrate togroundwater. There may be an underlying unconsolidated gravel aquifer at the OrdnanceDump. Tidal effects of the Bering Sea may influence groundwater migration in this location.Any leachate produced from the decay of wastes at the Army Landfill could contaminatesubsurface soils or groundwater. Groundwater under die landfill may be hydraulicallycontinuous with an underlying aquifer or Nayvaghaq Lake.3.8.2.4 Potential ReceptorsPotential receptors of contaminant migration from this site through groundwater arethe vegetation, fish, and wildlife of the Bering Sea and Nayvaghaq Lake, and people whosubsistence fish and hunt in die area.3.8.3 Recommended Sampling and Analytical ParametersSubsurface soil and groundwater samples should be collected in, and on the perimeterof, the Army Landfill Area to determine whedier leachate "is being produced, whedier it hasentered the groundwater, and whether it has die potential to enter Nayvaghaq Lake. Since diematerials buried in die landfill are unknown, subsurface soil samples should be analyzed forGRO, DRO, TRPH, VOCs, PCBs, and TCLP metals. Groundwater samples should beanalyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOCs, PCBs, and total metals.No sampling is recommended at the ordnance dump because of the hazards associatedwidi drilling at this site.3.9 SITE NO. 9: ASPHALT BARREL CACHEThe Asphalt Barrel Cache is located on the east side of the airstrip. It was identifiedby URS as a former military site containing approximately 150 55-gallon leaking barrels ofasphalt. However, Mr. James claims that the site was not used by the military and that FAAused this area as barrel cache during airstrip construction. According to Mr. James, thebarrels were covered with gravel during a severe storm in fall 1990. Currently, there is littlesurficial evidence of the barrels except for scattered asphalt (E & E 1992).During the E & E site inventory, several deteriorating 55-gallon drums from whicha tar-like substance was leaking were observed. These drums are located an unspecified3-3319:KPtOO>_ A04 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 2
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 9, Date Received July 2023
Year: February 1993
Pages: 173
Document Title: Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Document Summary:
The chemical data acquisition plan (CDAP) provides a plan, and chemical testing to determine potential contamination attributable to the military can be determined. The conclusion: "There are 3 known OEW burial locations at this site: Site 2 - the former military housing/operations site; Site 8 - West Beach; and Site 15 - Troutman Lake Ordnance burial site."Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 9, Date Received July 2023
Year: February 1993
Pages: 173
Document Title: Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Document Summary:
The chemical data acquisition plan (CDAP) provides a plan, and chemical testing to determine potential contamination attributable to the military can be determined. The conclusion: "There are 3 known OEW burial locations at this site: Site 2 - the former military housing/operations site; Site 8 - West Beach; and Site 15 - Troutman Lake Ordnance burial site."LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat2SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 2," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
CHEMICAL DATA ACQUISITION PLANSITE INVENTORY UPDATEGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAFINALContract No. DACA85-91-D-Q003Delivery Order No. 0010February 1993Prepared for:UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSMr. Douglas Blaisdell, Project ManagerAlaska DistrictPouch 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898ecology and environment, inc.840 K STREET, ANCHORAGE, AK 99501,TEL. (907) 257-5000International Specialists in the Environment200-lerecycled paperF10AK069603 01.09 0005 aTABLE OF CONTENTSSectionPage1INTRODUCTION1-12SITE DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATION2-12.1PHYSIOGRAPHY2-12.2ECOLOGY2-12.2.1Vegetation .2-12.2.2Birds2-22.2.3Mammals2-22.2.4Fish2-232.3GEOLOGY2-32.4HYDROLOGY2-32.5CLIMATE2-42.6SITE HISTORY2-52.6.1Island History2-52.6.2Land Ownership2-62.6.3Demographic Characteristics2-62.6.4Project Site History2-6CHEMICAL DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES3-13.1GENERAL PROJECT CONCEPTUAL MODEL3-13.1.1Contaminant Sources3-13.1.2Migration Pathways3-13.1.3Potential Receptors3-1111!9d£P«OTO A0444X2OS/93-D1recycled paperFINALecology and pmvironm^ntTable of Contents (Cont.)SectionPage3.1.4Contaminants of Concern.3-23.2PROJECT OBJECTIVE3-23.3PROJECT DATA ACQUISITION APPROACH3-33.4PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES3-34PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES5FIELDWORK METHODOLOGIES/FIELD ACTIVITIES5-15.1GENERAL INFORMATION5-15.2PROJECT AREA SITE DESCRIPTIONS5-35.2.1Site No. 1: North Beach5-45.2.2Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/OperationsArea5-5Site No. 3: Former CommunicationFacility5-75.2.4Site No. 4: Sevuokuk Mountain5-85.2.5Site No. 5: Former Tramway Site5-105.2.6Site No. 6: Military Landfill5-115.2.7Site No. 7: Former Military Power Facility5-125.2.8Site No. 8: West Beach5-135.2.9Site No. 9: Asphalt Barrel Cache5-145.2.10Site No. 10: Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System ...5-145.2.11Site No. 11: Communication Cable Route5-155.2.12Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site5-155.2.13Site No. 13: Former Radar Power Station . . . . . .5-165.2.14Site No. 14: Navy Plane Crash Site5-175.2.15Site No. 15: Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site .5-175.2.16Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building Site . . . .5-175.2.17Site No. 17: Army Landfills5-185.2.18Site No. 18: Former Main Camp5-185.2.3..4-1iv19JCP60TO A044-02/25/93-D1FINALTable of Contents (Cont.)tionPage5.35.45.55.6GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION5-195.3.1Geophysical Survey Locations5-195.3.2Geophysical Survey Methods5-22SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS5-245.4.1Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil5-245.4.2Subsurface Soil5-275.4.3Groundwater Samples5-355.4.4Sediment Samples5-425.4.5Asbestos Samples5-42FIELD QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS5-455.5.1Field QC Samples5-455.5.2Field Audits5-465.5.3Corrective Action5-46FIELD EQUIPMENT, CONTAINERS, AND SUPPLIES . . .5-465.6.1Calibration Procedures and Frequency5-465.6.2Sampling Equipment, Containers,and Supplies5-515.7EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION5-515.8SAMPLE HANDLING REQUIREMENTS5-525.8.1Container Requirements5-525.8.2Preservation and Holding Times5-525.8.3Documentation5-525.8.4Analysis Request Forms/Chain-of-Custody5-565.8.5Sample Packaging and Shipping5-585.9INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE5-595.10PERSONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY5-60LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES6-16.1LABORATORY PROCEDURES6-16.1.16-1WdCMOTO A044-02/2S/93-D1recycled paperQuantitative Analytical Procedures.FINALEcology and environment6.1.2Sample Preparation Methods6-16.1.3Preventive Maintenance6-26.1.4Calibration Procedures and Frequency6-26.2INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS6-26.3PROCEDURES USED TO ASSESS DATA ACCURACY,PRECISION, AND COMPLETENESS6-66.3.1Accuracy6-66.3.2Precision6-66.3.3Completeness6-76.3.4Representativeness6-86.3.5Method Detection Limits6-86.46.5CORRECTIVE ACTION6-86.4.1Laboratory Situations6-86.4.2Documentation6-10DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION,AND REPORTING .6-106.5.1Data Reduction6-106.5.2Data Validation6-126.5.3Data Reporting6-12CHEMICAL DATA QUALITYMANAGEMENT DELIVERABLES7-17.1DAILY FIELD QUALITY CONTROL REPORTS7-17.2BORING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION LOGS7-17.3DEPARTURES FROM APPROVED PLANS7-17.4FINAL INVESTIGATION REPORT7-1REFERENCES8-1VIIfcKWOTO AW44K/25/93-D1FINALAppendixAANALYTESA-lBSUBSURFACE EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT ANDPROCEDURESB-lcSAMPLE LABELS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORMSDFIELD AUDIT CHECKLIST....C-lD-lVll19:KW070_A04470 A044-02/19/93-D1FINALGrazing animals, specifically caribou, may be exposed to potentially contaminated materialsatop Sevuokuk Mountain. Additionally, there are large populations of migratory and residentbirds on the Island who~may eat potentially contaminated material.3.1.4 Contaminants of ConcernIt has been determined through background research, a site reconnaissance, interviewswith local residents, and previous sampling that the potential contaminants of concern, mostof which are buried, include:•Containerized POL;•Containerized PCBs;•Spilled or discarded POL;•Spilled or discarded PCBs;•Human waste (bacteriological);•Containerized miscellaneous chemical solvents;•Batteries and corrosives;•Breakdown products of incompletely combusted PCBs (TCDD and TCDF);•Leached metals in soil/sediment and water; and•Asbestos.The scope of previous investigations was limited; therefore, only limited analysis wasperformed. Based upon site history, more contaminants are suspected to be present than thosepreviously analyzed for.3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVESince remediation of hazardous conditions is the ultimate goal of the DERP program, theproject objective shall be to provide sufficient data to determine whether a hazard existsaccording to the guidelines of the DERP program, and to develop a remedial design, wherenecessary, with minimal additional investigation. Therefore, the objective of this CDAP will3-219:KP60TO_A044-02/19/93-Dlrecycled pspsr,FINALbe to gather sufficient chemical, geophysical, and hydrological data to identify and characterize areas requiring remediation and to develop remedial alternatives.3.3 PROJECT DATA ACQUISITION APPROACHTo accomplish the stated project objective, the following approach was adopted:•The project area was divided into distinct sites based on selection criteria,such as previous use as a landfill, stained areas, debris, etc.;•Only those sites with a potential for exhibiting the contaminants of concernwere selected for further characterization;•Within each site, only those matrices that have an impact on potentialreceptors were selected for sampling;•Sampling points were selected, or guidance for field selection provided,based on sound characterization practices such as background comparison,site representation, postulation of possible extent of contamination, etc.;•Analytical methods and parameters were chosen to be cost effective andprovide the maximum coverage of the contaminants of concern without goingbeyond design needs;•Detection limits were chosen to provide information required to determinewhether cleanup levels and/or COE quality criteria have been met; and•Field and laboratory QC measures were chosen incorporated to provideinformation necessary to validate analytical data.3.4 PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVESThe data quality objectives (DQOs) for this project will be the method detection limits foreach parameter measured. Tables 3-1 through 3-5 summarize the DQOs for each matrix.For all groundwater analytical parameters, the method detection limits will be sufficient tomeet Alaska water quality criteria 18 AAC 70, Register 119.Petroleum product cleanup levels for soil are in the Interim Guidance for nonunderground storage tank contaminated soil cleanup levels dated July 1991. For this project,the matrix score cleanup level will have to be determined on a site-by-site basis. DQOs wereselected to meet the most stringent (Level A) matrix score cleanup levels. These are:100 mg/kg for diesel-range petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO), 50 mg/kg for gasoline-rangepetroleum hydrocarbons (GRO), 0.1 mg/kg for benzene, and 10 mg/kg for total benzene,3-319rKP607D A044-02/19/93-D1FINALtoluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). The PCB cleanup level for soil is 10 mg/kgaccording to TSCA, and therefore a DQO of 1 mg/kg is sufficient. (This level is approximately 10 times the method detection limit for PCBs.)3-419:KP6070_A044-02/19/93-Dl"SCyd'SC paps7FINAL.Page 1 of 1TABLE 3-1DQO SUMMARY FORM - SOILi.GambellSt. Lawrence IslandNAME:LOCATION:2.3.X"""^MEDIA(Circle one)USE(Circle allthat apply)OTHERC^SOILVGWSW/SEDAIRBIORISKASSESS.EVALALTS.ENG'GDESIGNPRPDETER.MONITORINGREMEDIALACTION/^OTE\/ CHARAC. 1\^(H&S;^/4.OBJECTIVE: Determine nature and extent of contamination.5.SITE INFORMATIONOTHERAREA: 6.5 square milesDEPTH TO GROUND WATER: approximately 4-11 feetGROUND WATER USE: drinking water wellsSOIL TYPES: loose, well-rounded medium-coarse granitic sand and gravelSENSITIVE RECEPTORS: children (direct contact, consumption), grazing animals (caribou)6.DATA TYPESB. PHYSICAL DATAA. ANALYTICAL DATApHVOCMETALSEXPLOSIVESAsh ContentBTUBTEX7.GROPCBBNASULFATESTotal SulfurIgnitabilityMOISTURE CONTENTATTERBURG LIMITSGRAIN SIZESAMPLING METHODGRABBIASED8.DROTCLPDIOXINTRPHTOCTOXANALYTICAL LEVELSLEVEL 1 FIELD SCREENING - EQUIPMENT: HNu or OVALEVEL 2 FIELD ANALYSIS - EQUIPMENT: NALEVEL 3 NON-CLP LABORATORY - METHODS: 8260, 8270, 1311, 6000/7000, M-8015(AK101.0), M8100(AK102), 8290,8330, 8080, C117, 9073, 9045, 375.4, D2216, ASTM-D2974-87, ASTM-D1552, 9060, ASTM-D240, 1010, 9020, 8020LEVEL4CLP/RAS-METHODS: NALEVEL 5 NON STANDARD: NA9.SAMPLING PROCEDURESBACKGROUND: One representative sample for each soil type for each parameter of interest (a total of two surface soil and twosubsurface soil samples are proposed).CRITICAL (LIST): NAPROCEDURES: NA10. QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLESA. FIELDB. LABORATORYCOLOCATED (VOC analysis only) - 10% QC/10% QAREPLICATE- 10% QC/10% QAFIELD BLANK (rinsate) - 1 per sampling equipment typeTRIP BLANK - 1 PER DAY OR: NAREAGENT BLANK - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%REPLICATE - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE - 1 PERANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%OTHER:19:KP6070-A044«2/25/93-DIrecycled paperecology and environment3-5Page 1 of 1TABLE 3-2DQO SUMMARY FORM - GROUND WATER1.2.3.-SITENAME:LOCATION:GambellSt. Lawrence IslandMEDIA(Circle one)USE(Circle allthat apply)OTHER/SITE}(cHARAC.J\^H&S^/SOIL(^ GW )SW/SEDAIRBIORISKASSESS.EVALALTS.ENG'GDESIGNPRPDETER.MONITORINGREMEDIALACTION4.OBJECTIVE: Determine nature and extent of contamination.5.SITE INFORMATION\AREA: 6.5 square milesDEPTH TO GROUND WATER: approximately 4-1 1 feetGROUND WATER USE: drinking water wellsSOIL TYPES: loose, well-rounded medium-coarse granitic sand and gravelSENSITIVE RECEPTORS: humans6.DATATYPESA. ANALYTICAL DATApHCONDUCTIVITYVOCBNANITRATEAMMONIAALKALINITY7.SULFATEPCBMETALSBACTERIAGROTRPHHARDNESSOTHERB. PHYSICAL DATATDSTSSBODCODDROEXPLOSIVESSAMPLING METHODBIASED8.=GRABANALYTICAL LEVELSLEVEL 1 FIELD SCREENING - EQUIPMENT: HNU or OVALEVEL 2 FIELD ANALYSIS - EQUIPMENT: pH, conductivity, temperature, turbidityLEVEL 3 NON-CLP LABORATORY - METHODS: 9132, 8270, 9073, 8260, 8080, 8330, M-8015(AK101.0), M-8100(AK102),6000/7000, 524-2, 352, 350, 375, 908, 405, 410, 160, SM908, 150, 310.1, 130.1LEVEL 4 CLP/RAS-METHODS: NALEVEL 5 NON STANDARD: NA9.SAMPLING PROCEDURESBACKGROUND: One for groundwater matrix for each parameter Of interestCRITICAL (LIST): NAPROCEDURES: NA10. QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLESB. LABORATORYA. FIELDCOLOCATED (VOC analysis only) - 10% QC/10% QAREPLICATE - 10% QC/10% QAFIELD BLANK (rinsate) - 1 per sampling equipment typeTRIP BLANK - 1 PER DAY OR: per aqueous VOC sampleshipment19:KP«70-AO*W»2/25/W-Dl3-6REAGENT BLANK - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%REPLICATE - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%MATRIX SPDwE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE - 1 PERANALYSIS 3jVTCHOR: 5%OTHER:Page 1 of 1TABLE 3-3DQO SUMMARY FORM - SEDIMENT1.2.3.-SUENAME:LOCATION:GambellSt. Lawrence IslandOTHERMEDIA(Circle one)USE(Circle allthat apply)SITECHARAC.(H&S)SOILGWSW/SEDAIRBIORISKASSESS.EVALALTS.ENG'GDESIGNPRPDETER.MONITORINGREMEDIALACTION4.OBJECTIVE: Determine nature and extent of contamination.5.SITE INFORMATIONOTHERAREA: 6.5 square milesDEPTH TO GROUND WATER: approximately 4-11 feetGROUND WATER USE: drinking water wellsSOIL TYPES: loose, well-rounded medium-coarse granitic sand and gravelSENSITIVE RECEPTORS: children (direct contact, consumption), flora, fauna (subsistence lifestyle)6.DATATYPESA. ANALYTICAL DATAB. PHYSICAL DATAPCS7.SAMPLING METHODBIASED8.GRABANALYTICAL LEVELSLEVEL 1 FIELD SCREENING - EQUIPMENT: HNu or OVALEVEL 2 FIELD ANALYSIS - EQUIPMENT: NALEVEL 3 NON-CLP LABORATORY - METHODS: 8080LEVEL 4 CLP/RAS-METHODS: NALEVEL 5 NON STANDARD: NA9.SAMPLING PROCEDURESBACKGROUND: One representative sediment sample for each parameter of interestCRITICAL (LIST):PROCEDURES:10. QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLESA. FIELDB. LABORATORYCOLOCATED (VOC analysis only) - 10% QC/10% QAREPLICATE - 10% QC/10% QAFIELD BLANK (rinsate) - 1 per sampling equipment typeTRIP BLANK - 1 PER DAY OR: NAREAG ENT BLANK - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%REPLICATE - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%MATRJX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE - 1 PERANALYSIS BATCH OR: 5%OTHE1R:l9:KP6070-A044-02/26/93-DIrecycled paper3-7ecology and environmentPage 1 of 1TABLE 3-4DQO SUMMARY FORM - ASBESTOS1.SUENAME:LOCATION:2.GambellSt. Lawrence IslandMEDIA(Circle one)3.,USE/SITE\(Circle allCHARAClthat apply) \(HAS)/^~^N/OTHER )SOILGWSW/SEDAIRBIOVASBESTOS/RISKASSESS.EVALALTS.ENG'GDESIGNPRPDETER.MONITORINGREMEDIALACTIONOTHER4.OBJECTIVE: Determine nature and extent of contamination.5.SITE INFORMATIONAREA: 6.5 square milesDEPTH TO GROUND WATER: approximately 4-1 1 feetGROUND WATER USE: drinking water wellsSOIL TYPES: loose, well-rounded medium-coarse granitic sand and gravelSENSITIVE RECEPTORS: flora, fauna, and humans (subsistence lifestyle)6.DATATYPESA. ANALYTICAL DATAB. PHYSICAL DATAASBESTOS7.SAMPLING METHODBIASED8.GRABANALYTICAL LEVELSLEVEL 1 FIELD SCREENING - EQUIPMENT: NALEVEL 2 FIELD ANALYSIS - EQUIPMENT: NALEVEL 3 NON-CLP LABORATORY - METHODS: NALEVEL 4 CLP/RAS-METHODS: NALEVEL 5 NON STANDARD: Polarized Light Microscope (PLM)9.SAMPLING PROCEDURESBACKGROUND: NACRITICAL (LIST):PROCEDURES:10. QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLESB. LABORATORYA. FIELDREAG ENT BLANK - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: NAREPL1GATE - 1 PER ANALYSIS BATCH OR: NAMATEJX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE - 1 PERANAL YSIS BATCH OR: NAOTHER:COLOCATED (VOC analysis only) - 10% QCREPLICATE - 5% OR: NAFIELD BLANK - 5% OR: NATRIP BLANK - 1 PER DAY OR: NA19:KP6070-A04W)2/25/W-D!3-84. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONAL AREA RESPONSIBILITIESA contractor and COE project team organization chart to implement this CDAP ispresented in Figure 4-1. This organization chart will serve as a basis for discussion as toteam makeup and distribution of responsibilities.Corporate SupportThe corporate support group within the project organization includes the contractor'scorporate management, project director, report production, QA department, and Health andSafety department. The responsibilities here are to offer guidance, review, and supportservices as requested by the project manager or required by corporate policy.Technical Project DirectorThe technical project director has overall responsibility for ensuring that the projectmeets COE objectives and quality standards. The technical project director is responsible foroverall coordination and scheduling of all project activities and for communicating with COE.Contractor's Project ManagerThe contractor's project manager is responsible for the contracted scope of work. Allelements of the scope must be completed on time, within budget, with high quality, and in asafe manner. The coordination of this effort is the project manager's responsibility. Thecontractor's project manager is also the direct link to the COE Project Manager and isresponsible for keeping him or her informed at all times through required progress reportsand project deliverables.4-1!9:KP«070_A044«2/19/«-DIFINALChief InvestigatorThe chief investigator is the field team leader and primary report writer. The chiefinvestigator is responsible for field team compliance with the CDAP, its procedures, anddeliverables. Also, the chief investigator is responsible for documentation of all on-siteactivities. Should any deviations from the CDAP be deemed necessary in the field, the chiefinvestigator must provide justification for the same to the COE project manager prior totaking such action.Quality Assurance OfficerThe QA officer is responsible for assessing the implementation of the CDAP in supportof the project. The QA officer is independent of the project and does not report directly tothe project manager. The QA officer conducts formal QA audits to evaluate the contractor'spersonnel training and implementation of project quality control protocols, and ensures that alldocuments produced meet COE standards.Site Safety OfficerThe responsibilities of the site safety officer include implementation of the site safety planthrough safety meetings, personnel monitoring, operational monitoring, and first aid, if necessary. The site safety officer is responsible to the corporate health and safety managerregarding policy and to the chief investigator regarding field activities. The site safety officeris also responsible for maintaining the site safety logbook.Project ChemistThe project chemist will serve as the primary QA check on field activities, ensuringsamples are labeled, packaged, and shipped according to protocol. In addition, the projectchemist is responsible for assessing and summarizing the accuracy, precision, and reliabilityof data to determine its usability, and for documenting any factors affecting data usability forthe historical record.Field Investigation PersonnelAs shown in the project organization chart, it is anticipated that in order to accomplishthe entire CDAP in one field season (i.e., late June to August), functional responsibilities4-219:KP«nO A044-02/19/93-D1FINALwould be divided into sampling and drilling. Individual duties would vary for the fieldinvestigation team depending on a matrix or site approach. The geologist will direct the COEdrilling team, log all wells, assess geology through the use of borehole split-spoon samples,perform geophysical surveys, and prepare appropriate sections of any and all reports. Thegeologist will also assist the field investigation team in the subsurface soil and groundwatersampling. Surveying will be conducted by COE who will record all well placements, provideall necessary sampling grid layouts, record sample locations, and provide any other surveyingcalled for by the CDAP or directed by the chief investigator. The field investigation teamwill perform all sampling procedures, decontamination of sampling equipment, materialhandling, and field documentation as called for in the CDAP. The report preparation relatedto this work will also be the responsibility of the field investigation team.4-3t9:KP«070J«>+»-02/19/93-DlFINAL~1tFigure 4-1PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHARTKP3761415. FIELDWORK METHODOLOGIES/FIELDACTIVITIES5.1 GENERAL INFORMATIONAs a result of the 1986 URS investigation, E & E's 1991 and 1992 site reconnaissancevisits, and interviews with people who lived at Gambell throughout DOD occupation, 18 siteswere preliminarily identified as potentially qualifying for the DERP program. Of these, 12have been selected for the sampling program due to the possible presence of either hazardousand toxic waste (HTW) or containerized HTW. Previous reports and information supplied byCOE indicate that the primary contaminants of concern are POLs, PCBs, miscellaneouschemicals (including metals, asbestos, and possibly dioxins), and persistent pathogens. URScollected a limited number of soil and water samples during their 1985 site reconnaissance.Soil samples were analyzed for PCBs only, and none were detected. Surface water andgroundwater samples were analyzed for water quality parameters, PCBs, volatile organiccompounds (VOC), and metals. The analytical results did not indicate any significantcontamination, except for some oil and grease in most samples.Sites were selected for sampling for this CDAP using the following criteria:•Historical evidence of DOD occupation or use;•Historical evidence of use or disposal of hazardous substances;•Evidence that an area was burned; and•Evidence of visible staining.The field investigation has been designed to determine:•Presence of contamination at each potential source,•Nature of contamination, and•Possible contaminant migration pathways.5-1I9:KP«)TO_A044O2/19/93-DlFINALHowever, determinations on the nature and extent of contamination are limited to theinvestigated areas. Sufficient data will be gathered to make a preliminary evaluation ofremedial alternatives. The field investigation was designed in this manner to limit the needfor additional sampling efforts because of the high cost of mobilizing sampling equipment andpersonnel to St. Lawrence Island.Tables 5-1 and 5-2 summarize the number of samples to be collected and the analyses tobe performed at Gambell.Analytical parameters have been established according to the suspected contaminantcharacteristics of each site. Additional parameters, discussed in the following paragraphs andsummarized in Table 5-1, were selected to provide guidance for formulating remedialalternatives. Results from these analyses will not be used to quantitatively characterizepotential contamination; therefore, no discussion of remedial parameters is presented in thereports summarizing E & E 1991 and 1992 site reconnaissance visits.Potentially contaminated areas will be screened with a flame ionization detector (FID)and observed for staining or other evidence of POL contamination (e.g. stressed vegetation).Resultant samples will be collected and analyzed for some or all of the following parameters:GRO, DRO, VOC, metals-toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) for soil samples,and total metals for aqueous sediment samples. VOC and in some case metals analyses willbe reserved for samples with high petroleum content as indicated by field screening (seeSection 5.4.4.2). At sites where transformers are present or were present historically, or inareas where there is suspected used-oil contamination, samples will also be analyzed forPCBs. Ordnance burial sites will not be specifically sampled, but samples may be collected inthe vicinity of the buried ordnance for explosives residues. Samples collected from burn siteswill also be analyzed for dioxins and base/neutral/acid extractable (BNA) compounds. Bulksamples of building or insulation materials collected in debris areas will be tested for asbestoscontent. Other analyses will be performed on samples according to site-specificcharacteristics.Parameters selected for remedial design purposes were based on available remediationtechnologies suited to the unique climate, soil characteristics, potential contamination, andremoteness of the Gambell site. Bioremediation parameters were not included since siteconditions limit the feasibility of this remedial alternative. For surface and subsurface soils,the following parameters are proposed for analysis: moisture content, grain size, ash, total5-219:KP6070 A044-02/19/93-D1r-oewc^c [Dgioisr„.FINALeecsogy arcei eit^iuro^riree:^;sulfur, total organic carbon (TOC), British thermal unit (BTU) content, ignitability, Atterburglimits, total organic halides (TOX), and aromatic volatile organics (VOCs). The followingparameters are proposed for groundwater samples: alkalinity, hardness, total metals(magnesium, calcium, and total and dissolved iron). In order to provide representativeanalysis of soils and groundwater, approximately 10 to 20 percent of all samples will beanalyzed for the remediation parameters mentioned above. This sampling frequency can bemodified by the field team during the field investigation based on soil and groundwatercharacteristics.5.2 PROJECT AREA SITE DESCRIPTIONSLittle evidence remains of the military installations in Gambell. Most facilities weredemolished and buried in place; the materials remaining on the surface include but are notlimited to, landing mat, barrels, and cables. Eighteen sites allegedly occupied by DOD havebeen identified in or near the Village of Gambell, except Site No. 14 which is locatedapproximately seven miles south of Gambell (Figure 5-1).•Site No. 1: North Beach;•Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Site;•Site No. 3: Former Communication Facility;•Site No. 4: Sevuokuk Mountain;•Site No. 5: Former Tramway Site;•Site No. 6: Military Landfill;•Site No. 7: Former Military Power Facility;•Site No. 8: West Beach;•Site No. 9: Asphalt Barrel Cache;•Site No. 10: Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System;•Site No. 11: Communication Cable Route;•Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site;•Site No. 13: Former Radar Power Station;5-3I9:KP««0_A044-02/19/93-DtFINAL•Site No. 14: Navy Plane Crash Site;•Site No. 15: Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site;•Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building Area;•Site No. 17: Army Landfills; and•Site No. 18: Former Main Camp.Of these only 16 potentially qualify for DERP-funded cleanup or investigation. Twelveof the 16 potentially qualify for DERP-funded investigations.The following sections describe the existing knowledge about suspected hazardoussubstances associated with alleged military activity at each site. In addition, the objectivesand rationale are stated for the investigation of each site.5.2.1 Site No. 1: North BeachNorth Beach extends approximately 7,000 feet along the north shoreline of St. LawrenceIsland, from the base of Sevuokuk Mountain to West Beach (Site No. 8) (see Figure 5-2).The apparent north to south dimension of the site varies from approximately 300 to 560 feet.North Beach includes two areas of reported buried debris associated with the former militarylanding areas. North Beach is largely undeveloped, except for the area immediatelysurrounding the Village of Gambell. Local residents often fish along the beach and rideATVs throughout the site. In the vicinity of the Village there is a human waste landfill whichis under construction, a drum dump, and a partially fenced landfill which is in use. The drumdump includes rusty aboveground tanks and household refuse (E & E 1992). A previousinvestigation indicated that the drum dump was possibly a military drum dump (URS 1985).During the current investigation, Mr. James stated that the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) used this area for drum disposal (E & E 1992)The Air Force and Army reportedly operated separate Landing Areas within Site No. 1.Each Landing Area allegedly used dead-man anchors to anchor barges off shore. There isvery little surficial debris from the base of the mountain west to the Air Force Landing Area(E & E 1992).The Air Force Landing Area is reportedly located adjacent to the beach berm,approximately 900 feet west of the 100-foot contour of Sevuokuk Mountain. (Generally, the5-419-JCP60TO A044^)2/19/M-D1recycTsc! paperFINALbeach berm is represented by the 10-foot contour line shown in Figure 5-2.) The Air ForceLanding Area is approximately 275 feet by 80 feet. Near the northeast corner of the AirForce Landing Area, within the beach berm, is a decaying drum, black oil or tar-likematerial, and rust-stained gravel. In addition, there is a 5-foot by 4-foot patch of tar-stainedgravel near the center of this area. An area of rust-colored gravel is visible in an ATV roadthat is oriented east to west and bisects the southern third of the area. Mr. James claims thatthere are buried drums of heavy weight oils, tars, and asphalt in Air Force Landing Area(E & E 1992).The Army Landing Area is allegedly located immediately east of an area persistentlyused to beach whaling boats. Mr. James estimated that the Army Landing Area isapproximately 410 feet by 340 feet, and two well established ATV roads bisect the area. Theroads have sinuous patterns, and both begin near the northeast corner of the area. One roadexits the area near the midpoint of the southern boundary, and the other exits the area nearthe midpoint of the western boundary. There are reportedly dead-man anchors, enginesformerly used to run pulley systems, and a 100-foot crane buried in the Army Landing Area.A pit containing drums, landing mat, and weasel track is located in the northeast corner of theArmy Landing Area near the junction of the two ATV roads (E & E 1992).The Army Landing Area is characterized by small round gravel mounds, many of whichinclude small metal/rust fragments from deteriorating material. Debris is scattered betweenthe Air Force Landing Area and Army Landing Area, and it is concentrated on the beachfront and near the berm (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will attempt to delineate the boundaries of the landingareas with a geophysical survey and it will include the collection of surface and subsurfacesoil and groundwater samples. Soil borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installedwithin the landing areas and around the perimeter of the area. Surface soil samples will becollected in areas of stained soil. Surface and subsurface soil samples will be analyzed forPOLs, BNAs, PCBs, and metals. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for POLs, VOCs,PCBs, and metals.5.2.2 Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations AreaThe Former Military Housing and Operations Site includes: A Former Military'Housing/Operations Burial Area, a Power Plant Burial Area, and an Ordnance Burial Site, all5-519:KP6070 A044-02/19/W-D1FINALof which are located in the southeast portion of the site (see Figure 5-3). The FormerHousing/Operations Area is approximately 365 feet by 150 feet. The Ordnance Burial Site isreportedly located at the southern end of the Former Housing/Operations Area. Mr. Jamesestimated that the Power Plant Burial Area is approximately 110 feet by 70 feet (E & E1992).All facilities associated with these areas were reportedly demolished and the debris wasburied at Site No. 2. The Former Housing/Operations Area included two rows of six quonsethuts oriented north to south. North of the quonset huts was a mess hall and a utility building.The utility building contained showers and a day room. The remnants of an apparentfireplace and a concrete pad; pieces of burned wood, and metal debris are scatteredthroughout the Area. There are two locations of discolored gravel in the FormerHousing/Operations Burial Area; one apparently rust-stained area is located in the northeastcorner and the other 2-foot-square area is located near the center of the area and includesburned wood (E & E 1992).The Ordnance Burial Site reportedly contains twenty-mm ammunition, 30- and 50-calibreammunition, carbine ammunition, and hand grenades in metal and creosote-coated woodenboxes buried approximately 6 feet bgs (E & E 1992).East of the Former Housing/Operations Area was a small power plant. The power plantand all associated machinery were reportedly buried in the Former Power Plant Burial Area.On the surface of the former Power Plant Burial Area is a large gear, and rectangular metalboxes are located in the southeast corner of the area. Part of a tiltdozer blade protrudes fromthe ground at the northwest corner of this area. Adjacent to the tiltdozer blade is a portion ofa weasel track and rusted metal fragments. The underlying gravel is rust stained (E & E1992).North of the Former Housing/Operations Area is mounded gravel that reportedly coversthe remains of a buried machine gun nest. Fibrous material which may potentially containasbestos was observed in the gravel mound during the site inventory. Mr. James explainedthat the machine gunners would sit on this material to insulate themselves from the ground(E & E 1992).The field investigation will attempt to identify the locations of the buried debris with ageophysical survey and include collection of surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwatersamples for analysis. Wells will be drilled within and around the perimeters of the Former5-619:KP6070 A044-02/19/93-D1recycled caps?FINALMilitary Housing/Operations Burial Area and the Power Plant Burial Area to determinewhether contamination of soil and groundwater has occurred. No subsurface investigationwill occur hi the Ordnance Burial Site. Surface soil samples will be collected in areas ofstained gravel. A sample of the fibrous material present near the reported machine gun nestwill be collected for asbestos analysis. Although no boreholes will be drilled at the OrdnanceBurial Site, all subsurface soil and groundwater samples collected in the vicinity of the sitewill be analyzed for nitrogen compounds and metals which could be leaching from the buriedordnance.5.2.3 Site No. 3: Former Communication FacilityThe Former Communications Facility Site is located parallel to the 100-foot contour ofSevuokuk Mountain. It extends from the southeast corner of North Beach (Site No. 1) to thenorth boundary of the former Tramway Site (Site No. 5) (see Figure 5-4). The site has anorth-to-south dimension of 1,875 feet, and an east-to-west dimension that varies from 250feet to 435 feet. The Site includes debris (drums and drum remnants) scattered the entirelength of the Site and the area in which the communications facility was buried (E & E1992).The suspected Former Communications Facility Burial Area is a slightly irregularrectangular area of approximately 75 feet by 45 feet. Two Jamesway huts and a 10- to 15-kwpower plant are reportedly buried in the area. The power plant probably contained auxiliarygenerators, transformers, oils, fuels, and batteries which may have been buried in the area.In addition, approximately twelve 5- to 10-gallon glass carboys of sulfuric acid werereportedly buried on site (URS 1986; E & E 1992).Currently, one drum, some pipe, anchors for guy wire, and 275-gallon tank are scatteredon the surface, most of which are located on the eastern half of the Burial Area. A 1.5-inchdiameter PVC well point, apparently from the URS investigation, is located near the center ofthe area. In contrast to the URS findings, there is no apparent staining or stressed vegetationremains in the suspected burial area (URS 1986 and E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will attempt to identify the locations of the buried debrisand potential HTW with a geophysical survey, and it will include collection of subsurface soiland groundwater samples. The demolition and burial of generators, transformers, oils, fuels,and acids at this site poses a potential for PCB contamination, oil spillage, and acid leakage.5-719JCP60TO A04«)2/19/93-DlFINALDuring the URS investigation a single surface soil grab sample was collected and analyzedonly for PCBs. PCBs were not detected above a detection limit of 0.5 part per million (ppm)(URS 1986). Given the additional potential contaminants, lead and other heavy metals andsulfates may be present. The field investigation will consist of drilling a well within thesuspected burial area. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples will be analyzed for POLs,metals, PCBs, and sulfates. The URS well point will not be sampled because the well is notsecure.5.2.4 Site No. 4: Sevuokuk MountainThe Sevuokuk Mountain Site occupies an extensive area of the top and uppermostwestern flank of Sevuokuk Mountain. However, the remains of alleged DOD activity areconcentrated in three locations: the Former Air Force Radar Station Area, the remains of twoquonset huts and the surrounding area, and the area containing three transformers andmiscellaneous debris (see Figure 5-4). Site No. 4 occupies an area that is approximately4,175 feet north to south and ranges from 965 feet to 3,125 feet west to east. The FormerAir Force Radar Station is an irregularly-shaped area located at the northern end of the site;the Former Quonset Hut Area is located near the middle of the site No. 4; and thetransformers and miscellaneous debris are located within a stream drainage near the southwestcorner of the site (E & E 1992).Power cables were reportedly strung from the Former Military Power Facility (Site No.7) to secondary transformers at the base of the mountain at the Tramway Site (Site No. 5),along a drainage course on the west flank of Sevuokuk Mountain, and up to a set of tertiarytransformers, the quonset huts, and the Air Force Radar Station in Site No. 4. The Navyreportedly placed sonar cables along the Communications Cable Route (Site No. 11) from theFormer Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) to the same drainage course and up the mountainto the radar station and several other locations. Although there is no evidence of the powercable, it is reportedly buried at the former Tramway Site (Site No. 5). Sonar cable andremnants of structures remain on the west flank of Sevuokuk Mountain below Site No. 4(E & E 1992).The Air Force Radar Station Area is an approximate 375-foot by 500-foot area at thenorth end of Sevuokuk Mountain. The Air Force Radar Station burned and its debrisremain. Mr. James claims that ordnance exploded when the station burned, thereby scattering5-8debris. There is a 30-foot-square area of stained soil near the center of the Air Force RadarStation that contains scattered rusted debris and burned timbers (E & E 1992).Along the western edge of the mountain ridge near the middle of Site No. 4 is the 65foot by 75-foot quonset hut area. It contains frames of two fallen quonset huts, 55-gallondrums filled with gravel used as tie-downs for the quonset huts, and one transformer. The55-gallon drums surround the former building and the transformer sits on the ground east ofthe former quonset huts. Although the transformer is labeled as a dry-type transformer, itscoils are coated with an oily substance. Some white friable material (potential ACM) remainsin piles 20 feet north of the quonset huts.Approximately 100 yards north northeast of the former quonset huts are guy wires, guywire anchors, poles, and radar dish support legs. Approximately 50 yards northeast of thequonsets huts is a pile of decaying cans. Approximately 500 feet south of the quonset hutremains is an area of drums and debris. There are 55-gallon drums, barbed wire, anammeter/voltmeter, pipes, and a transformer. There was no visible staining near thetransformer. Southeast of the drum and debris area is a 10 Kilowatt generator and severaldrums with no visible staining on the surrounding soil (E & E 1992).The area containing three transformers and miscellaneous debris is located at thesouthwest corner of Site No. 4. The area is on a ledge below the quonset hut remains on thewest flank of the mountain. Three empty electrical transformer casings lie within amountainside drainage. There was no visibly stained soil near the transformers. Northeast ofthe transformers are miscellaneous debris that includes rusted support structures for a quonsethut, drums, sonar cable, spools of sonar cable and wire, sheet metal, and a guy wire anchor.Debris extends eastward to the ledge below the drum and debris area (E & E 1992).There were no indications of a previously reported oil spill at Site No. 4 (E & E 1992).During the previous investigation, a single soil grab sample was collected at a reported oilspill site and analyzed for PCBs. The sample did not contain PCBs at a concentration abovethe detection limit (URS 1986). During the field investigation, another attempt should beconducted to located the reported oil spill area. If it is located, surface soil samples will becollected from the apparent spill area and analyzed for metals and PCBs. During the fieldinvestigation, surface soil samples will be collected from the area of stained soil at the FormerAu- Force Radar Station and analyzed for TRPH, dioxins, PCBs, BNAs, and TCLP metals.5-919:KP«>70 A04«Z/25/93-DlFr8cvc!sdDaDQf"K^KFINAL«ecologyandi environmentThe transformer casings indicate the potential for PCB contamination. However, a singlesoil grab sample collected from the transformers in the mountainside drainage during the URSinvestigation did not contain PCBs at concentrations above the detection limit (URS 1986).Surface soil or sediment samples will be collected at each of the transformer locations toconfirm the presence or absence of PCBs. A sample of the white friable material located nearthe quonset huts will be collected and analyzed for bulk asbestos.5.2.5 Site No. 5: Former Tramway SiteThe Former Tramway Site extends approximately 2,400 feet from the southeast corner ofthe Former Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) to the southwest corner of Site No. 4 (seeFigure 5-5). The north to south dimension of Site No. 5 varies from approximately 125 feetto 315 feet. The Former Tramway Site includes two areas of suspected debris and potentialHTW burial that are referred to as the Cable Burial Area and the Secondary TransformerBurial Area. The Cable Burial Area is approximately 100-feet by 55-feet, and the SecondaryTransformer Burial Area is approximately 70 feet by 50 feet (E & E 1992).Remnants of the steel cable, sonar cable and miscellaneous metal debris from a militarytramway remain on the mountain east of the burial areas. Power cables extended from theprimary transformers at the Former Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) to secondarytransformers at the base of the mountain to the tertiary transformers on the mountain ridge,and reportedly continued to the quonset huts and the Air Force radar station in Site No. 4.The Navy placed sonar cables up the mountain that followed the same route, which is knownas the Communications Cable Route (Site No. 11). Most of the tramway has been removedand the power cable is reportedly buried in the Cable Burial Area west of the SecondaryTransformer Burial Area (URS 1986; E & E 1992). There is no visible staining in this areaor in the Cable Burial Area.Six secondary transformers are reportedly buried near the base of the mountain (seeFigure 5-5). These transformers were reported to be 8 to 10 feet in height. No debris isvisible on the surface, but there is a mound in the middle of the area. An ATV trail extendsbetween the suspected burial areas (E & E 1992).Debris is scattered on the ground between the Former Military Power Facility (Site No.7) and the present power plant. The military reportedly buried bottles and cans of beer,5-1019:KP607D A044«2/25/93-DlFINALwhiskey, and soda pop near the power plant. Other debris in this area includes concrete,cable, miscellaneous metal objects, and drums.The proposed field investigation will attempt to identify the locations of the buriedtransformers and cable with a geophysical survey, and it will include the collection ofsubsurface soil and groundwater samples. Buried transformers at this site pose a potential forPCB contamination. The field investigation will include drilling wells and soil borings in adirection suspected to be downgradient of the identified burial areas and within the burialarea. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples will be analyzed for PCBs, GRO, DRO, andTRPH.5.2.6 Site No. 6:. Military LandfillThe Military Landfill is located north of Gambell High School. The Army reportedlyburied approximately 3,000 barrels of lime-stabilized human waste in an estimated 275-footby 135-foot area (see Figure 5-5). According to Mr. James, the Army excavated an area atthis site to a depth equal to the height of a drum. Over a period of six years, the Army filledthe excavation from south to north, placing drums side by side (E & E 1992). Landfilledmaterial may have included materials generated from the Former Military Power and FormerCommunication Facility (Site Nos. 7 and 3, respectively) (URS 1986).The entire landfill surface is characterized by mounded gravel. Drum tops and remnantsof approximately 20 drums protrude through the gravel surface throughout the site (seeAppendix A). Two drums and weasel tracks are on the surface at the east end of the site. A1.5-inch-diameter PVC riser pipe, an apparent well point from the 1985 URS investigation, islocated in the southeast quadrant of the site. No organic vapors were detected using anOrganic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) in the well casing or from any of the exposed drums(E & E 1992).Particular concern is posed by Site No. 6 due to the site's proximity to the village andthe desirability of the area for future community growth (URS 1986).The proposed field investigation at this site will attempt to delineate the areal extent ofthe landfill with a geophysical survey, and it will include the collection of groundwatersamples. Soil borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed around the perimeter ofthe site. Groundwater samples will be collected.5-1119:KP«070_A044-02/25/93-Dlarecycled P PerFINALecology and environmentTwo groundwater samples collected from this area during the URS investigation wereanalyzed for PCBs, none were present above detection limits. Samples collected during theproposed field investigation will be analyzed for a broader suite of analytes, including POLs,water quality parameters, coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), andchemical oxygen demand (COD) to determine whether any human waste or other waste typeis migrating into groundwater. The URS well point will not be sampled because it is notsecure.5.2.7 Site No. 7: Former Military Power FacilityThe Former Military Power Facility was allegedly buried north of the municipal buildingin an estimated 375-foot by 85-foot area. The primary transformers associated with thefacility were reportedly buried within the 35-foot by 60-foot area in the southwest corner ofthe site (see Figure 5-5). An area of mounded gravel with protruding power cable, copperwire, and rusted metal is located within the Primary Transformer Burial Area (E & E 1992).A diesel/gasoline pipeline runs south from North Beach and branches east and west nearthe center of the site. There are seven areas of stained gravel on the west side of the pipejunction, and there is a concrete pad near the east end of the site. Burned wood, sonar cable,and landing mat are located near the concrete pad. Some residents remember a motor poolthat was adjacent to the concrete pad and an area next to the motor pool in which militarypersonnel worked on pipes (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will attempt to locate the buried remains of the facilityand transformers with a geophysical survey, and it will include the collection of surface soil,subsurface soil, and groundwater samples. Buried electrical equipment, includingtransformers, poses a potential for PCB and POL contamination of soil and groundwater atthe site. However, during the URS investigation, no PCBs were detected in either a soil grabsample from a small surface oil spill or a groundwater sample collected from a well south ofthe facility (URS 1986).During the proposed investigation soil borings will be drilled and monitoring wellsinstalled. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples will be collected to detect whethersubsurface contamination exists. These samples will be analyzed for POLs, PCBs, andmetals. Surface soil samples will be collected at several locations of fuel-stained gravel.These samples will be analyzed for POLs and metals.5-1219JCP60TO A044-02/25/93-D1FINAL5.2.8 Site No. 8: West BeachThe West Beach Site extends from the southwest end of North Beach to Nayvaghaq Lakealong the western shore for approximately 3 miles (see Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-6). Near thesouth end of the site, adjacent to the high water mark of Nayvaghaq Lake, is a previouslyundocumented Army Landfill. In addition, an Ordnance Burial Site in which the militaryburied approximately 1 ton of ordnance is reportedly located northwest of Nayvaghaq Lake(E & E 1992).The West Beach Site contains scattered metal debris (barrels and landing mat) and smallquantities of wood and concrete. Debris are scattered along an existing runway (especially onthe east side of the runway) south to the end of Troutman Lake, and west to the beach. Inaddition, erosion has exposed landing mat on the east side of the airstrip and road runningsouth from the airstrip. A 25-to 30-foot-wide layer of landing mat reportedly underlies theairstrip and road south of the airstrip for approximately, 4,500 feet. There is no apparent soilstaining, with the exception of rust, along the beach (E & E 1992).The Ordnance Burial Site is reportedly located approximately 225 feet east of theshoreline on West Beach. In either the fall 1956 or spring 1957, the military allegedly buriedcrates of live ammunition including hand grenades, 30-and 50-calibre shells, and TNTapproximately 3 to 6 feet bgs. Currently, the burial site contains two pits in the northwestcorner of the site and some surface debris. There is no visibly stained soil (E & E 1992).The Army Landfill adjacent to Nayvaghaq Lake is approximately 145 feet by 145 feet.The southern boundary of the area is the high water mark of the lake. The Army reportedlydug a hole and filled it with several loads of material, but never graded the area. Currently,there is no visible debris or stained soil on the surface, but there are two 4-foot pits on thesouth side of the suspected landfill area (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will attempt to delineate the boundaries of the landfillwith a geophysical survey, and it will include drilling a well downgradient of the landfill.Subsurface soil and groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed for POLs, PCBs, andmetals. The contractor will not sample, or in any way disturb, the Ordnance Burial Site withthe assumption that COE will refer this problem to the Explosive Ordnance DemolitionDivision.5-1319:KP6070_A0444>2/19/93-Dl>FINAL5.2.9 Site No. 9: Asphalt Barrel CacheThe Asphalt Barrel Cache is located on the east side of the airstrip. It was identified byURS as a former military site containing approximately 150 55-gallon leaking barrels ofasphalt. However, Mr. James claims that the site was not used by the military and that FAAused this area as barrel cache during airstrip construction. According to Mr. James, thebarrels were covered with gravel during a severe storm in fall 1990. Currently, there is littlesurficial evidence of the barrels except for scattered asphalt (E & E 1992).During the E & E site inventory, several deteriorating 55-gallon drums from which atar-like substance was leaking were observed. These drums are located an unspecifieddistance north of the approximate location of the Asphalt Barrel Cache. Mr. James claimsthat these are also the responsibility of FAA (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigations will not include samples at this location since it isreportedly FAA's responsibility aed DOD's as discussed above.W0T5.2.10 Site No. 10: Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemThe Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System Site consists of unpaved trails in the tundra fromatop Sevuokuk Mountain into the areas east and south of Nayvaghaq Lake (see Figure 5-1).The trail system originates at the southeast end of Troutman Lake and separates to formindividual trails to the north, south, and east. Individual trails to the north include two trailsthat provide access to the top of Sevuokuk Mountain; the westernmost trail is known as theArmy Trail, and the other trail is known as the Air Force Trail (E & E 1992). These trailsare marked by approximately 157 empty 55-gallon barrels in various conditions which arelocated approximately 200 feet apart (see Figure 5-1). Some drums reportedly containedpetroleum product that was subsequently salvaged by local residents. Several drums containedgravel, but most were empty. However, there was a tar-like substance leaking from one ofthe drums examined. Since not every drum was examined, other drums may containremaining product. Landing mat and weasel track are located near the top of the mountainalong the trail system (E & E 1992).Portions of the trail system near the base of the mountain are not marked by 55-gallonbarrels; however, a group of barrels was observed west of the trail system and east of SiteNo. 13. The drums may have accumulated in this area as a result of winds that blew the5-1419:KP6070_A044-02/19/93-Dlrecycled paperFINALdrums westward from the southern portion of the Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System (E & E1992).No surface samples are proposed at this site unless evidence of contamination, such asstressed vegetation, is discovered during the proposed field investigation.5.2.11 Site No. 11: Communication Cable RouteThe Communication Cable Route extends eastward approximately 2,700 feet from theFormer Military Power Facility (Site No. 7) across the Tramway Site (Site No. 5) to the baseof Sevuokuk Mountain (see Figure 5-1). Four sonar cables extend from the base of themountain to a destroyed Jamesway building that served as the Navy Sonar Pick-up Station.The building is located approximately 300 feet west of the Army Trail of Site No. 10 (notshown on figures)^ Most of the wood from buildings remains on the ground in piles with thesonar cable. Sonar cable formerly extended east from the former Navy Sonar Pick-up Stationacross the tundra approximately 6 miles to Dovelawik Bay, south 35 miles to Bunnell Cape,north to the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, and then down the mountain to the Bering Sea (seeFigure 5-1). Metal spools are placed at 0.25-mile intervals along each cable route. Mr.James said that the cable was used for sonar by the Navy to track Soviet submarines duringthe Cold War (E & E 1992).No soil or groundwater contamination is suspected with this site, therefore no sampleswill be collected from the Site No. 11.5.2.12 Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteThe Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site is located south of Site No. 13 and north ofNayvaghaq Lake, on the southwest side of an ATV road which extends south from the airstrip(see Figures 5-1 and 5-6). This site includes two drum disposal areas, a North Area at theintersection of the ATV trails and a south area approximately 470 feet south (see Figure 5-6).The North Area contains approximately 120 drums, the remnants of 10 batteries, andhousehold refuse. Drums are concentrated near the road, but some are scattered westwardtoward Nayvaghaq Lake. The batteries are located at the north and south ends of the NorthArea. A shallow pit with standing water 30 feet west of the main drum area also contains adrum. An empty rusted can labeled "ethylene glycol" was also found in this area. There isno apparent staining in the drum area other than rust (E & E 1992).5-1519:KP6070 A044-02/19/93-D1FINALThe south area includes approximately 50 drums lying immediately adjacent to the westside of the road. There are also five or six drums scattered west of the main concentration ofdrums. There is no visible staining of the soil except for rust (E & E 1992). During highrunoff periods, Nayvaghaq Lake extends into this area. About 35% of the barrels containgarbage, with most filled to approximately one-third of capacity (URS 1986). The disposal ofbarrels in this area poses a potential for POL contamination. In addition, lead may be aconcern due to battery disposal at the site.The proposed field investigation in this area will attempt to determine whether there issurface and subsurface soil and groundwater contamination by drilling soil borings andinstalling monitoring wells around the perimeter of the disposal areas. Subsurface soil andgroundwater samples will be analyzed for POL and heavy metals. Surface soil samples willbe collected in the vicinity of discarded batteries and submitted for POL and metals analysis.5.2.13 Site No. 13: Former Radar Power StationThe Former Radar Power Station was located east of the pond located south of TroutmanLake (see Figure 5-6). This site was a military radar installation and was probably thetemporary AC&W site operated by the Air Force (URS 1986). The station reportedlycontained two wooden quonset huts, one long wooden building, and a number of 150-foottowers that were reportedly demolished and buried on site (E & E 1992). The formerlocations of these structures are not known.The potential burial area containing materials from the Former Radar Power Station isapproximately 550 feet by 250 feet (E & E 1992). Electrical transformers and generatorsmay be buried on site (URS 1986). Little evidence of the installation remains beyondscattered surface debris and gravel mounds. Wire and pieces of ceramic material arescattered across the area. Guy wire laying on the north side of the site is suspected to beattached to buried materials, and there is a concentration of pipes and other wires. A 9-footsquare area of darkened gravel containing burned wood and rusted electrical equipment isvisible on the surface along the west boundary near the center of the site (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will include an attempt to identify locations of buriedmaterial using a geophysical survey and the collection of surface soil, subsurface soil, andgroundwater samples. The presence of electrical equipment at the site suggest the potentialfor POL and PCB contamination. However, neither a surface soil grab nor a contained5-1619:KP«m_A044-02/19/93-Dl-ecycisd paper&rFINALgroundwater sample collected from a well southwest of the site during the URS investigationcontained PCBs above detection limits (URS 1986). Soil borings will be drilled andmonitoring wells installed within the area of suspected buried material and around theperimeter of the site. Subsurface soil and groundwater samples will be analyzed for POL,VOC, PCBs, and heavy metal. Surface soil samples will be collected in the stained area andwill be analyzed for POL, PCBs, and metals.5.2.14 Site No. 14: Navy Plane Crash SiteIn 1955, a Navy plane crash-landed 7 miles south of the village of Gambell (location notshown in figures). The main body of the plane remains on the tundra. Debris is largelyconfined to the immediate area surrounding the plane, but some is scattered as much as 100feet away from the plane. Burned material is located near the engine area and along theinterior of the fuselage. According to Mr. James, the airplane's belly gasoline tank exploded,and most fuels would have burned. There were no apparent stains or any stressed vegetationsurrounding the crash site (E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will not include collection of samples at Site No. 14.5.2.15 Site No. 15: Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial SiteMr. James identified the location of a suspected ordnance burial site at the north end ofTroutman Lake (see Figure 5-1). Other residents confirmed that children found unexplodedordnance while swimming in the lake (E & E 1992). After a late summer storm in 1992,children found bullets along the shores of Troutman Lake (James 1992).COE will refer this problem to the Explosive Ordnance Demolition Division; therefore,the contractor will not sample, or in any way disturb this area.5.2.16 Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteThe Gambell Municipal Building site consists of a 35-foot by 55-foot area of stainedgravel, located immediately west of the Municipal Building (see Figure 5-7). Mr. Jamesclaims that there has been no spill at this location, but the stain becomes more pronouncedafter a heavy rain. Residents suspect that something is buried in the area (E & E 1992). NoOVA readings above background levels were noted.5-1719JO«)70_AO«-02/25/93-DIrecyc.ea paperFINALecology and environmentThe proposed field investigation will include collection of surface soil, subsurface soil,and groundwater samples. The investigation will use a geophysical survey to identifylocations of burial material. Soil borings will be drilled within and on the perimeter of thestained area and monitoring wells will be installed to determine whether there is subsurfacecontamination. Surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples will be analyzed forPOLs and metals.5.2.17 Site No. 17: Army LandfillsThe Army Landfills are located between Site No. 7, Site No. 6, and the landing areas inSite No. 1 (see Figure 5-7). Materials in both landfills reportedly were regularly burned andcovered. Landfill No. 1 is located west of Landfill No. 2 and it is approximately 240 feet by130 feet. From 1951 to 1953 household refuse was reportedly buried to the depth of thewater table, or approximately 15 feet bgs. Local residents claim that human waste, tar paper,and flat fuel containers are also buried in the landfills. The surface is characterized bymounds. Currently, debris on the surface includes drums, landing mat, and scrap metal.There was no visibly stained soil during the site inspection (E & E 1992).Landfill No. 2 is approximately 235 feet by 245 feet and operated from 1951 to 1953.Debris on the surface was similar to the debris at Landfill No. 1. There were several burieddrum tops exposed on the surface. Soil did not appear to be stained with anything except rust(E & E 1992).The proposed field investigation will attempt to delineate the boundaries of the landfillwith a geophysical survey and the collection of subsurface soil and groundwater samples.Soil borings will be drilled and monitoring wells installed within the suspected boundaries ofthe landfill and around the perimeters of the landfills. Subsurface soil and groundwatersamples will be analyzed for POLs, PCBs, and metals.5.2.18 Site No. 18: Former Main CampThe Main Camp was adjacent to northeast end of Troutman Lake (see Figure 5-7). TheCamp extended from the location of the current Municipal Building east to the High School.The mess hall was located where the Sivugag Incorporated building now stands. A boilerroom was connected to the mess hall and there was a water pump house near the lake edge.5-18IfcKWOTO A044-02/25/93-DIFINALWhen it was in operation, there reportedly were ten 25,000 gallon-fuel tanks at the MainCamp. It is unknown whether the tanks were aboveground or underground or whether theywere disposed of on site. Reportedly, there were also six flat fuel tanks for the boiler houseand pumphouse. Gambell residents did not know whether these were buried hi the area ornot.Cardboard boxes containing approximately 500 pounds of white material were found nearthe former pumphouse location at the edge of Troutman Lake (E & E 1992). The materialhas tentatively been identified as diatomaceous earth, previously used for water filtration bythe Army (Waller 1959). Recent analysis of the material by ADEC indicated that mineralssuch as aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and sodium were present.No samples will be collected at this site since there is no definite information about thetanks, and the white material has been analyzed and determined to be nonhazardous.However, a geophysical survey is proposed at this site to determine the presence or absenceof the fuel tanks. There was no evidence of stressed vegetation nor was any stained soilobserved.5.3 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION5.3.1 Geophysical Survey LocationsThe Village of Gambell is constructed on cobble-, gravel-, and coarse sand-sided depositswhich contain discontinuous permafrost (RZA 1985). The military probably encounteredpermafrost when excavating pits or trenches to bury debris. Disturbance of the indigenoussediments during excavation may have resulted in thaw bulbs surrounding the buried debris.Therefore, there is a potential, actually a preference for drilling soil borings and installingmonitoring wells within the thaw bulbs.Sites that contain buried waste will be surveyed with a metal detector, magnetometer, andan EM-31 to attempt to delineate the boundaries of the buried waste. The following sites willbe geophysically surveyed:•Site No. 1: North Beach Area•Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Area•Site No. 3: Former Communication Facility•Site No. 5: Former Tramway Site5-1919:KP«>70_AO*M>2/26/93-Dlrecycled paperFINALe(,(>1((f,y nlld envimnmen ,•Site No. 6: Military Landfill•Site No. 7: Former Military Power Facility•Site No. 8: West Beach•Site No. 13: Former Radar Power Station•Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building Site•Site No. 17: Army Landfills•Site No. 18: Former Main CampFor each geophysical survey, survey grids will be established over and slightly beyondthe estimated extent of each burial area. Each grid will be surveyed with a metal detector, anEM-31, and a magnetometer. The geophysical survey will be performed to locate burieddebris, detect possible effects of buried debris on subsurface soil and groundwater quality,delineate the approximate areal extent that is underlain by buried debris, and select soil boringand monitoring well locations.Site No. 1: North BeachSite No. 1 includes three areas of suspected buried debris: the Air Force Landing Area,the Army Landing Area, and a drum and debris dump area (see Figure 5-2). The Air ForceLanding Area and Army Landing Area will be investigated by geophysical surveys. Thedrum and debris dump area will not be surveyed because it is reportedly not the responsibilityof theDOD.Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations AreaSite No. 2 includes suspect buried material from the Former Military Housing/OperationsBurial Area, the Power Plant Burial Area, and the Ordnance Burial Site (see Figure 5-3).The Ordnance Burial Site coincides with the southern portions of the Former MilitaryHousing/Operations Burial Area. Consequently, this area will be avoided during thegeophysical surveys and subsurface investigation.5-2019-JCP60TO A044-02/25/93-DIFINALSite No. 3: Former Communication FacilitySite No. 3 reportedly includes buried generators, transformers, acids, oils, fuels, andbatteries in the northern portion of the site (see Figure 5-4).Site No. 5: Former Tramway SiteSite No. 5 reportedly includes two adjacent areas of suspected material burial at the footof Sevuokuk Mountain (see Figure 5-5). The easternmost burial area reportedly includestransformers, and the westernmost burial area includes cables.Site No. 6: Military LandfillSite No. 6 reportedly includes a Military Landfill containing approximately 3,000 drumsof lime-stabilized human waste and possible material from former power and communicationsfacilities (see Figure 5-5) (E & E 1992; URS 1986). The landfill was reportedly excavatedto a depth that was approximately equivalent to the height of one drum.Site No. 7: Former Military Power FacilitySite No. 7 reportedly includes buried remnants of the Former Military Power Facility.The primary transformers are reportedly buried to the southeast of the former facility.Surface features at Site No. 7 include a concrete pad, fuel pipeline, and scattered metallicdebris. These materials will have an impact on the effort to detect buried metallic debris.Interference caused by these materials will be noted during the survey.Site No. 8: West BeachSite No. 8 reportedly includes two areas of suspected buried debris, the Ordnance BurialSite northwest of Nayvaghaq Lake and the previously undocumented Army Landfill adjacentto the northwest portion of the shore of Nayvaghaq Lake (see Figure 5-6). The OrdnanceBurial Site will not be surveyed or subject to subsurface investigation.No surface debris thatcould interfere with the geophysical survey debris was observed at the Army Landfill.Site No. 13: Former Radar Power StationSite No. 13 reportedly contains the buried remains of a Former Radar Power Stationwhich includes metal towers, quonset hut debris, and electrical transformers (E & E 1992;5-2119XP6VJO A044-O2/19/93-DIFINALURS 1986). Metallic debris scattered on the surface of Site No. 13 may impact the effort todetect buried metallic debris. Interference caused by this debris will be noted during thesurvey.Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite No. 16 is suspected to contain buried debris of unknown origin (E & E 1992).Surface staining of gravel reportedly becomes more pronounced following above averagerainfall, which may indicate adverse affects to area groundwater quality.No surface debriswas observed at this site that would interfere with the geophysical survey.Site No. 17: Army LandfillsSite No. 17 reportedly includes two areas of suspected debris burial denoted as ArmyP¥X,Landfill No. 1 and No. 2 (see Figure^6). During a previous investigation, permafrost wasencountered at depths from 8 to 11 feet bgs in soil borings south of the landfills. Therefore,it is likely that the depth to permafrost was no greater during the time period in which theArmy used these landfills for debris burial. Metallic debris scattered on the surface of SiteNo. 17 may have an impact on the effort to detect buried metallic debris. Whateverinterference is caused by this debris will be noted during the survey.Site No. 18: Main CampSite No. 18 reportedly contained tanks of various volumes. It is unknown whether theywere buried or removed. The survey will be conducted to determine the presence or absenceof the tanks. Possible interference to the survey includes scattered surface debris and buriedutilities. Whatever interference is caused by surface debris will be noted during the survey.The contractor should obtain as-built drawings of all utility systems to determine the locationof underground utility lines such as sewer, water, electric, and telephone, which were presentduring the 1992 site reconnaissance.5.3.2Geophysical Survey MethodsGeophysical surveys at Gambell will be performed using the following three instruments:metal detector, magnetometer, and electromagnetic terrain conductivity meter. The metaldetector survey will be conducted using a standard portable metal detector/pipe locator. The5-22magnetometer survey will be conducted using a Geometries G-856AX proton precessionmagnetomer, which measures the earth's total magnetic field near the surface in units ofgammas. The electromagnetic terrain conductivity survey will be conducted using theGeonics EM-31 DL instrument. The EM-31 measures the apparent terrain conductivityallowing quick screening for changes in conductivity potentially associated with buried debrisor changes in soil conditions due to lithology, water content, permafrost or leachate plumes, ifpresent. The EM-31 has a fixed intercoil spacing of 12.1 feet which yields an effectiveexploration depth of approximately 19.7 feet. Operation of the EM-31 in the horizontaldipole (shallow) mode yields an effective exploration depth of approximately 9.8 feet.Geophysical surveys will be performed at locations of buried debris to detect potentialimpact to subsurface soil and groundwater quality, and to delineate the approximate arealextent of buried debris is required. In addition, geophysical surveys willhelp to identify the depth and lateral continuity of permafrost, and consequently in theplacement of monitoring wells.Geophysical survey efforts will require grid construction. The survey grids will consistof grid coordinates established and flagged along x and y axis on 100-foot centers (nodes)with grid stations at 25-foot intervals. Wherever possible, the x and y axes of the surveygrids will be oriented east-west and north-south, respectively. Precise compass orientationswill be obtained for each of the survey axis, allowing for a local magnetic declination ofapproximately 13° east of true north. The orientations will be indicated on the geophysicalcontour maps subsequently generated with the plotted field survey data. Wherever possible, acoordinate system will be consistently used at the survey grids, such that coordinates 0,0 arelocated in the southwest corner of each contour map. Grid nodes will be flagged andnumbered as follows:Grid X, N (or S) n, + yy, E (or W) n2 + zz,where:X= Grid letter;nj= Distance in 100-foot increments north (N) or south (S) from the origin point;n2= Distance in 100-foot increments east (E) or west (W) from the origin point;yy = Additional distance in feet north or south from the nearest previously located100-foot increment from the grid origin; and5-2319JCP«nO A044-O2/19/W-D1FINALzz = Additional distance in feet east or west from the nearest previously located100-foot increment from the grid origin.Example of grid notation for a grid station on a 125 feet north and 150 feet east oforigin is: Grid A, Nt + 25, Ej + 50.Wooden stakes will be used to mark the proposed soil boring and monitoring welllocations for reference during the subsequent drilling program. Any later adjustments of themonitoring well locations will be referenced to the survey grid coordinate system.The apparent terrain conductivity will be measured with the EM-31 or EM-34 in thehorizontal and vertical dipole modes at each survey grid node. Transmitter and receiver coilorientation will be north-south wherever possible.Geomagnetic measurements will be recorded at each survey grid node in a north-southorientation, using the magnetometer. The response of the magnetometer is proportional to themass of the ferrous target. All magnetometer readings obtained will be corrected for diurnalvariation based on a series of background measurements collected at a designated base stationthat is free from manmade geophysical anomalies.All geophysical field data will be electronically stored in the built-in memory portion ofthe aforementioned instruments. This data will be downloaded to a personal computer in thefield as the respective data storage capacities for the instruments are reached. If a suitablepower source and printer are available, this data will be plotted and then contoured usingapplicable software. Interpretation of the survey data and contour maps that are generated inthe field may provide the basis for the adjustment of monitoring well locations if significantgeophysical anomalies are identified.5.4 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS5.4.1 Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil5.4.1.1 LocationsSoil samples will be collected at each site in locations of apparent stained soil and neartransformers, barrels, and batteries. Surface soil samples will be collected from the followingsites:•Site No. 1: North Beach Area•Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Area5-24Site No. 4: Sevuokuk MountainSite No. 7: Former Military Power FacilitySite No. 10: Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemSite No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite No. 13: Former Radar Power StationSite No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteTable 5-1 summarizes the number of soil samples to be collected at each site and theanalyses to be performed. Representative background surface soils samples will be collectedfor each soil type and analyzed for all parameters of concern. Two background soil samplesarf» nrnnrvcArlTahlp 5-6).^-fi\areproposed f«f>£>(see TableSite No. 1: North Beach AreaTo determine whether debris scattered along the beachfront has contaminated the surfacesoils, two surface soil samples will be collected in areas of visibly stained soil (see Figure5-2). These samples will be analyzed for TRPH, BNA, PCBs, and TCLP metals (arsenic,barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver). These analytes arerepresentative of reported buried materials in the area.Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations AreaDue to the potential for POL contamination near the utility building and the presence ofburned material, one surface soil sample will be collected from each of the two visibly stainedareas and analyzed for TRPH, BNA, and TCLP metals (see Figure 5-3).Site No. 4: Sevuokuk MountainFive surface soil samples will be collected at Site No. 4. One sample will be collectedfrom each of the two transformer locations near the former quonset hut area and analyzed forPCBs. Three samples will be collected from a burned area will be collected and analyzed forTRPH, BNA, dioxins, PCBs and TCLP metals (see Figure 5-4).5-2519:KP60TO A044-02/19/93-D1FINALSite No. 7: Former Military Power FacilityDue to the presence of fuel-stained areas in this location, two representative surface soilsamples will be collected and analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, and TCLP metals (see Figure5-5). The results of these analyses will help determine the source of the staining.Site No. 10: Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemNo surface soil samples are proposed at this site. However, it is recommended that soilsbeneath the barrels be inspected for stressed vegetation and, if justified, representativesamples be collected and analyzed for POL-related analytes during the field investigation.Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteDue to the presence of 55-gallon drums and surface debris such as batteries, threerepresentative surface soil samples will be collected and analyzed for TRPH and TCLP metals(see Figure 5-6).Site No. 13: Former Radar Power StationBuried debris remains at the power station, including transformers. Two surface soilsamples will be collected in the stained soil area (Figure 5-6). Samples will be analyzed forTRPH, PCBs, and TCLP metals.Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteThe soil and gravel on the west side of the Municipal Building is visibly stained withsuspected petroleum related contaminants (see Figure 5-7). Two surface soil samples will becollected from the site and analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, and TCLP metals.5.4.1.2 Sampling MethodologySoil sampling will be conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines (EPA 1984). Surfaceand shallow subsurface soil samples will be collected to a maximum depth of 2 feet.Stainless steel trowels, spoons, coring devices, and mixing bowls will be utilized as samplingimplements. The soil will be placed in a stainless steel bowl to be thoroughly homogenized.An aliquot of the homogenized sample will be collected from the bowl using a stainless steelspoon and placed in an 8-ounce wide-mouth glass jar with teflon-lined lids. The glass jars5-2619:KP6070 AO+4-02/I9/93-D1reCVCied Caps?FINALwill then be labeled, custody sealed, covered with clear plastic tape, and placed in scalablebaggies. For samples suspected to contain medium or high contaminant levels, bagged jarswill be put in paint cans, which will be then filled with vermiculite. Paint cans will be closedand secured with paint can clips.When composite sampling is required, each composite sample will consist of threealiquots oriented as a triangle and separated by a distance of approximately 5 feet. The soilaliquots will be collected to equivalent depths and contain equal volumes. The aliquots willthen be homogenized by handmixing in a stainless steel mixing bowl and transferred to thesampling container.Samples to be analyzed for VOC or GRO will not be homogenized or composited; ratherselect subsamples of soil, equal in volume, will be collected from each aliquot location andplaced into two 2-oz. septa-lidded jars, leaving no headspace. Since most sites are located ongravel surfaces, samples collected for VOC analysis should be composed of particles less than2 millimeters in diameter. This will facilitate reduction of headspace and preservation ofsample integrity.Sampling implements will be decontaminated prior to the collection of each sample;however, decontamination will not be required between the collection of the sample aliquots.During the collection of each surface sample, observable physical characteristics (e.g., color,physical state) of the soil material will be recorded in the field log book.5.4.1.3 Analytical ParametersAs previously stated, the surface soil samples collected will be analyzed for some or allof the following parameters, GRO, DRO, TRPH, BNA, PCBs, dioxins, and TCLP metals(see Appendix A for a list of specific analytes for each analytical method). Table 5-3summarizes of sample preservation procedures and holding times. Table 5-4 summarizessample containers and volumes of soil samples required.5.4.2 Subsurface Soil5.4.2.1 LocationsSoil borings will drilled at sites that are suspected to contain buried debris or waste, orwhere surface disposal of debris may had an impact on subsurface soil (see Table 5-9).Subsurface soil will be sampled from soils excavated by borings at these sites. For each5-2719JCPW)D_A044-02/19/93-DlFINALproposed soil boring, samples will be collected at depths of 2.5 feet and 5 feet bgs, and at5-foot intervals thereafter if the boring is proposed to a depth greater than 5 feet. At aminimum, all borings will be advanced to the depth of the saturated zone. In addition, onesample is proposed for each boring from soil directly beneath the top of the saturated zone.(Drilling equipment and procedures for conducting soil borings are detailed in Appendix B.)A total of 186 subsurface soil samples will be collected for analysis. The number ofsamples collected for VOC analysis may be less, depending on the results of headspacesurveys of the soils sampled from borings at all sites except Site No. 5, Site No. 6, and SiteNo. 9 for which volatile organic contamination is not suspected. A portion of the soil volumecollected for each sample at the remaining sites will be subject to soil gas headspace analysiswith an organic vapor analyzer (OVA). Subsurface soil samples are proposed to be analyzedfor the parameters presented in Table 5-1. However, only approximately 20 percent to 40percent of all samples collected will be submitted for GRO and DRO analysis based on resultssample headspace field screening (see Section 5.4.2.2). Soil samples with mean grain sizegreater than 2 mm will not be subjected to VOC analysis due to soil sample containerizationmethodology and tolerance of vapor headspace in sample containers for VOC analysis.Soil borings are proposed within the boundaries of sites with suspected buried material.Although it is unconventional to recommend placement of soil borings within areas suspectedto contain buried debris or containerized hazardous waste, given the uncertainty of the arealextent of the burial areas, it is necessary to locate boreholes as near to the potential source aspossible. The results of the geophysical survey (section 5.3) will delineate areas to avoid,where anomalies of all instruments, especially those sensitive to ferrous material, indicate ahigh potential for buried material, and possibly indicate better soil boring locations. Incontrast, the geophysical survey results that indicate areas of low potential for buried ferrousmaterial and create anomalous EM-31 readings will be targeted as potential locations ofimpacted subsurface soil and groundwater.Soil borings are proposed at the following eleven sites:•Site No. 1: North Beach;•Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Area;•Site No. 3: Former Communications Facility;•Site No. 5: Former Tramway Site;5-2819:KP6070_A044-02/19/93-DIFINAL•Site No. 6: Military Landfill;•Site No. 7: Former Military Power Facility;•Site No. 8: West Beach;•Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site;•Site No. 13: Former Radar Power Station;•Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building Area;•Site No. 17: Army Landfills;A background boring will be drilled in an undetermined location and backgroundsubsurface soil samples will be collected at the same intervals as specified above.Representative background subsurface soil samples will be collected for each soil type andwill be analyzed for all the parameters 'of concern. Two background subsurface soil samplesare proposed for collection (see Table 5-6).Site No. 1: North BeachEight soil borings are proposed for the Air Force and Army Landing Areas. After ageophysical survey has indicated the approximate extent of the Air Force Landing Area andArmy Landing Area, soil borings will be drilled and subsurface soil samples will be collected.Proposed soil boring locations are shown in Figure 5-2, but these locations are subject torevision pending the results of the geophysical survey.Three borings are proposed for the Air Force Landing Area, one within the landing areaand two on the perimeter. Fjvejsoil borings are proposed for the Army Landing Area, onewithin the landing area and four around the perimeter. Boring locations were selected on theperimeter of the landing areas to determine the direction of potential contaminant migration.The borings within the landing areas will be used to determine the nature and concentration ofpotential contaminants. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone in the LandingAreas (URS 1986; Waller 1959), a minimum of three subsurface soil samples per soil boringsare proposed, yielding a total of 24 samples. Soil samples collected at this site will beanalyzed for DRO, GRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). AlJ/theborings are proposed to be completed with monitoring wells.5-2919:KP6070 A044-02/19/93-D!FINALSite No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations AreaSoil borings are proposed for the Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Area andthe Power Plant Burial Area. Proposed soil boring locations are shown in Figure 5-3, butthese locations are subject to revision pending the results of the geophysical survev^'Three xsoil borings are proposed for the perimeter of Site No. 2 to determine the nature and directionof potential contaminant migration. The borehole locations are in assumed downgradientlocations. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone in the Former MilitaryHousing/Operations Area (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of three subsurface soilsamples per soil boring are proposed to be collected, yielding a total of 9 samples. Soilsamples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, TCLP metals,and explosives (see Table 5-lljT Allthe borings at the Former Military Housing/OperationsArea and Power Plant Burial Area are proposed to be completed with monitoring wells.Site No. 3: Former Communications FacilityTwo soil borings are proposed for the area of the Former Communications Facility, asshown in Figure 5-4, but these locations are subject to revision pending the results of thegeophysical survey. One boring is proposed within the burial area to determine the nature ofthe potential contamination and one is proposed north of the site in an assumed downgradientlocation to determine the potential direction of contaminant migration. Based upon theanticipated depth to the saturated zone (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of threesubsurface soil samples per soil boring will be collected for a total of 6 samples. Soil samplescollected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLP metals,sulfates, and pH (see Table 5-1). Both borings are proposed to be completed with amonitoring well.Site No. 5; Former Tramway SiteFour soil borings are proposed for the Secondary Transformer Burial Area and the CableBurial Area within Site No. 5. Proposed soil boring locations are shown in Figure 5-5, butthese locations are subject to revision pending the results of geophysical survey. One boringis proposed within the Secondary Transformer Burial Area; one is proposed within the CableBurial Area; two are proposed for the perimeter of these adjoining areas. The boreholes onthe perimeter will aid in determining the direction of potential contaminant migration. These5-3019:KP6ff70 A044-02/19/93-D1FINAL•Tisaneborehole locations are placed in assumed downgradient locations. The interior boreholes willbe used to determine the nature of potential contamination. Based upon the anticipated depthto the saturated zone in this area (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of three subsurfacesoil samples per soil boring are proposed to be collected, yielding a total of 12 samples. Soilsamples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, and PCBs (see Table 51). Three of the borings are proposed to be completed with monitoring wells.Site No. 6: Military LandfillFour ^oil borings are proposed to be drilled around the perimeter of the Military LandfillSite to determine nature and direction of potential contaminant migration. Proposed soilboring locations are shown in Figure 5-5, but these locations are subject to revision pendingthe results of the geophysical survey. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone(URS 1986), a minimum of three subsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposed to becollected for a total of 12 samples only for lithology characterization. No subsurface soil- ~isamples will be collected for chemical analysis. The four borings will be completed withmonitoring wells.Site No. 7: Former Military Power Facility/Four soil borings are proposed for the Former Military Power Facility. Proposed soilboring locations are shown in Figure 5-5, but these locations are subject to revision pendingthe results of the geophysical survey. One boring is proposed within both burial areas todetermine the nature of the potential contaminants, and three are proposed for the perimeterof the site determine the direction of potential contaminant migration. Based upon theanticipated depth to the saturated zone (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of threesubsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposed to be collected, yielding a total of 12samples. Soil samples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC,PCBs, and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). All the borings are proposed to be completed withmonitoring wells.Site No. 8: West BeachOne soil boring is proposed to be drilled at the Army Landfill in Site No. 8. Theproposed soil boring location is shown in Figure 5-5, but the location is subject to revision%5-3119:KP«WO A044-02/19/93-D1FINALpending the results of the geophysical survey. The proposed boring is located between thelandfill and Nayvaghaq Lake to determine if potential leachate produced in the landfill ismigrating towards the lake. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone in thisarea (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of four subsurface soil samples per soil boring areproposed to be collected. Soil samples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO,TRPH, VOC, PCBs, and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). The boring is proposed to becompleted with a monitoring well.Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteTwo soil borings are proposed to be drilled at the North Disposal Area in Site No. 12.Proposed soil boring locations are shown in Figure 5-6, but these locations are subject torevision pending the results of the geophysical survey. The two borings are proposed for theperimeter of the North Disposal Area. The boreholes are sited in locations along potentialcontaminant migration routes to Troutman and Nayvaghaq Lakes. Based upon the anticipateddepth to the saturated zone in this area (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of threesubsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposed to be collected, yielding a total of 6samples. Soil samples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC,and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). Two borings are proposed to be complete with monitoringwells.Site No. 13: Former Radar Power Station'•"^xFour soil borings are proposed for the Former Radar Power Station Area. Proposed soilboring locations are shown in Figure 5-6, but these locations are subject to revision pendingthe results of the geophysical survey. One boring is proposed within the burial area and threeare proposed for the perimeter of the area. The interior borehole will be used to determinethe nature of the potential contamination. The boreholes along the perimeter are sited inlocations along the anticipated contaminant migration route to Troutman and NayvaghaqLakes. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone in this area (URS 1986, Waller1959), a minimum of three subsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposed to becollected, yielding a total of 12 samples. Soil samples collected at this site will be analyzedfor GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). All'ifce borings areproposed to be completed with monitoring wells.5-3219JOWJO A044-02/19/93-D1rSCVC?ed psper,.FINALecology sue e:-,ra-on:meniSite No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteThree SOB* borings are proposed for the Gambell Municipal Building Site. Proposed soilboring locations are shown in Figure 5-7, but these locations are subject to revision pendingthe results of the geophysical survey. One boring is proposed within the burial or stainedgravel area to determine the depth and nature of the contaminant, and two are proposed forthe perimeter of the area to determine the direction of contaminant migration. Based upon theanticipated depth to the saturated zone in this area (URS 1986, Waller 1959), a minimum ofthree subsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposed to be collected, yielding a total ofnine samples. Soil samples collected at this site will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, andTCLP metals (see Table 5-1). Two 6f the borings are proposed to be completed withmonitoring wells.Site No. 17: Army LandfillsSeven soil borings are proposed for both Army landfills. Proposed soil boring locationsare shown in Figure 5-7, but these locations are subject to revision pending the results of thegeophysical survey. Four borings are proposed for Landfill No. 1. One boring is proposedwithin the landfill and three around the perimeter.Three borings are proposed for LandfillNo. 2. One boring is proposed within the landfill, and two around the perimeter. Theboreholes sited along the perimeter of the landfills will be used to determine the direction ofpotential contaminant migration. The interior boreholes will provide the nature of thecontamination. Based upon the anticipated depth to the saturated zone in this area (URS1986, Waller 1959), a minimum of three subsurface soil samples per soil boring are proposedto be collected, yielding a total of 21 samples. Soil samples collected at this site will beanalyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, and TCLP metals (see Table 5-1). All theborings at Landfill No. 1 and Landfill No. 2 are proposed to be completed with monitoringwells.5.4.2.2 Sampling MethodologySoil sampling will be conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines (EPA 1984).Subsurface soil samples proposed at 2.5 feet bgs, or less, will be collected with steel handaugers equipped with stainless steel sampling buckets. Soil samples from 5 feet bgs or morewill be collected using a drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers and split-spoon samplers5-3319JCP6070 A04W2/19/93-D1FINALat Sites Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, and 17. During drilling, subsurface samplingwill be conducted according to standard COE and American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) procedures using a 2- or 3-inch split-spoon sampler. The spilt-spoon sampler will beadvanced during hollow-stem auger drilling by conventional methods, including attachment ofthe sampler to a drill rod and standard 140- or 300-pound hammers. During sampling, blowcounts will be recorded at 6-inch intervals to the total sample depth of 18 or 24 inches,depending on the length of the split-spoon. The split-spoon sampler shall be decontaminatedafter each sample as discussed in Section 5.7.As samples are retrieved, they will be screened with a FID for volatile organic vapors.In addition, a set of composite soil samples will be collected from each soil boring at siteswhere there are suspected volatile organic contaminants, and placed in soil sample jars foreach interval sampled. OVA headspace readings with and without an in-line methane filterwill be recorded for each sample set (i.e. one jar of each set will be used for the reading withthe in-line methane filter [methane corrected reading] and the other jar will be used for thereading without the filter). The headspace reading without the in-line filter is a total organicvapor reading, whereas, that with the in-line filter is a methane-corrected vapor reading.Therefore, for each sample, the organic vapor reading attributable to potential organiccontaminants is obtained when the presence of methane is subtracted from the total organicvapor reading.Heated headspace analysis will be performed for each sample set by half filling two 8-oz.jars with the sampled soil, quickly covering the jars with aluminum foil and applying thescrew cap to tightly seal the jars. Jars will be shaken vigorously for 15 seconds and thenallowed to sit for at least 10 minutes in direct sunlight if possible, or in a heated vehicle orbuilding for headspace development. Again, jars will be shaken and lids removed. The foilseals will be quickly punctured with the OVA sampling probe to approximately one-half ofthe headspace depth, being careful to avoid the uptake of soil particulates. The highest meterreading for each jar will be recorded as the headspace concentration. Upon comparison of thetwo meter readings as detailed above, the organic vapor reading attributable to potentialorganic contaminants will be obtained. Only those soil samples which yield methanecorrected headspace readings greater than 10 ppm wui be analyzed t ; VOCs. The headspaceanalysis methodology of subsurface soil samples is proposed to eliminate costs for VOC5-3419:KP«070 A044-02/19/93-D1rscvcied saoe"FINALanalysis of samples, which through organic vapor pre-screening, do not yield organic vaporcontents elevated above 10 ppm.With the exception of GRO and DRO soil samples collected will be analyzed for theparameters listed in Table 5-1. The field sampling team will use professional judgement,based on sample headspace analysis and visual observation, to select approximately 20 percentto 40 percent of all samples collected for GRO and DRO analysis. The reduction in thenumber of GRO and DRO analyses is based on the premise that significant degradation ofthese potential contaminants has occurred over the years since military occupation.Containerized samples not selected for analysis will be disposed of as investigation-derivedwaste (Section 5.9). Soil aliquots for VOC analysis will be containerized immediatelyfollowing retrieval from the split-spoon sampler. After the lithology of the sample has beendescribed, the remainder of the soil will be homogenized and removed from the sampler witha stainless steel spoon, placed in the appropriate sample containers, and processed forshipment as described in subsection 5.4.1.2.All soil samples collected from soil borings in which monitoring wells will be installedwill be visually classified by the Unified Soil Classifications System. The field classificationwill be verified by laboratory analysis of selected physical parameters, including grain-sizedistribution (ASTM C117 & 136) and moisture content (ASTM D 2216).5.4.3 Groundwater SamplesThe results of the geophysical survey will help to delineate the possible extent ofpermafrost at each site. If permafrost boundaries (i.e., "edges of discontinuous permafrost")exist beneath or immediately adjacent to any of the site, the proposed depths of monitoringwells may need to be revised. Proposed monitoring well depths are not to exceed the depth topermafrost at each site. However, if discontinuities exist in the permafrost, then the potentialexists for deeper vertical migration of groundwater. Decisions on whether to installmonitoring wells to greater depths will be made following review of all data collected fromSsT^^ttfogeophysical surveys. Currently, a totoKof 39 monitoring wells are proposed. Monitoring(.^well construction, installation and development are outlined in Appendix B.To assess the hydrologic parameters of the unconfined aquifer system at the Gambellsites, slug tests should be conducted at a minimum of one well at each site. In addition,specific capacity tests should be performed, if practical, in conjunction with development of5-3519JCWOTO A044-O2/19/93-D1FINALthe newly installed monitoring wells. The performance of slug test shall consist of theintroduction and removal of a steel slug bar, of a known volume, into the well.Measurements of the initial water level response and subsequent water levels untilequilibration to the initial water level will be recorded using a data logger pressure transducersystem. The pressure transducer sonde will be placed into the well preceding the introductionof the slug bar and will remain stationary during the test (i.e., removal of the slug bar). Therecovery of the groundwater to the well will be monitored continuously during the specifiedlength of time for the test. The length of time for the tests will be decided in the field by thehydrogeologist performing the tests and based on the length of time necessary forequilibration of the water level during emplacement of the slug bar.The specific capacity tests should consist of measuring the static (pre-pumping) waterlevel with a calibrated water level indicator, and then pumping the well at a known dischargerate for a given length of time static and pumping water level. The difference between thestatic and pumping water levels is the drawdown, which is divided by the discharge to yieldthe specific capacity.Quantification of the aquifer parameters using slug test results and/or specific capacitieswill be used to calculate values of transmissivity (T) and hydraulic conductivity (K). Theseparameters, in conjunction with the hydraulic gradient and flow direction, to be determined bystatic water level measurements in each on-site monitoring well, will be used to determinegroundwater flow velocities. In addition, these results will aid in the characterization oftransport potential of contaminant plumes, if present, in the unconfined aquifer systemunderlying the Gambell site.5.4.3.1 Monitoring Well LocationsGroundwater samples will be collected from monitoring wells installed at those sites thatcontain buried debris or waste, or from sites that may pose a threat to groundwater quality asdetermined by the results of a geophysical survey (see Table 5-2). These sites include thefollowing:•Site No. 1: North Beach•Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Area•Site No. 3: Former Communications Facility5-3619:KP6070 A044-02/19/93-D1recveisd Daoa".FINALSite No. 5: Former Tramway SiteSite No. 6: Military LandfillSite No. 7: Former Military Power FacilitySite No. 8: West BeachSite No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite No. 13: Former Radar Power StationSite No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building AreaSite No. 17: Army LandfillsA background monitoring well will be installed at the background soil boring location(Section 5.4.2.1) and background groundwater samples will be collected. Backgroundgroundwater samples will be analyzed for all the parameters of concern.Site No. 1: North Beach,Eight monitoring wells are proposed to be installed at the Army Landing Area and theAir Force Landing Area in the soil borings described in subsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 1.Proposed locations are shown in Figure 5-2. Since the potential contaminants are suspected tobe waste POLs, groundwater samples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO,DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, and total metals (see Table 5-2).Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations Area'Three monitoring wells are proposed to be installed at the Former MilitaryHousing/Operations Burial Area and the Power Plant Burial Area in the soil borings describedin subsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 2. Proposed locations are shown in Figure 5-3. Thecontaminants at this site are suspected to be petroleum or ordnance related, thereforegroundwater samples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH,VOC, total metals, and explosives (see Table 5-2).5-3719:KP60TOJV70_A044^l2/19/93-DlDesDSr_FINALSite No. 8: West BeachOne Monitoring well is proposed to be installed at the Army Landfill in the soil boringdescribed in subsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 8. The proposed location is shown in Figure 5-6.The contaminants at this site are suspected to be petroleum-related and may include PCBsfrom buried electrical equipment based on the reported contents of the Landfill. Groundwatersamples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, andtotal metals (see Table 5-2).Site No. 12: Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteTwo monitoring wells are proposed to be installed in the soil borings described insubsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 12. The proposed locations are shown in Figure 5-6. SincePOL products and lead from batteries are the potential sources of contaminants, groundwatersamples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, and totalmetals (see Table 5-2).Site No. 13: Former Radar Power StationFour monitoring wells are proposed to be installed in the soil borings described insubsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 13. The proposed location is shown in Figure 5-6. BecausePOL products and PCBs from transformers are potential contaminants of concern, groundwater samples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,and total metals (see Table 5-2).Site No. 16: Gambell Municipal Building SiteTwo monitoring wells are proposed to be installed in the soil borings described insubsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 16. The proposed location is shown in Figure 5-7. Sincepetroleum-related contaminants are suspected to be present, groundwater samples collectedfrom these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH, and total metals (see Table 5-2).Site No. 17: Army LandfillsSeven monitoring wells are proposed to be installed in the soil borings described insubsection 5.4.3.1 for Site No. 17. The proposed location is shown in Figure 5-7.5-3919:KP60TO_A044-02/19/93-DlFINALGroundwater samples collected from these wells will be analyzed for GRO, DRO, TRPH,VOC, PCBs, and total metals (see Table 5-2).5.4.3.2 Sampling MethodologyGroundwater samples will be collected in accordance with EPA guidelines (EPA 1981and 1985). Groundwater sample collection from the monitoring wells will consist of thefollowing four activities:•Measurement of depth to water level and total well depth (to calculate wellvolume);•Evacuation of water (purging);•Measurement and recording of groundwater temperature, pH, turbidity andconductivity; and•Collection of the sample (with filtering for dissolved metals samples if sampleturbidity is greater than 50 NTU and no filtering for total metals samples).Prior to sampling, static water level and total well depth will be measured with anelectronic interface probe. Equipment will be decontaminated between uses to avoid crosscontamination of wells.The number of linear feet of static water (the standing water column) will be determinedby calculating the difference between the static water level and the total depth of the well.The static volume will be calculated using the formula:V = ^(0.163)Where:VTr0.163= Static volume of well in gallons.= Standing water column, measured in feet,= Inside radius of well casing in inches.= A constant conversion factor that compensates for the conversion of the casingradius from inches to feet, the conversion of cubic feet to gallons, and TT (pi).Before a groundwater sample is obtained, water must be purged to ensure that arepresentative groundwater sample is collected. A minimum of five volumes of the standingwater column will be purged from each well prior to sample collection. If the well does notrecover quickly enough to permit the removal of five successive volumes, the well will be5-40pumped or bailed dry and sampled immediately following a recovery sufficient to collect asample. Purging will be performed using decontaminated stainless steel or teflon bailers orpumps. Purge water from monitoring wells will be contained in drums. If the analyticalresults from groundwater samples indicate that it is not contaminated, the purge water will beapplied to soil within the boundaries of the area investigated. If groundwater samples docontain contaminant concentrations above regulatory actions levels, then the drums of purgewater will be labeled and stored on site in a secure area.If free product is encountered above the water table, the product thickness must first berecorded. The well will not be purged, and a groundwater sample, including floating productwill be collected. The sample will be submitted for a "hydrocarbon analysis scan" using theAlaska District COE modification of EPA Method 8015, total lead, BTEX, flashpoint andBTU. If floating free-product is not identified, a bailer or pump will be used to purge therequired volume of water from the well prior to obtaining a representative water sample.Sampling personnel will take precautions against cross contamination when using onesampling apparatus for a series of samples.Before and after each sample is collected, the apparatus will be decontaminated asspecified in Section 5.7. Sample collection procedures are as follows.•A decontaminated stainless steel or Teflon bailer or dedicated pump will beused to collect groundwater samples from monitoring wells;•When transferring water from the sample collection device to samplecontainers, care will be taken to avoid agitating the sample, which promotesthe loss of VOCs and increases the dissolved oxygen content;•VOC samples will be bottled immediately upon collection (refer to Table 5-3for other preservation methods);•Samples from monitoring wells to be analyzed for dissolved metals (Appendix A) will be filtered in the field using a 0.45-micron filter and preservedwith nitric acid prior to shipment for analysis. The filtering equipment willbe decontaminated between samples to avoid cross-contamination;•Any observable physical characteristics of the groundwater (e.g., color,sheen, odor, turbidity) will be recorded in the logbook;•Sample temperature, pH, and specific conductivity will be measured andrecorded; and5-4119:KP60TO_A044«2/25/93-Dlrecycled paperFINALcoo|o?y nm , environmelll•Weather conditions at the time of sampling will be^recorded (e.g., airtemperature, wind direction and velocity, recent heavy rainfall, and droughtconditions).5.4.4 Sediment Samples5.4.4.1 LocationsSediment samples will be collected at Site No. 4, downgradient of the abandonedtransformers in a surface water drainage (see Figure 5-4).A total of four sediment sampleswill be collected; three downgradient of the transformer and background upgradient samplewithin the same stream channel. Since there is potential for PCB contamination, the sedimentsamples will be analyzed for PCBs (see Table 5-2).5.4.4.2 Sampling MethodologyDuring the collection of each sediment sample, observable physical characteristics (e.g.,color, physical state, elevated organic vapor readings) of the sediment material will berecorded.The samples will be collected using stainless steel ladles, spoons, mixing bowls, or otherstandard equipment. Sampling implements will be decontaminated following the proceduresstated in Section 5.8 prior to the collection of each sample. Sediment samples will becollected and transferred to appropriate glass containers using a stainless steel ladle or spoon.Sediments will be homogenized by the same method described in section 5.4.2.2. for soils. Asufficient volume of sediment will be collected for subsequent analytical testing requirements.5.4.4.3 Analytical ParametersThe sediment samples collected from Site No. 4 will be analyzed for PCBs. SeeAppendix A for a list of specific analytes for each analytical method. Table 5-3 is a summaryof sample containers, preservation procedures and holding times. Table 5-4 summarizes thesample containers and volumes required for sediment samples.5.4.5 Asbestos SamplesBulk samples will be collected and analyzed for asbestos at locations determined tocontain suspect asbestos containing material (ACM) during the E & E site inventory. Thesematerials will be sampled using asbestos bulk sampling procedures outlined in Section5-42190CP60TO A04442/2S/93-DIFINAL5.4.5.2. The number of samples collected for asbestos analysis will be determined accordingto the criteria in Table 5-8.5.4.5.1 LocationsBulk samples will be collected and analyzed for asbestos at the Former MilitaryHousing/Operations Area (Site No. 2) and Sevuokuk Mountain (Site No. 4) that are suspectedto contain ACM.Site No. 2: Former Military Housing/Operations AreaDue to the presence of fibrous material in the vicinity of the reported machine gun nestburial area, approximately three samples will be collected to determine the presence of ACM(see Table 5-2). All samples will be submitted for bulk asbestos analysis.Site No. 4: Sevuokuk MountainTo determine whether fibrous debris located approximately 20 feet north of a FormerQuonset Hut Area contains asbestos, at least three samples will be collected and analyzed forbulk asbestos (see Table 5-2). The number of samples collected will be determined accordingto the requirements in Table 5-8.5.4.5.2 Sampling MethodologyPrior to any sampling collection activity, a visual inspection of each facility involving thefollowing elements will be conducted:•Identify all areas to be inspected;•Identify types of suspected ACM present;•Determine the category of friability by touching the suspected ACM(Categories of friability are as defined by 40 CFR, part 61, Subpart M[NESHAP] as amended November 1990 [i.e., friable, non-friable I, andnon-friable II]);•Identify homogeneous areas of suspected ACM by location (a homogeneousarea is a material type that appears similar throughout the site in terms ofcolor, texture, application, and date of installation); and5-4319:KP«nO AOM-02/I9/93-D1FINAL•Determine total approximate square/linear footage of each homogeneous areaof suspected ACM.A representative number of samples should be collected for each materialtype/homogeneous area identified. For most ACM, a minimum of 0.5 cubic inch should becollected. If the material is layered, 0.5 cubic inch of each layer should be sampled. Thehomogeneous material should be divided into equal sampling areas. One sample shall becollected from each of the equal areas.Once the sample location has been selected, the following procedures will be followed toobtain a sample:•Conduct sampling only when no unprotected persons are in the area;•Sample while wearing Level C protection as outlined in the Health and SafetyPlan;•Use a spray bottle containing amended water (detergent and water) toadequately wet the surface of the area to be sampled;•Use a knife or other appropriate tool to cut free a sample of the material witha minimum size of 0.5 cubic inch. Penetrate the whole thickness of thematerial and collect all layers, and spray the area occasionally during thisprocess to adequately wet the whole thickness of the material in the area ofthe sample;•With the tool in one hand and an open, labeled sample bag in the other hand,free the sample, allowing it to fall into the bag. See Section 5.8.3 forinformation on sample labels;•Seal the individual sample bag and place inside another bag (daily samplecollection bag) to prevent leakage;•Place a piece of duct tape over the sample location and mark it with thesample ID;•Decontaminate the sampling tools in accordance with Section 5.9 and replacethe outer pair of gloves before proceeding to the next sample; and•Place all disposables into a 6-mil plastic bag labeled as containing ACM orcontaminated waste.QC and/or duplicate samples should be obtained by taking two samples adjacent to eachother. These samples are labeled and handled in the same way as ordinary samples. The5-44190CP6070 A044-O2/19/93-D1recyctSC CSSSir,FINALecology and SEva-ontanentlaboratory should not be able to identify which samples are QC samples. One duplicate QCsample will be collected for every 10 samples, with a minimum of one for each site.5.5 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS5.5.1 Field QC SamplesQC data are necessary to determine precision and accuracy and to demonstrate theabsence of interference and/or contamination of glassware and reagents. Field QC samplesand the frequency of analysis for this project are summarized in Table 5-6 and brieflydescribed below.•Trip blanks are similar to field blanks with the exception that they are notexposed to field conditions. Their analytical results give the overall level ofcontamination from everything except ambient field conditions. Trip blanksare prepared prior to the sampling event and shipped with the sample bottles.Trip blanks are prepared by adding organic-free water to a 40-mL VOC vial.One trip blank will be used with every batch of water samples shipped forvolatile organic analysis. Each trip blank will be transported to the samplinglocations, handled like a sample, and returned to the laboratory for analysiswithout being opened in the field.•Field equipment/rinsate blanks are blank samples designed to demonstratethat sampling equipment has been properly prepared and cleaned before fielduse and that cleaning procedures between samples are sufficient to minimizecross-contamination. Rinsate blanks are prepared by passing analyte-freewater over sampling equipment and analyzing the samples for all applicableparameters. If a sampling team is familiar with a particular site, its membersmay be able to predict which areas or samples are likely to have the highestconcentration of contaminants. Unless other constraints apply, these samplesshould be taken last to avoid excessive contamination of sampling equipment.•Field triplicates consist of a set of three samples collected independently at asampling location during a single sampling event. Two of the identicalsamples will be sent to the project laboratory as blind duplicates. The thirdsample will be shipped to the QA laboratory for external quality control.Field triplicates can be sent to the laboratories so that they are indistinguishable from other analytical samples and personnel performing the analyses arenot able to determine which samples are field triplicates. Field triplicates aredesigned to assess the consistency of the overall sampling and analyticalsystem.5-4519:KP60TO_A044-02/19/93-DlFINAL5.5.2 Field AuditsInternal audits are conducted on field activities by the regional quality assurancecoordinator (RQC) or a designee. The RQC will plan and conduct internal field audits andcompare field operations to the CDAP and note discrepancies or deviations. Checklists willbe used to guide the auditor; however, these lists are not intended to be inclusive of all audittopics (see Appendix D). Field systems and field performance will be audited simultaneously,resulting in a comprehensive field audit. During each comprehensive field audit, a detailedreview of sampling technique, decontamination procedures, sample management,documentation, field measurements, subcontractor management, and overall projectmanagement will be conducted. The auditor will be responsible for preparing a deficiencyreport after completion of the audit and submitting this report to the contractors and COEproject managers for the audited project. The contractor's manager will be responsible forinitiating corrective actions.The RQC will perform follow-up audits as necessary to confirm the implementation ofcorrective actions.5.5.3 Corrective ActionThe need for corrective action will be identified by field audits as described in Section5.5.2 and by other more direct means, such as equipment malfunction. Once the problem hasbeen identified, prompt and appropriate action will be taken to correct the situation. After acorrective action has been implemented, its effectiveness will be verified. If the action doesnot resolve the problem, appropriate personnel will be assigned to investigate and effectivelyresolve the problem.5.6 FIELD EQUIPMENT, CONTAINERS, AND SUPPLIESThe following discussion provides a list of the field screening instruments and proceduresfor calibrating these instruments.5.6.1 Calibration Procedures and FrequencyAll instruments and equipment used during sampling and analysis will be operated,calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's guidelines and recommendations,and criteria set forth in the applicable analytical methodology references. Operation, calibra-5-46\9XP6UTO A044-02/19/93-D1recyciedpapsrtion, and maintenance will be performed by personnel properly trained in these procedures.Documentation of all routine and special maintenance and calibration information will bemaintained in an appropriate logbook or reference file, and will be available on request.Brief descriptions of calibration procedures for major field instruments follow. Theseinstruments include a FID, a PID, a radiation alert dosimeter, and a portable digitalconductance, temperature, and pH tester.5.6.1.1 HNu PhotoionizerThe HNu photoionizer can be calibrated using a static or dynamic gas generation system.A number of such systems for generating test atmospheres for various gases have beendescribed by G.O. Nelson in Controlled Test Atmospheres. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Ann Arbor, Michigan (1971).The most convenient packages for calibration are the non-toxic analyzed gas mixturesavailable from HNu Systems in pressurized containers (Catalogue No. 101-350).A rapid procedure for calibration involves bringing the probe and readout in closeproximity to the calibration gas, cracking the valve on the tank, and checking the instrumentreading. This provides a useful spot check for the instrument.The recommended and most accurate procedure for calibration of the instrument from apressurized container is to connect one side of a "T" to the pressurized container ofcalibration gas, another side of the "T" to a rotameter, and the third side of the "T" directlyto the 8-inch extension of the photoionization probe. The valve of the pressurized container iscracked until a slight flow is indicated on the rotameter. The instrument draws in the volumeof sample required for detection, and the flow in the rotameter indicates an excess of sample.The span potentiometer is adjusted so that the instrument is reading the exact value of thecalibration gas. (If the instrument span setting is changed, the instrument should be turnedback to the standby position and the electronic zero should be readjusted, if necessary.)The calibration gas should be prepared in the same matrix (air, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc.)in which it is to be measured, otherwise an inaccurate reading may be obtained. Calibrationwith toxic gases should be performed in a hood since the HNu-101 is a nondestructiveanalyzer. The increased response that is seen in oxygen-free gases can be attributed to areduction in the quenching of ions by oxygen (actually O^) and is typical of any ionizationdetector. The quenching effect of oxygen is constant from about 10% O2 to very high levels.5-4719JCP60TD A044-02/19/93-D1FINALIf a gas standard prepared in nitrogen is to be used for measurements in air, fill a 0.5- or1-liter bag with the standard, then add 50 or 100 cc of pure oxygen to bring the level to 10%to 12%. Any error between this value and 20% oxygen is quite small.If the sample to be measured is in nitrogen, standards should be prepared in nitrogen.5.6.1.2 Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA)The OVA provides a continuous readout of the total concentration of organic vapors andgases by the use of a FID. The OVA should be used only by a trained operator. It does notrespond to inorganic vapors.Regular MaintenanceProcedures for regular maintenance of the OVA are as follows:•Check particle filters daily;•Check quad rings weekly;•Clean burner chamber weekly;•Check calibration daily; and•Check pumping system daily.OVA-128 CalibrationOVA-128 calibration is as follows:•Remove instrument from case;•Turn on electronics and zero instrument on X10 scale, set gas select dial to300;•Turn on pump and hydrogen, ignite flame, go to survey mode;•Introduce a methane standard near 100 ppm;•Adjust R-32 trimpot on circuit board to make meter read to standard;•Turn off hydrogen flame and adjust meter needle to read 4 ppm;•Switch to XI scale and adjust R-31 trimpot to make meter read 4 ppm;5-4819:KP6070 A04*02/19/93-DlEjDSr,FINALecli-aagy and e:^ironi>:nie:n;•Return to X10 scale and adjust meter needle to 40 ppm;•Switch to XI00 scale and adjust R-33 trimpot to make meter read 40 ppm.OVA Pump System CheckThe OVA pump system check is as follows:•With pump on, hold unit upright and observe flow gauge;•Ball level significantly below a reading of 2 is low flow;•Clean or replace particle filters;•Re-assemble and re-test flow;•If flow is still low, replace pump diaphragm and valves;•If flow is normal, plug air intake pump should slow and stop;•If no noticeable change in pump, tighten fittings and re-test; and•If still no change, replace pump diaphragm and valves.5.6.1.3 Rad-Mini and NephelometerRad-MiniThe Rad-mini has a scheduled preventive maintenance check performed semi-annually.There is no calibration necessary for the Rad-mini. It is only checked for proper operationand battery life.A quick check of proper operation is performed on each unit before it is into the field. AColeman lantern mantle or other radiation source is brought up to the unit and response isnoted. If the Rad-mini reacts properly, it is then ready for use. A daily check can beperformed as described above.NephelometerThe Series 95 Nephelometer must be calibrated before each use. Allow the instrument towarm up for approximately 2 hours. Using turbidity- free deionized water, zero the meter.Set the scale to 100, fill with a 40 NTU standard (AEPA-1 turbidity standard from AdvancedPolymer Systems, Inc.), and insert into the instrument. Adjust the standardize control to give5-4919:KP6070A044-02/19/93-D1FINALa readout of 200. Rezero the instrument and repeat these steps with the scale set at 10 and 1using 4.0 and 0.4 NTU standards, respectively. These standards are prepared by dilutingaliquots of the 40 NTU standard.5.6.1.4 Conductance, Temperature, and pH MeterTemperature and conductance are factory calibrated. Conductance accuracy may bechecked with a solution of known conductance and recalibration can be instituted, ifnecessary.All instrumentation used in field activities must be calibrated according to manufacturers'instructions. Where required, field instruments must be calibrated and recorded in the fieldlogbook each sampling day.Continuous sampling devices must be calibrated according to manufacturers' specificationsat the time of field set-up and checked as often as necessary. Sample lines for continuousdevices must be cleaned or replaced prior to each installation.In those instances when a field instrument will not calibrate, the instrument maintenancepersonnel will attempt a field repair of the impaired equipment. To the extent possible orpractical, backup field equipment should be available.Do not subject the pH electrode to freezing temperatures. It is good practice to rinse theelectrode in distilled water when going from one buffer to another. When not in use, the capshould be kept on the electrode. Keeping the cotton in the cap moist will keep the electrodeready to use.5.6.1.5 Preventive MaintenanceAll field instruments and equipment used for sample analysis will be maintained underservice agreements with the manufacturers and will be serviced and maintained only byqualified personnel. All repairs, adjustments, and calibrations will be documented in anappropriate logbook or data sheet that will be kept on file.A sufficient redundancy of equipment items should be maintained to allow for areasonable level of equipment failure.5-505.6.2 Sampling Equipment, Containers, and SuppliesTables 5-4 and 5-5 specify sample container requirements by analysis and matrix. Furtherdiscussion of sampling equipment and supplies is provided in Section 5.6.1.5.7 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATIONWhenever possible, disposable sampling and personal protective equipment will be usedfor field activities. Due the to number of samples to be collected, much of the samplingequipment used in the field will be decontaminated between uses at different sample locations.Equipment anticipated for field decontamination includes but is not limited to:•Stainless steel trowels, spoons, and mixing bowls;•Auger flights;•Teflon bailers; and•Nondisposable protective equipment.The primary intention of field decontamination is to prevent cross contamination ofsamples, control the spread of contaminants to noncontaminated areas, and prevent chemicalexposure to the sampling team. The decontamination area will be determined beforefieldwork begins. The location will be upwind and away from suspected contaminant sources.The decontamination procedures for all stainless steel and Teflon sampling equipment willconsist of a consecutive series of the following wash and rinses:•Potable water rinse;•Liquinox wash;•Potable water rinse;•Acetone rinse;•Hexane rinse;•Deionized water rinse; and•Air dry.5-5119:KP60TO_A044-02/19/93-DlFINALAuger flights will be decontaminated by power wash or steam cleaning. Nondisposableprotective clothing will be washed with a water and alconox solution and will be rinsed withpotable water. The Health and Safety Plan presents procedures for personnel decontaminationand site access control.For asbestos sampling, decontamination of the sampling tools will take place at thesampling area. The tools and outside of the sampling bag will be decontaminated withamended water (detergent and water) and paper towels or wet wipes. All contaminated towelsor wet wipes will be disposed of in a 6-mil plastic bag labeled as containing asbestoscontaining or contaminated waste.5.8 SAMPLE HANDLING REQUIREMENTS5.8.1 Container RequirementsSample containers for the project will be supplied by either the contractor or COE incompliance with EPA guidance (Specifications and Guidance for the Preparation ofContaminant-Free Containers, April 1989). If the COE is to supply sample containers, theCOE project engineer must be notified in writing of the number and type of containers neededas well as the date needed 10 days prior to container pick-up.Container requirements vary according to the anticipated hazard class of the sample. It isanticipated that all of the samples collected for the project will be low level (less than 10 ppmcontaminant concentrations suspected).5.8.2 Preservation and Holding TimesSample preservation and holding time requirements as outlined in EPA SW-846 arepresented in Table 5-3. Holding times are established from the time of collection of thesamples to extraction (as specified) and analysis.5.8.3DocumentationSample documentation includes sample identification labels, sample tags, daily samplingreports, photographs, laboratory analysis requests, and permanently bound field logbooks.5-52FINALE-EioiiogY acid e^viron^s:^:Sample DocumentationEach sample will be labeled and sealed immediately after collection. To minimizehandling of sample containers, labels will be filled out prior to sample collection. The samplelabel will be filled out using waterproof ink, will be firmly affixed to the sample containers,and protected with Mylar tape. A 10-digit alphanumeric code will be assigned to each sampleas an identification number to track samples collected at the site. The sample code is brokendown as follows:GroupDigitsTimeCode Examples Completed(1)(2)(3)(4)1-25-78-1011-12Calendar YearIdentifying codeSample No.Sample type:Surface SoilGroundwaterSedimentSoil91, 92,GAM (Gambell)010,110SymbolSSGWSDSLExample:92 GAM 010 SD = 1992, Gambell,Sample No. 10, SedimentThe sample label also will provide the following information:•Name of sampler;•Date and time of collection;•Sample number;•Analysis required (including EPA Test Method); and•Preservation.Sample volume levels will be marked on each liquid sample container. Sample tags willbe attached to each sample container, and will be filled out to reflect sample-specific information (see Appendix C). After the sample is collected, pertinent information such as sampleidentification number, date and time of sample collection, sample collection method,description of sample, and any field measurements (OVA readings, pH, conductivity, etc.),will be recorded in the field logbook, and the recorder will initial the entry.5-5319:KP60TO A04W2/19/93-D1FINALfield LogsField logs are necessary to provide records of data and observations to enable participantsto reconstruct events that occurred during the project and to refresh the memory of the fieldpersonnel if called upon to give testimony during legal proceedings. All daily logs will bekept in a permanently bound, waterproof notebook containing numbered pages. All entrieswill be made in waterproof ink, dated, and signed. No pages will be removed for any reason.The daily logs will include a site log and a task log.The field log is the responsibility of the site team leader and will include a completesummary of the day's activity at the site.The field log will include:•Name of person making entry (signature);•Names of team members on site;•Levels of personnel protection—level of protection originally used, changes inprotection, if required, and reasons for changes;•Time spent collecting samples;•Documentation of samples collected-including sample identification numbers, sampling location and depth numbers, sampling date and time, sampling personnel, type of sample (grab, composite, etc.), sample matrix, andnumber of samples collected;•On-site measurement data, including units of measurement;•Field observations and remarks;•Weather conditions, wind direction, etc.;•Monitoring equipment used (brand, model, serial number);•Monitoring equipment calibration;•Unusual circumstances or difficulties; and•Initials of person recording the information.A complete log of all conditions encountered during drilling will be maintained. Thisincludes lithologic/hydrogeologic descriptions and notations on drilling speed, drill bitbehavior, drill rig injection rates, cuttings return rates, and pull-down pressures as different5-5419:KP«WO_A044-02/19/93-Dlrecyc'sci paperFINALsmaterials are encountered. Major components of the log to be completed include thefollowing.•At 5-foot intervals or change of material, the geologist will obtain a sampleof the subsurface soil split-spoon sampling. Cutting depth, date, and timewill be noted;•Description of the subsurface soil will be noted to include the following,whenever possible:- Soil color;- Soil particle size, e.g., cobbles, sand, silt, and clay (according to the Wentworthsize scale);- Estimated percentage of cobbles, sand, silt, and/or clay;- Descriptive comments, e.g., degree of cementation; and- Moisture content.•Depth at which groundwater is first encountered will be noted; and•Drilling speed and rig behavior will be noted to help verify the nature of thematerial encountered by the drill bit.All sample identification tags, chain-of-custody records, and other forms must be writtenin waterproof ink. None of these documents are to be destroyed or thrown away, even if theyare illegible or contain inaccuracies that require a replacement document.No pages will be removed from logbooks for any reason. If corrections are necessary,these must be made by drawing a single line through the original entry (so that the originalentry is legible) and writing the corrected entry alongside. The correction must be initialedand dated. Corrected errors may require a footnote explaining the correction.All field documents will be supplied to the project manager at the end of the fieldinvestigation.Photographic LogPhotographs will be taken by a member of the sampling team. Documentation of aphotograph is crucial to its validity as a representation of an existing situation. The followinginformation will be noted in the field logbook concerning photographs:•Date, time, location where photograph was taken;•Photographer (signature);5-5519UCP60TD A044-02/19/93-D1FINAL•Weather conditions;•Description of photograph taken and dkection photographer was facing; and•Sequential number of the photograph and the film roll number.After the photographs have been developed, the information recorded in the fieldnotebook will be transferred to the back of the photographs.The field sampling manager will be responsible for maintaining records of field activities,including field analytical measurements, sample locations, and sample identification. Datashall be entered into a permanently bound logbook while field activities are in progress.Records will be retained on file by the field sampling team manager until released to the COEfor storage. A copy of all documents generated during the fieldwork will be supplied to theproject manager for incorporation into the project report. Field results will be incorporatedinto progress reports or final reports as appropriate.5.8.4 Analysis Request Forms/Chain-of-CustodyLaboratory analysis request forms will be furnished by the government laboratory andwill be completed in accordance with COE guidelines (COE 1990). The sample analysisrequest forms will include the EPA method number for the analysis required.Full chain-of-custody procedures will be initiated in the field and maintained throughdelivery to the contracted laboratory. The primary objective of the chain-of-custodyprocedures is to provide an accurate written record that can be used to trace the possessionand handling of a sample from the moment of its collection through its analyses. A sample isin custody if it is:•In someone's physical possession;•In someone's view;•Locked up; or•Kept in a secured area that is restricted to authorized personnel.The chain-of-custody record will be completed in duplicate by the field personneldesignated by the sample team manager as responsible for sample shipment to the appropriatelaboratory for analysis (see Appendix C, Chain-of-Custody Form). In addition, if samples are5-5619:KP6070_A044-02/I9/93-DlsrSCVC'3©1"' pcUD®-".,.FINALsesiiicjgy sjET.ci £i!;/v'iiro:n.LTrj©n$known to require rapid turnaround in the laboratory because of project time constraints oranalytical concerns (e.g., extraction time or sample retention period limitations, etc.), theperson completing the chain-of-custody record must note these constraints in the remarkssection of the custody record. The remarks section also should indicate whether the sampleshave been filtered or preserved. Copies of all chain-of-custody forms will be provided to theCorps of Engineers North Pacific Division Materials Laboratory (NPDML). In addition, asample summary which identified all QA/QC duplicate samples, rinsate blanks and tripblanks, will be submitted to NPDML when sampling is completed.Samples will be shipped to the NPDML or directly to the contract laboratory if directedby the Division Laboratory. General procedures for transfer of sample custody during sampleshipment appear below:•NPDML must be notified of the number of sample proposed for collection, samplematrices, analytical methods, required turnaround time, and dates of sampling at least10 days prior to the initiation of sampling. The person of contact is Tim Seeman, at503/665-4166.•The coolers in which the samples are packed will be accompanied by achain-of-custody record. When transferring samples, the individuals relinquishing and receiving them will sign, date, and note the time on the record.This records sample custody transfer;•Samples will be dispatched to the laboratory for analysis with a separatechain-of-custody record accompanying each shipment. Shipping containerswill be sealed with custody seals for shipment to the laboratory. The methodof shipment, name of courier, and other pertinent information will be enteredin the remarks section of the chain-of-custody record;•All shipments will be accompanied by the chain-of-custody record identifyingtheir contents. The original record that accompanies the shipment will betaped to the inside of the cooler lid using chain-of-custody seals. The copyis retained by the sample team leader; and•If sent by mail, the package is registered with return receipt requested. Ifsent by common carrier, a bill of lading is used. Freight bills, PostalService receipts, and bills of lading are retained as part of the permanentdocumentation.Custody seals are preprinted adhesive-backed seals with security slots designed to breakif the seals are disturbed. Sample shipping containers (coolers, cardboard boxes, etc.) asappropriate are secured by placing seals on right front and left rear over the container open-5-5719:KFW)TO_A044-02/25/93-Dlrecycled paperFINAL•e«-«loSy andenvironmeming. Seals will be signed and dated before use. Clear plastic tape will be placed over theseals to ensure that the seals are not accidentally broken during shipment. On receipt at thelaboratory, the custodian must check and certify that seals on the shipping containers areintact by completing logbook entries. The custodian also will document the temperature ofthe cooler, the general condition of the sample containers, and verify that the information onthe chain-of-custody agrees with the samples received. All chain-of-custody documents willbe supplied by the sampling team.5.8.5 Sample Packaging and ShippingSamples must be packaged carefully to avoid breakage or contamination and must beshipped to the laboratory at proper temperatures. The following sample packagingrequirements will be followed:•Determine the proper shipping name and the maximum allowable net quantities per package for a passenger or cargo-only aircraft. The proper shippingname, and labeling and packaging requirements can be found in the Hazardous Material Table (49 CFR 172.1010) or in Section 4 of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations;•Groups of bulk asbestos samples should be placed in a larger plastic bag,sealed and shipped in an appropriate manner to ensure that samples are notdamaged;•Enclose each sample container individually in a clear, scalable plastic bag;•Pack ice into freezer bags, and surround samples with ice packs and remaining voids with non-combustible, absorbent packing material. Care should betaken so that the sample remains at 4°C, as excessive cold may break ordamage sample bottles;•Any remaining space in the cooler should be filled with inert packingmaterial. Under no circumstances should material such as sawdust or sandbe used; and•Tape paperwork (chain-of-custody forms and cooler receipts) in a plastic bagon the inside of the cooler lid, seal with custody seals, label, and ship.Shipping containers are to be custody-sealed for shipment. The container custody sealwill consist of filament tape wrapped around the package at least twice and custody sealsaffixed in such a way that access to the container can be gained only by cutting the filamenttape and breaking a seal.5-5819JCP60TO A044-02/25/93-D1FINALField personnel will make arrangements for transportation of samples to the contractedlaboratory. When custody is relinquished to a shipper, field personnel will telephone toinform the laboratory custodian of the expected time of arrival of the sample shipment andany time constraints of sample analysis.The following sample marking and labeling guidelines will be followed:•Use abbreviations only where specified; and•The words "This End Up" or "This Side Up" must be clearly printed on thetop of the outer package. Upward-pointing arrows should be placed on thesides of the package. The words "Laboratory Samples" should also beprinted on the top of the package.All samples will be transported in a manner to prevent container damage or crosscontamination of the samples during shipment. Shipping and labeling procedures will be inaccordance with applicable COE specifications, United States Department of Transportation(DOT) regulations, and National Enforcement Investigations Center policies (COE 1986; 49CFR 100-199; EPA 1985).5.9 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTEInvestigation-derived waste will be containerized as necessary.Investigation-derivedwastes are expected to consist of the following waste types:•Cuttings from boreholes;•Sample not submitted for laboratory analysis;•Groundwater from well development and sampling activities;•Drilling water or mud from drilling operations;•Decontaminationfluids;and•Disposable protective clothing and supplies.If positive PID/FID readings are detected in the drill cuttings (i.e., greater than 5 ppm),the cuttings will be containerized in DOT-approved 55-gallon drums. Otherwise, the cuttingswill be stockpiled on a double layer of thickness of 6-mil plastic sheeting in close proximity to5-59190CP60TO_A(M4«2/19/93-DlFINALthe well for storage. Depending upon the analytical results, the soil will either be disposedof at a hazardous waste landfill or the Gambell landfill.Groundwater produced during well development and sampling activities will be treated aspotentially contaminated. All potentially contaminated groundwater will be containerized inDOT-approved 55-gallon drums or equivalent and stored on site until sample analysis resultsare received. Depending on the results, the water will either be discharged to the groundsurface, disposed of as a hazardous waste, or evaporated.Fluids generated during decontamination will be disposed of on site unless field screeningindicates the need for containerization. The solvent rinsate will be collected separately fromjhe ome£j»olutions and held for subsequent disposaL Disposable supplies will be bagged,stored, and buried at the landfill.5.10 PERSONAL HEALTH AND SAFETYPersonal health and safety procedures are addressed in the project Health and SafetyPlan. This plan complies with and follows the requirements and guidelines in the COE SafetyManual, EM 385-1-1, 29 CFR 1910, and 29 CFR 1926. Included in the plan are descriptionsof anticipated chemical and physical hazards, levels of personal protection required, healthand safety monitoring requirements and action levels, personnel decontamination procedures,and emergency procedures. The drilling and sampling team is responsible for its own safetyand the implementation of health and safety protocols.5-6019JCP60W A044-02/19/93-D1FINALPage 1 of 2Table 5-1PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE SUMMARYGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASubsurface Soil Samples86Surface Soil SamplesNo. of SamplesSITENo. of SamplesParameters'*Parameters1.North Beach2TRPH, BNA, PCBs, TCLP metals24GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetals2.Former MilitaryHousing/Operations2TRPH, BNA, TCLP metals9GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetals, Explosives3.Former CommunicationFacilityNS6GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetals, Sulfates, pH4.Sevuokuk Mountain235.Former Tramway SiteNS126.Military LandfillNSNS7.Former Military PowerFacility28.West Beach9.PCBsTRPH, BNA, Dioxin, PCBs, TCLP metalsNSGRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, TCLP metals12GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetalsNS4GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetalsAsphalt Barrel CacheNSNS10.Sevuokuk Mountain TrailSystemNSNS11 .Communication CableRouteNSNS12.Nayvaghaq Lake3TRPH, TCLP metals6GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, TCLP metals13.Former Radar PowerStation2TRPH, PCBs, TCLP metals12GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetals14.Navy Plane Crash SiteNSGRO, DRO, TRPH, TCLP metalsNSPage 2 of 2Table 5-1PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE SUMMARYGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASubsurface Soil Samples80Surface Soil SamplesNo. of SamplesSITEUl15.Troutman Lake OrdnanceBurial SiteNS16.Gambell MunicipalBuilding Site217.Army Landfills18.Former Main CampBNADROGRONSMetalsPCBsTCLPTRPHVOCabcSource:No. of SamplesParameters'*ParametersNSGRO, DRO, TRPH, TCLP metals9GRO, DRO, TRPH, TCLP metalsNS21GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs, TCLPmetalsNSNS= Base/neutral and acid extractable compounds= Diesel range organics= Gasoline range organics= No samples required= Arsenic, barium, badmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver= Polychlorinated biphenyls= toxicity characteristic leaching procedure= Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons= Volatile organic compounds= Grain size analysis will be performed on all borehole samples in which monitoring wells will be installed.= Method numbers are presented in Table 6-1. Additinal remediatin parameters, to be performed on 10 to 20 percent of subsurface soil samples collected, presentedin Tables 6-1 and 6-2.= Divide total number of subsurface soil samples per site by three to yield the number of proposed soil borings (Table 5-9), except for site 8. Divide total number of samples atSite 8 by four to yield the number of proposed soil borings.Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1992Page 1 of 2Table 5-2PROPOSED SEDIMENT, GROUNDWATER, AND ASBESTOS SAMPLE SUMMARYGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGroundvvater Samples From MonitoringWells"Sediment SamplesSITENo. of SamplesNo. of SamplesParametersParameters'*1.North BeachNS8GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals"2.Former MilitaryHousing/OperationsNS3GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, TCLPmetals8, Explosives3.Former CommunicationFacilityNS1GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals8, Sulfates, pH4.Sevuokuk Mountain35.Former Tramway SiteNS2GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs6.Military LandfillNS4GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, TotalMetals8, Ammonia, Nitrates, Sulfates,TDS, TSS, Coliform/Fecal Bacteria,BOD, COD7.Former Military PowerFacilityNS4GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals88.West BeachNS1GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals89.Asphalt Barrel CacheNSNS10.Sevuokuk Mountain TrailSystemNSNS11 .Communication CableRouteNSNS12.Nayvaghaq LakeNS2PCBsAsbestos33NSGRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, TCLPmetals8Page 2 of 2Table 5-2PROPOSED SEDIMENT, GROUNDWATER, AND ASBESTOS SAMPLE SUMMARYGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASediment SamplesSITENo. of Samples4Groundwater Samples From MonitoringWells8Parameters"No. of SamplesParameters'*13.Former Radar PowerStationNS414.Navy plane Crash SiteNSNS15.Troutman Lake OrdnanceNSNS16.Gambell MunicipalBuilding SiteNS2GRO, DRO, TRPH, TCLP metals817.Army LandfillsNS7GRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals818.Former Main CampNSNSBNADROGRONSMetalsPCBsTCLPTDSTRPHTSSVOCabcSource:AsbestosGRO, DRO, TRPH, VOC, PCBs,TCLP metals8= Base/neutral and acid extractable compounds= Diesel range organics= Gasoline range organics= No samples required= Arsenic, barium, badmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver= Polychlorinated biphenyls= toxicity characteristic leaching procedure= Total dissolved solids= Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons= Total suspended solids= Volatile organic compounds= Grain size analysis will be performed on all borehole samples in which monitoring wells will be installed.= Method numbers are presented in Table 6-1. Additinal remediation parameters, to be performed on 10 to 20 percent of subsurface soil samples collected, presentedin Tables 6-1 and 6-2.= Divide total number of subsurface soil samples per site by three to yield the number of proposed soil borings (Table 5-9), except for site 8. Divide total number of samples atSite 8 by four to yield the number of proposed soil borings.Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1992Page 1 of 2Table 5-3nrcSSAMPLE PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES FOR SOIL AND WATER SAMPLESGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAcTaT 40 days to analysisTotal Residual Petroleum HydrocarbonsSoilWaterCool to 4°CCool to 4°C, HCL to pH < 228 days to analysis28 days to analysisMetalsSoilWaterCool to 4°CCool to 4°C, HNO3 to pH < 26 months (mercury - 28 days)6 months (mercury - 28 days)Ammonia - NitrogenWaterCool to 4°C, H2SO4 to pH < 228 daysNitrate - NitrogenWaterCool to 4°C48 hoursSulfateWaterCool to 4°C28 daysColiform/Fecal BacteriaWaterCool to 4°C, 0.008% Na2S2O36 hoursTotal Dissolved/Suspended SolidsWaterCool to 4°C24 hoursBiochemical Oxygen DemandWaterCool to 4°C48 hoursChemical Oxygen DemandWaterCool to 4°C, H2SO4 to pH < 228 daysPage 2 of 2Table 5-3SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES FOR SOIL AND WATER SAMPLESGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAAnalysisMatrixPreservation MethodMaximum Holding TimeHydrocarbon ScanWater/Free productCool to 4°C, HCL to pH < 228 days to analysisBTEXWater/Free productCool to 4°C, HCL to pH < 214 days to analysisTotal LeadWater/Free productCool to 4°C, HNO3 to pH < 26 monthsFlashpointWater/Free product——BTUFree product—Ash ContentSoil—Cool to 4°CTotal SulfurSoilCool to 4°CTotal Organic CarbonSoilBTUSoilCool to 4°C_——28 days—._IgnitabilitySoil._Total Organic HalidesSoilCool to 4°C8 daysBTEXSoilCool to 4°CMoisture ContentSoil14 days__GrainsizeSoil—__Atterburg LimitsSoil——MagnesiumWaterCool to 4°C, HNO3 to pH < 26 monthsCalciumWaterCool to 4°C, HNO3 to pH < 26 monthsTotal IronWaterCool to 4°C, HNO3 to pH < 26 monthsDissolved IronWaterCool to 4°C, HN03 to pH < 26 monthsAlkalinityWaterCool to 4°C14 daysHardnessWaterCool to 4°C, HMO3 to pH < 26 months._Table 5-4SAMPLE CONTAINERS AND VOLUMES FOR SOIL,SEDIMENT, AND MISCELLANEOUS SAMPLESGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAType and Site of ContainerNumber of Containers andSample Volume(per sample)Purgeable(Volatile) Organics2-oz glass jar with Teflonlined septa capTwo (2); fill completely, noair spaceExtractable Organics4-oz glass jar with Teflonlined capOne (1); fill completelyPCB4-oz glass jar with Teflonlined capOne (1); fill completelyDioxin4-oz glass jar with Teflonlined capOne (1); fill completelyGasoline Range Organics(M. 8015)2-oz glass jar Teflon-linedsepta capTwo (2); fill completely, noair spaceDiesel Range Organics4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyMethod 8330 (Explosives)4-oz glass jar foil wrappedOne (1); fill completelyTotal recoverable petroleumhydrocarbons4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyMetals8-oz glass jar with Teflonlined capOne (1); fill completelyGrain Size/Moisture ContentGallon plastic bag (double)One or more, depending onsoil typeAsbestos1 -liter plastic bagOne (1); 5 in3, minimumSulfate/pH4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyAsh Content4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyTotal Sulfur4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyTotal Organic Carbon4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyBTU/Ignitability4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyTotal Organic Hal ides4-oz glass jarOne (1); fill completelyAtterburg Limitsbrass sleeveOne (1); fill completelyType of Analysisrecycled paperand environmen?5-67Table 5-5Sample Containers and Volumes for Water SamplesGambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaType of AnalysisType and Size of ContainerNumber of Containers andSample Volume(per sample)Purgeable (Volatile) Organics40-mL glass vials with Teflon-backed septumsTwo (2)a; fill completely, noair space.Extractable Organics1-liter amber glass bottle withTeflon-lined capOne (l)a; fill 7/8 fullPCB1 -liter amber glass bottle withTeflon-lined capOne (l)a; fill 7/8 fullGasoline Range Organics(M. 8015)40 mL glass vials with Teflon-backed septumsThree (3)a; fill completely,no air spaceDiesel Range Organics1 -liter amber glass bottle withTeflon-lined capOne (l)a; fill 7/8 fullMethod 8330 (Explosives)1 -liter amber glass bottleOne (If; fill 7/8 fullTRPH1 -liter amber glass bottleone (1); fill 7/8 fullMetals1 -liter polyethylene bottlewith polyethylene-lined capOne (1); fill 7/8 fullNitrate-Nitrogen250-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullAmmonia-nitrogen500-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullSulfate125-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullColiform bacteria125-mL HDPE, sterileOne (1); fill 7/8 fullFecal Coliform125-mL HDPE, sterileOne (1); fill 7/8 fullTotal dissolved solids,Total suspended solids500-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullBiochemical Oxygen Demand1 -liter HDPETwo (2); fill 7/8 fullChemical Oxygen Demand125-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullpH125-mL HDPEOne (1); fill 7/8 fullHydrocarbon scan1-liter amber glass bottleOne (1); fill 7/8 fullBTEX40-mL glass vials with Teflon-backed septumsTwo (2); fill 7/8 fullFlashpoint1 -liter amber glass bottleOne (1); fill 7/8 fullBTU40-mL glass vial with Teflonbacked septumsOne (1); fill completely?5-6STable 5-5Sample Containers and Volumes for Water SamplesGambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaType and Size of ContainerNumber of Containers andSample Volume(per sample)Alkalinity250-mL HDPEOne (1); fill completelyHardness250-mL HDPEOne (1); fill completelyType of Analysisa=One sample per twenty will be collected in triplicate for internal quality controlpurposes (matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate) for project and QA laboratories.Source: EPA Documents SW-846 (3rd edition), MCAWWrecycled paperand environment5-69Page 1 of 2Table 5-6TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES REQUIREDGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKA6MatrixSurface SoilSubsurface SoilAnalysisGRODROPCBDioxinNumber ofSamplesExpectedSets of FieldTriplicates1*BackgroundSamplesQA TripBlanks8Project TripBlanks8Total Numberof Samples4491112227712BNATCLP metalsTRPH371616112222226102020GRODROVOC11511594121210222129129106PCBExplosivesTCLP MetalsSulfatesPHTRPH941029103110221061261296115112229129Rinsate Samples1 per type of samplingequipment1 per type of samplingequipment115SedimentPCB41161 per type of samplingequipmentGroundwaterGRODROVOC3838344431114343421 per type of samplingequipmentPCBExplosivesTotal MetalsSulfatesAmmoniaNitrateColiform bacteriaFecal coliformbacteria27313143614116415444111111117666411631,Page 2 of 2Table 5-6TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES REQUIREDGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKA6MatrixGroundwater(Cont.)Misc. FibrousMaterialAnalysisNumber ofSamplesExpectedBackgroundSamplesSets of FieldTriplicates1*PHBODCODTRPH144381114Bulk Asbestos61Project TripBlanks3QA TripBlanks91111Total Numberof Samples366Rinsate Samples1 per type of samplingequipment437Nonea= One trip blank, prepared from organic-free water, will be sent with each ship of VOC samples. The total number of trip blanks is based on the number of coolers shippedthroughout the duration of the project.b= "Triplicate" refers to the collection of three sample volumes, two of which are sumbitted as field duplicates to the COE-approved project laboratory, and the third submitted tothe QA laboratory for external quality control.c= Two background samples are proposed for surface and subsurface soils to represent different soil types found at Gambell.d= Subsurface soil samples to be submitted for analysis will total approximately 20 percent of all subsurface samples collected, based on field sample headspace screening.Ul-UBNA% BOD5-COD* PCB|rCLPgTRPH|-VOC= Base/neutral/acid extractables= Biochemical Oxygen Demand= Chemical Oxygen Demand= Polychlorinated biphenyls= Toxic characteristic leaching procedure= Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons= Volatile organic compoundTable 5-7SAMPLING EQUIPMENTGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMatrixTypeConstructionUseSoilSpoonStainless steelSamplingSoilTrowelStainless steelSamplingSoilSpatulaStainless steelSamplingSoilBowlStainless steelSamplingSoilHand augerStainless steelSamplingSoilSplit spoonSteelSamplingSedimentSpoonStainless steelSamplingSedimentTrowelStainless steelSamplingGroundwaterBailerStainless steel orTeflonPurging or samplingTransformer OilThieving rodGlassSamplingAsbestosRazor bladePocket knifeWire cuttersNeedle-nosed pliersHammer/chiselPump spray bottleSource: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 19925-72—SamplingSamplingSamplingSamplingSamplingSamplingTable 5-8ASBESTOS SAMPLINGRECOMMENDED NUMBER OFSAMPLES PER HOMOGENEOUS AREAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASuspected HomogeneousMaterial TypeQuality of HomogeneousMaterialSurfacing Materials< 1,000 square feet> 1,000 to 5,000 square feet> 5,000 square feetThermal System InsulationAll areasPatched areasMiscellaneous MaterialsAll typesSource: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 19925-73Minimum Number ofSamples to be CollectedTable 5-9PROPOSED SOIL BORINGSSite No. and NameProposed Number ofSoil BoringsProposed Depth of SoilBorings* (feet)bSite No. 1:North Beach AreaAir Force Landing AreaArmy Landing Area3577Site No. 2:Former Military Housingand Operations Area37Site No. 3:Communications Facility27Site No. 5:Tramway SiteTransformer Cable Burial Area4 -7Site No. 6:Military Landfill4 -7Site No. 7:Military Power Facility4I/7Site No. 8:West Beach AreaArmy Landfill1I/11Site No. 12:Nayvaghag Lake Disposal Area2'^7Site No. 13:Radar Power Station4 ^'7Site No. 16:Gambell Municipal Building3^743tX77Site No. 17:Army LandfillsLandfill #1Landfill #2Key:^:a-Selected soil borings at each site are proposed to be completed with monitoring wells.These borings will be advanced to depths of 5-8 feet below the top of the saturated zone.b-Below ground surface (bgs).Source: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 19925-74Table 5-10PROPOSED MONITORING WELLSProposed Number ofMonitoring WellsSite No. and NameSite No. 1:North Beach AreaAir Force Landing AreaArmy Landing Area35Site No. 3:Communications FacilitySite No. 5:Tramway SiteTransformer Cable Burial Area1515• --/'.'•' -•Site No. 2:Former Military Housingand Operations Area• i/3';f'V\Proposed Depth ofMonitoring Wells (feet)15X :-///•.1\!'"\/15•'JL*.. i -?•• -
ACAT FOIA Repository 3
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 15, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 1995
Pages: 1133
Document Title: Final Remedial Investigation for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
This report presents the results of Remedial Investigation (RI) studies performed at eighteen sites near the village of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 15, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 1995
Pages: 1133
Document Title: Final Remedial Investigation for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
This report presents the results of Remedial Investigation (RI) studies performed at eighteen sites near the village of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat3SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 3," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FinalREMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONGambellSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska(Volume I - Report)Contract No.Delivery Order No.DACA85-93-D-00110003January 1995Prepared for:Mr. Douglas Blaisdell, Project ManagerDepartment of the ArmyUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Prepared by:Montgomery Watson4000 Credit Union Drive, Suite 600Anchorage, Alaska 99503200-leF10AK069603J)3.10_0001NPDL WO#95-360Executive Summary1.0 Introduction1.1Project Objectives1.2Site Background1.2.1Location1.2.2Site History1.2.3Previous Investigations1.3Regional Setting1.3.1Climate1.3.2Topography1.3.3Geology1.3.4Groundwater1.3.5Surface Water1.3.6Demography1.3.7Ecology & Sensitive Environments1.3.7.1 Vegetation1.3.7.2 Birds1.3.7.3 Mammals1.3.7.4 Fish1.3.7.5 Endangered or Threatened Species1.4Site Descriptions1.4.1Site 1-North Beach1.4.2Site 2-Former Military Housing/Operations Site1.4.3Site 3-Former Communications Facility1.4.4Site 4-Sevuokuk Mountain1.4.5Site 5-Former Tramway Site1.4.6Site 6-Military Landfill1.4.7Site 7-Former Military Power Facility1.4.8Site 8-West Beach/Army Landfill1.4.9Site 9-Asphalt Barrel Cache1.4.10 Site 10-Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System1.4.11 Site 11-Communication Cable Route1.4.12 Site 12-Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site1.4.13 Site 13-Former Radar Power Station1.4.14 Site 14-Navy Plane Crash Site1.4.15 Site 15-Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site1.4.16 Site 16-Gambell Municipal Building Site1.4.17 Site 17-Army Landfills1.4.18 Site 18-Former Main Camp1.4.19 Background SiteRemedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25,1995,2:2E-l1-11-11-31-31-31-41-41-41-41-51-51-51-51-61-61-61-6-..l-l1-71-71-71-81-81-81-91-91-101-101-111-111-111-111-111-111-121-121-121-121-12O page i2.0 Investigation Approach and Procedures2.1Site Investigation Methods and Procedures2.1.1Sample Numbering System2.1.2Headspace Screening2.1.3Geophysical Surveys2.1.4Surface Soil Sampling and Analysis2.1.5Subsurface Soil Sampling and Analysis2.1.6Surface Water and Sediment Sampling and Analysis2.1.7Monitoring Well Installation and Development2.1.8Groundwater Sampling and Analysis2.1.9Groundwater Elevations, Slug Tests, and Specific Capacity Tests2.1.10 Asbestos Sampling and Analysis2.2Quality Assurance/Quality Control2.2.1QA and QC Samples2.2.2Data Validation2.2.3Laboratory Method Blank Analysis2.2.4Trip Blanks2.2.5Equipment Rinsate Blanks2.3Investigation-Derived Waste2.3.1Soils2.3.2Water2.3.3Disposable Protective Clothing and Supplies2-12-12-12-22-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-92-92-102-102-112-112-112-122-132-132-133.0 Site Characteristics3.1Regional Geology and Soils3.1.1Surface Soils3.1.2Subsurface Soils3.1.3Soil Chemistry3.1.4Bedrock Geology3.2Regional Hydrogeology3.2.1Hydrogeology3.2.2Ice and Permafrost3.3Surface Water3-1..3-13-13-13-23-23-23-23-33-44.04-14-24-24-24-34-34-34-44-44-54-54-5<U1- ?'-- sw^t. -^'-" * *•• f-f*" ••V' • - , ' •,*^X *'X Vf *• > ••V.V>.U page ix•.,-UstofTqbtes5--"V ""' J X,-S-W*-1-11-2Investigative Sites and Historic Functions1985 URS Investigation Results1-191-202-12-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-92-102-11Summary of the Site Investigation ActivitiesSummary of Analytical Program-SoilSummary of Analytical Program-WaterSummary of Investigative ActivitiesSummary of Field ActivitiesGeophysical CoverageMonitoring Well Construction InformationSummary of Asbestos Containing Material SamplingQA/QC ListingTrip Blank and Rinsate ResultsSummary of IDW Results2-192-212-222-232-242-252-262-272-282-292-313-13-2Summary of Soil CharacterizationSummary of Groundwater Elevations/Measurements3-93-114-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-84-94-104-114-124-134-14Background Criteria for Priority Pollutant MetalsMetal Concentrations for Melted Pore Water at Site 6General Inorganic Compounds - Melted Pore Water at Site 6DRO, GRO, TRPH, Metals Results - Soils at Site 2DRO, GRO, TRPH, Metals Results - Soils and Water at Site 3Sulfate and pH Results - Soil and Water at Site 3Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Results - Soil at Site 4/Area 4BDioxin and Furan Results - Soil at Site 4/Area 4BMetals Results - Soil at Site 4/Area 4BDRO, TRPH Results - Soil at Site 5Soil and Water Results at Background SiteDRO and TRPH Results - Soil at Site 7VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH Results - Water at Site 7DRO, TRPH Results - Water at Site 134-124-134-154-264-294-314-404-414-454-524-534-624-634-766-16-26-36-46-56-66-76-8Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 1Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 2Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 3Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 4Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 5Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 6Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 7Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 86-216-236-256-276-296-306-326-35;(,,„,,,,,^"V,VCI%'^'•••.^•.f-.Remedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25.1995,2:20 PM)rt..---^•••• -V, -j ^ s , , , , . . s ^ . w v^^,/j,%>t^f,,,*„,,' ' • - . . <"'--yQ page x6-96-106-116-126-136-146-156-166-176-18Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 12Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 13Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 16Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 17Regulatory Benchmarking at Site 18DERP-FUDS EligibilityComparison of Remedial Alternatives for POL Contaminated SoilsComparison of Remedial Options for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in GroundwaterComparison of Remedial Alternatives for Lead-Contaminated SoilsRemediation AlternativesRemedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)6-376-396-416-426-446-466-486-496-506-51O pagexiList of Acronyms/AbbreviationsAACAC&WSACMADECARARAsASTMATVBabgsBHBLMBNABODCACaCASCDAPCERCLACFRCMECODCOECQARCrCuCWADERADERPDODDROE&EEM-31EPAeV°FFeft/ftFUDSgpmGPRGROIDWkWMgmg/kgmg/1mphMSLMWAlaska Administrative CodeAircraft Control and Warning StationAsbestos Containing MaterialAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsArsenicAmerican Society for Testing MaterialsAll Terrain VehicleBariumBelow Ground SurfaceBoreholeBureau of Land ManagementBase Neutral Acid (compounds)Biological Oxygen DemandCorrective ActionCalciumColumbia Analytical ServicesChemical Data Acquisition PlanComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActCode of Federal RegulationsCentral Mining EquipmentChemical Oxygen DemandU.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska District.Chemical Quality Assurance ReportChromiumCopperClean Water ActDefense Environmental Restoration AccountDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramDepartment of DefenseDiesel Range OrganicsEcology and Environment, Inc.Electro-Magnetic Terrain ConductivityU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyElectron VoltDegrees FahrenheitIronFoot per FootFormerly Used Defense SiteGallons per MinuteGround Penetrating RadarGasoline Range OrganicsInvestigation-Derived WasteKilowattMagnesiumMilligrams per KilogramMilligrams per LiterMiles per HourMean Sea LevelMonitoring WellRemedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25.1995,2:20 PM)page xiiNH4-NNiNIOSHNO2-NNO3NPDNPDNPLNTUOSHAPbPCBpg/gPIDPLMPOLppbppmpptPVCQAQA/QCQCRCRARfDRIRPDSARASBSbSeSOWTCTCLPTEQTlTOCTRPHTSCATSS/TDSU.S.ug/kgURSUSGSUSKHUSTVOCpmhos/cmAmmonia as NitrogenNickelNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNitrite as NitrogenNitrate as NitrogenNorth Pacific DivisionNorth Pacific Division (Laboratories)National Priorities ListNephelometric Turbidity UnitsOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationLeadPplychlorinated BiphenylPicogram per GramPhotoionization DetectorPolarized Light MicroscopyPetroleum Oil and LubricantsParts Per BillionParts per MillionParts Per TrillionPoly-vinyl ChlorideQuality AssuranceQuality Assurance/Quality ControlQuality ControlResource Conservation and Recovery ActReference DoseRemedial InvestigationRelative Percent DifferenceSuperfund Amendment and Reauthorization ActSoil BoringAntimonySeleniumScope of WorkToxicity CharacteristicToxicity Characteristic Leachate ProcedureToxicity EquivalencyThalliumTotal Organic Carbon or Top of CasingTotal Recoverable Petroleum HydrocarbonsToxic Substance Control ActTotal Suspended Solids/Total Dissolved SolidsUnited StatesMicrograms per KilogramURS CorporationUnited States Geological SurveyUSKH, Inc.Underground Storage TankVolatile Organic CompoundMicromhos per centimeterRemedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)O pagexiiiCONVERSION FACTORSSOILS AND SEDIMENTS1 mg/kg is equal to 1 part per million (ppm)1 ug/kg is equal to 1 part per billion (ppb)1 pg/g is equal to 1 part per trillion (ppt)1,000 pg/g= lug/kg1,000 ug/kg =1 mg/kgWATER1 mg/1 is equivalent to 1 part per million (ppm)1 ug/1 is equivalent to 1 part per billion (ppb)1,000 ug/1 = 1 mg/1Remedial Investigation for Gambell/01C.31A (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)O page xivExecutive SummaryMONTGOMERY WATSONExecutiveThis report presents the results of Remedial Investigation (RI) studies performed at eighteen sitesnear the village of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (Figure ES-1). The RI was conductedas part of the Alaska District Corps of Engineers (COE) Defense Environmental RestorationProgram (Contract No. DACA85-93-D-0011). The Gambell site was used by the military in the1940s and 1950s but was largely dismantled in the early 1960s. The area around the Village ofGambell is classified as a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) under the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP) of the Department of Defense (DOD). Gambell is located on thenorthwest tip of St Lawrence Island, in the western portion of the Bering Sea approximately 200air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. Gambell is 39 air miles from the Siberian ChukchiPeninsula. The village of Gambell is built on a gravel spit which projects northward andwestward from the island. St. Lawrence Island is owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., located inGambell, Alaska, and Savoonga Native Corporation, located in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-nativeland on St. Lawrence Island is limited to State lands used for airstrips and related facilities inGambell.Gambell is relatively flat, with an elevation range from sea level to approximately 30 feet abovemean sea level (MSL). Sevuokuk Mountain forms the eastern boundary of the gravel spit, andrises steeply to a height of approximately 619 feet. The 1990 year-round population of Gambellwas 525 persons, with 505 of Yupik descent (U.S. Census Bureau, 1994). There are 132 homesin the village, two stores, and municipal, community, and educational building.Based upon DOD background information, site visits, and previous investigations, seventeensites and a background site were targeted for environmental investigation. At fourteen of thesesites, samples were submitted for laboratory analysis. Surface and subsurface soils, surfacewater, sediment, groundwater, and building materials were submitted for laboratory analysis todefine the location and extent of contamination associated with the former DOD site activities.The dominant soil lithologies underlying the Gambell area are unconsolidated, poorly to wellsorted gravels with sand, and poorly to well-sorted sand with gravels. These soils are interpretedas washed beach gravels deposited on a wave-cut platform. Groundwater was encountered atdepths ranging from 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) south of Troutman Lake to 16.5 feet bgsalong the North Beach Area. Sevuokuk Mountain is composed of Cretaceous quartz monzonite,a gray rock rich in quartz and feldspars.The following seventeen sites (plus a background site) were evaluated during the investigationbased on investigative sites identified hi the Ecology and Environment Site Inventory datedFebruary, 1993 (Figure ES-1):••Site 1-North BeachArea lA-Army Landing Area- Area IB-Air Force Landing AreaSite 2-Former Military Housing/Operations SiteRemedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25.1995,2:10 PM)U pageE-1•••••••••••••••••Site 3-Former Communications FacilitySite 4-Sevuokuk Mountain- Area 4A-Quonset Hut Area- Area 4B-Former Radar Station- Area 4C-Stream Drainage at South End of Mountain- Area 4D-Transformers in Mountainside DrainageSite 5-Former Tramway SiteSite 6-Military LandfillSite 7-Former Military Power Site/Former Motor PoolSite 8-West/Beach/Army LandfillSite 9-Asphalt Barrel Cache (site walk-through only)Site 10-Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System (site walk-through only)Site 11-Communications Cable Route (site walk-through only)Site 12-Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 13-Former Radar Power StationSite 14-Navy Plane Crash Site (not visited during this investigation)Site 15-Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site (site walk-through only)Site 16-Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 17-Army LandfillsSite 18-Former Main CampBackground SiteBased on field sampling and analytical data from the sites listed above, the nature and extent ofcontamination in each of the investigative areas can be summarized as follows:V•Elevated levels of lead, chromium, copper, and zinc were found at Site 2. Lead wasdetected at a maximum concentration of 749 mg/kg in surface soil.•At Site 3, diesel range organics (DRO) were found in soils at one monitoring welllocation at depths to 5.0 feet. The maximum detected concentration was 522 mg/kg.•At the Former Radar Station, Site 4/Area 4B, elevated concentrations of priority pollutantmetals were found. Lead was detected at a maximum concentration of 3,249 mg/kg.These metals could pose a potential threat to the nearby bird rookery or to the nativeswho consume these birds for subsistence. Dioxins and furans were also detected at thislocation, but at relatively low levels.•Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in one soil sample taken upslope ofthree transformers located in a drainage above the water reservoir (pump house) at Site4/Area 4D. The detected concentration was 194 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg).•At Site 5, DRO and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) were detected insubsurface soils at maximum concentrations of 1,800 mg/kg and 1,430 mg/kg,respectively. The contaminants were detected at depths to 5 feet. Groundwater waspresent at 5 feet, indicating the petroleum contamination is in contact with groundwater.Groundwater showed elevated levels of TRPH up to 0.5 mg/1, suggesting thatgroundwater may be impacted.V'••,'C?,'^ : : - . ' ' • • ':^..,VRemedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25,1991,2:20 PM),''•: ' • • • • , . ,'•'"•'?.>,'••'*"" fQ page E-2•At Site 6, DRO were detected in melted pore water encountered at two soil borings at amaximum concentration of .709 mg/1. The samples were taken through a hollow stemauger.•At Site 7, DRO and TRPH were detected in soils at maximum concentrations of 6,040mg/kg and 13,000 mg/kg, respectively. DRO, TRPH and low concentrations of volatileorganics compounds (VOCs) were found in groundwater. The petroleum hydrocarbonscontamination appears continuous from the surface to groundwater.The following investigative areas did not have significant contamination and/or all analyticalresults were below regulatory benchmark levels:••••••••Site I/Area lA-Army Landing AreaSite I/Area IB-Air Force Landing AreaSite 2-Former Military Housing/Operations SiteSite 4/Area 4A-Quonset Hut AreaSite 4/Area 4C-Stream Drainage at South End of MountainSite 8-West Beach/Army LandfillSite 9-Asphalt Barrel Cache (site walk-through only)Site 10-Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System (site walk-through only)Site 11-Communications Cable Route (site walk-through only)Site 12-Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 13-Former Radar Power StationSite 14-Navy Plane Crash Site (not visited during this investigation)Site 15-Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site (site walk-through only)Site 16-Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 17-Army LandfillsSite 18-Former Main CampBackground SiteComparison of contamination levels found at the Gambell site to regulatory benchmarks and/orsite specific factors has resulted in the retention the following discrete areas that are identified forfurther investigation or remedial action:•••••Site 3-Former Communications FacilitySite 4-Sevuokuk Mountain- Area 4B-Former Radar Station- Area 4D-Transformers in Mountainside DrainageSite 5-Former Tramway SiteSite 6-Military LandfillSite 7-Former Military Power Site/Former Motor PoolThe majority of these areas involve elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and/orgroundwater. The remaining areas involve surface soils with elevated levels of lead and otherpriority pollutant metals.Remedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)U pageE-3Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination found at Site 5 is of particular concern due to theproximity of Gambell's drinking water wells. Frequent monitoring is recommended in order toassess the quality of the village drinking water supply and potential contamination by petroleumproducts.The Gambell site is unique for several reasons with respect to subsistence food sources andecological receptors. Local inhabitants are reported to depend on the mammals as a food source.Site 4/Area 4B is adjacent to a bird rookery. The birds and bird eggs serve as a subsistence foodsource as well.Further risk assessment is recommended to assess whether the existing concentrations would belikely to adversely impact the local wildlife. If impacted, determination could be made whetherthere are significant additional pathways for impact on human health given the subsistencelifestyle of the local inhabitants.Remediation alternatives for DRO-contaminated soils include:• risk or leaching assessments to define the human or ecological risk at the site and supportalternative cleanup levels;• bioventing;• land farming, and• excavation and off-site disposal.Alternatives for remediation of groundwater with elevated concentrations of dissolved petroleumhydrocarbons include:• risk assessment;• in-situ biodegradation (air sparging);• ex-situ treatment, and• water supply well-head treatment (no aquifer remediation).Remediation alternatives for soils with elevated concentrations of lead and other prioritypollutant metals include:• risk assessment;• soil stabilization;• capping, and• excavation and off-site disposal.In addition to the chemical contaminants identified above, much of the surface debris lying atdifferent investigative sites around Gambell was identified as "inherently dangerous" accordingto DERP-FUDS guidelines. This debris includes: runway landing mat, sheet metal, batteries, andQuonset hut frames.Remedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)U page E-4SITE 14(Navy Plane Crash approx. 7 miles south), Note 21. Mapping taken fr^mEnvironment (199:photography taken^Tical Data Aquisition Plan by Ecology &g believed to be sketched from $erial5. Accuracy unknown.,','2. Navy Plane Crash Site was not visited during 1994 Rl.LEGEND:MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaI1 Boundary of SiteFIGURE ES-12SCALE IN FEET1200ALASKA DISTRICT - CORPS OF ENGINEERSGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL INVESTIGATIVE SITESpage ES-5 J.Section 1.0MONTGOMERY WATSON1.0 IitfrocJudbnThis report presents the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) performed at 17 sites and abackground site near the village of Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).The area around the village of Gambell is classified as a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS)under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) of the Department of Defense(DOD) (E&E, 1993). This work was performed by Montgomery Watson under contract to theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) as per the requirements of the Scope of Work (SOW) forContract No. DACA85-93-D-0011, Delivery Order No. 0003. Field work was performed duringthe months of June and July, 1994.This report is comprised of seven sections which describe the remedial investigation activities,analytical results, data interpretation and recommendations for remedial actions. These sectionsare:1234567IntroductionInvestigation Approach and ProceduresSite Characteristics and Background MetalsSite Specific FindingsFate and TransportRemedial ActionConclusionsSection 1 (Introduction) contains information on project objectives, site background, regionalsetting, and individual site descriptions. Section 2 explains investigation methods andprocedures. Section 3 describes the physical site conditions at the Gambell site, includingregional geology and soils and hydrology. Representative cross-sections and groundwatercontours are also shown in Section 3 as well as information on background metals concentrationsat Gambell. Section 4 contains specific information on geophysical surveys conducted, geologiccharacteristics, laboratory analytical results, and possible source of contamination. Section 5explains possible fate and transport of contamination in various media. Section 6 discusses theareas of concern to be addressed at Gambell and describes potential remediation alternatives (ifrequired). Section 7 summarizes the report conclusions.1.1PROJECT OBJECTIVESThe objectives of the RI were to gather sufficient chemical, geophysical, and hydrogeologicaldata to identify and characterize sites requiring remediation, and to develop remedial alternatives.This report presents the results of the field investigations, chemical sampling and analysis, andquality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) activities performed during the investigation. Acomparison of sample analytical results to selected regulatory cleanup benchmarks andrecommendations for remedial action are also presented for each site.,Remedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25,1995,2:20 PM).U page 1 -1Of the eighteen sites identified as part of this RI, seventeen were either sampled or observed andphotographed. Site 14, the Navy Plane Crash Site, was not visited during this investigation. Thesites and their historic functions and type of sampling performed during the 1994 RI are listed inTable 1-1. Each site was investigated to:•characterize the soils, geology, and hydrogeology of the site;•determine the presence or absence of contamination and, if present, the nature and extentof contamination;•develop a conceptual geologic and hydrogeologic model of the site;•evaluate possible migration pathways, and•develop preliminary remedial alternatives.To determine the impacts of the former military activities at the sites on the environment, thefollowing tasks were performed during this RI:•review of previous investigations prepared for the COE and other pertinent site data;•review of recent aerial photographs to determine site features;•geophysical surveys of 12 suspected covered disposal areas to locate and determine theextent of buried debris using electro-magnetic terrain conductivity (EM-31),magnetometer, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) instrumentation;•drilling and installation of 26 groundwater monitoring wells and 17 soil borings todetermine the presence or absence of contaminants, direction of potential contaminantmigration direction of contaminants, and determine the site geology and hydrogeology;•collection of 149 surface and subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, andasbestos samples for chemical analysis and an additional 79 samples for quality assurance(QA) and quality control (QC);•measurement of static groundwater elevations to determine groundwater flow directionsand gradients;•in-situ permeability (slug) and specific capacity tests to determine aquifer characteristics;•compilation of hydrogeologic and geologic information to determine potentialcontaminant migration routes;•document investigation and results obtained at each site;•data interpretation and evaluation;Remedial Investigation for Gambell(January 25,1995,2:20 PM)U page 2-2•identification of preliminary benchmark regulatory criteria;•evaluation of investigation data against regulatory criteria, and•identification of potential remedial alternatives.All work was performed following the procedures stated in the Chemical Data Acquisition Plan(CDAP) prepared by Ecology and Environment (E&E, 1993), except as specifically noted herein.1.2SITE BACKGROUND1.2.1LocationGambell is located on the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of theBering Sea approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. Gambell is 39 air milesfrom the Siberian Chukotsk Peninsula (Figure 1-1). The village of Gambell is built on a gravelspit which projects northward and westward from the island. Gambell is located at an elevationof approximately 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The village is inhabited mainly by nativeYupik people who lead a subsistence-based lifestyle.St. Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., located in Gambell, Alaska andSavoonga Native Corporation, located in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-native land on St. LawrenceIsland is limited to state lands used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell (E&E, 1993).1.2.2Site HistoryThe Gambell site was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force fromapproximately 1948 until the late 1950s. Various facilities around the village of Gambell wereconstructed to provide housing, communications, and other functions. The U.S. Air Forceoperated an Aircraft Control and Warning Station (AC&WS) as early as 1948, but the site wasabandoned about 1956 when a similar facility was constructed at Northeast Cape on the northeastend of St. Lawrence Island (E&E, 1992). Approximately 1,700 acres of land and two rights-ofway were withdrawn from the reservation for use by the Air Force from 1950 to 1960;subsequently, the Air Force retained no overriding interest in the area. The Army operated abase at Gambell that reportedly supported several hundred personnel. A search of historicalrecords failed to yield base plans or site information for the Army installation (URS, 1986).However, according to Winfred James, a local Gambell resident, the army was active in Gambellfrom 1954 to 1957 (E&E, 1992). Extensive background research into Naval activities atGambell yielded no pertinent information. The Air Force land was transferred to the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) in 1962, and the Army's land was transferred to BLM in 1963. AllDOD structures were demolished, burned, or scavenged and the debris buried on-site.\ .. ^%%^••^ %% ••-^> >v ^ • v. ,' • • > • .'i. • ..v'Remedial Investigation for Gambell (January 25,1995,2:20 PM)v.^ 'Jw% V%V••. %U page 1-31.2.3Previous InvestigationsIn 1985, URS Corporation (URS) conducted a file search and preliminary reconnaissance of theGambell site (URS, 1986). The site reconnaissance included an inventory of materials left by themilitary and collection of a limited number of soil and water samples. The samples wereanalyzed for physical, biological, and chemical characteristics. Soil samples were analyzed forpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); none were detected. Surface water and groundwater samplesfrom six wells were analyzed for oil and grease, PCBs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),metals, and secondary water quality parameters. Oil and grease (EPA Method 503) weredetected in groundwater samples at the Communications Facility and the Radar Power Station(Figure 1-3) at concentrations of 14 mg/1 and 115 mg/1, respectively. Arsenic, barium, cadmium,chromium, and lead were also detected, as shown on Table 1-2, which summarizes the analyticalresults of the URS investigation. In general, elevated concentrations of metals in groundwaterfound by URS (Table 1-2) were not substantiated by this study.In 1991 and 1992, E&E conducted site reconnaissance visits and interviewed individuals livingat Gambell during the period of DOD occupation (E&E, 1992).1.3REGIONAL SETTING1.3.1ClimateSt. Lawrence Island has a cool, moist, subarctic maritime climate with some continentalinfluences during winter when much of the Bering Sea is capped with pack ice. Winds and fogare common; precipitation occurs approximately 300 days per year as light rain, mist, or snow.Annual snowfall is about 80 inches per year. Annual rainfall is about 16 inches per year, withmore than half falling as light rain between June and September. Summer temperatures averagebetween 34°F and 48°F, with a record high of 65°F. Winter temperatures range from -2°F to10°F, with an extreme low of -30°F (URS, 1985b).The wind is generally in a northerly to northeasterly direction from September to June, andsouthwesterly in July and August. The average wind speed is 16 knots with winds exceeding tenknots 70 percent of the time (USKH, 1993).1.3.2TopographyThe village of Gambell is located on a gravel spit which projects north and westward from theisland into the Bering Sea (Figure 1-2). Gambell is relatively flat, with an elevation range of sealevel to approximately 30 feet MSL (E&E, 1992). Sevuokuk Mountain forms the easternboundary of the gravel spit and rises steeply to a height of approximately 619 feet (URS, 1985b).The spit is relatively barren and is sparsely covered by beach grass. Tundra is present near moistareas at higher elevation, such as Sevuokuk Mountain."'„ *,/*"* -
ACAT FOIA Repository 4
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 16, Date Received July 2023
Year: November 6, 1995
Pages: 45
Document Title: Phase II Remedial Investigation, Remedial Action Alternatives
Technical Memorandum
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The purpose of this Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum is to identify areas where a collection of additional data is desired to refine the extent of contamination and identify areas where presumptive remedies or interim removal actions will eliminate areas of concern. This Technical Memorandum addresses only those sites that were retained for further evaluation based on the 1994 RI sampling results.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 16, Date Received July 2023
Year: November 6, 1995
Pages: 45
Document Title: Phase II Remedial Investigation, Remedial Action Alternatives
Technical Memorandum
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The purpose of this Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum is to identify areas where a collection of additional data is desired to refine the extent of contamination and identify areas where presumptive remedies or interim removal actions will eliminate areas of concern. This Technical Memorandum addresses only those sites that were retained for further evaluation based on the 1994 RI sampling results.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat4SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 4," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FINALPhase II Remedial InvestigationRemedial Action AlternativesTechnical MemorandumGambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaContract No.DACA85-93-D-0011Delivery Order No.0013November 6, 1995Prepared for:Department of the ArmyUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Prepared by:Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517200-leF10AK069603_03.10_0002_aTABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary11.0 Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Objectives1.3 Results of Previous Investigations55892.0Areas and Contaminants of Concern2.1 Descriptions of Areas of Concern10113.0Recommended Actions164.0 Interim Removal Actions (IRAs)4.1 Recommended Interim Removal Actions28285.0 Conclusions326.0 References34Appendix AAppendix BApplicable Federal, State, and Local Regulations, and Benchmark ScreeningCriteriaPotential Remedial AlternativesGambell Technical Memorandum - FINAL/mg.OlC.40Q page iLIST OF FIGURESES-l12345Location of Investigative Sites and Areas of ConcernLocation Map - GambellGambell Investigative SitesAreas of Concern at Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5 - GambellAreas of Concern at Sites 6 and 7 - GambellRecommended Action Decision Tree367121517LIST OF TABLES123456789Summary of Areas of ConcernSummary of Remedial Considerations, Site 2Summary of Remedial Considerations, Site 3Summary of Remedial Considerations, Site 4BSummary of Remedial Considerations, Site 4DSummary of Remedial Considerations, Site 5Summary of Remedial Considerations, Site 6Summary of Remedial Considerations, Site 7Summary of Recommended ActionsGambell Technical Memorandum - FINAL/mg.OlC.40132122232425262733Q page iiLIST OF ACRONYMS2,3,7,8-TCDDARARsBD/DRBTEXCACDAPCERCLACOCCOECON/HTWCWADERPdioxinsDODDROE&EEE/CAEPAFUDSfuransGROHTWffiUBKIRAPCBspptQAQCRBCsRCRARfDRIRI/FSSOWSVOCsTCDDTRPHTSCATSDFURSVOCs2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxinApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsBuilding Demolition and Debris RemovalBenzene, Tolune, Ethylbenzene, XylenesCorrective ActionChemical Data Acquisition PlanComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActContaminants of ConcernU.S. Army Corps of EngineersContainerized Hazardous or Toxic WasteClean Water ActDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramPolychlorodibenzo-p-dioxinsDepartment of DefenseDiesel Range OrganicsEcology and EnvironmentEngineering Evaluation/Cost AnalysisEnvironmental Protection AgencyFormerly Used Defense SitepolychlorodibenzofuransGasoline Range OrganicsHazardous or Toxic Waste?see page A-3Interim Removal ActionsPolychlorinated Biphenylsparts per trillionQuality AssuranceQuality ControlRisk-Based ConcentrationsResource Conservation and Recovery ActReference DoseRemedial InvestigationRemedial Investigation and Feasibility StudyScope of WorkSemi-Volatile Organic CompoundstetrachlorodibenzodioxinTotal Recoverable Petroleum HydrocarbonsToxic Substance Control ActTreatment Storage and Disposal Facilitymicrograms per kilogramURS CorporationVolatile Organic CompoundsGambell Technical Memorandum - FINAL/mg.OlC.40Q page HiEXECUTIVE SUMMARYGambell is located on the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of theBering Sea approximately 200 air miles southwest from Nome, Alaska, and 39 air miles from theSiberian Chukchi Peninsula. The village of Gambell is built on a gravel spit which projectsnorthward and westward from the island. St. Lawrence Island, including the land which housedthe former military sites, are currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., Gambell, Alaska; andSavoonga Native Corporation, Savoonga, Alaska. Non-native land on St. Lawrence Island islimited to State lands used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell.A Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted at Gambell by Montgomery Watson in July 1994.The RI was performed under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in accordancewith the requirements of the Scope of Work (SOW) for Contract No. DACA85-93-D-0011,Delivery Order No. 3. Eighteen sites were identified as part of this RI effort and were eithersampled, or observed and photographed with a walk-through. This Remedial ActionAlternatives Technical Memorandum is written in accordance with Tasks 1-3 of Delivery Order13, which involves addressing areas where further collection of data is necessary at Gambell toresolve the extent of contamination, and identifying areas where presumptive technologies andinterim removal actions will reduce the risk to human health or the environment. The eighteensites evaluated at Gambell, including the Background Site, are listed below. Site 14, the NavyPlane Crash Site, was not visited during the 1994 RI investigation.Site 1-North BeachArea 1 A-Army Landing AreaArea IB-Air Force Landing AreaSite 2-Former Military Housing/Operations SiteSite 3-Former Communications FacilitySite 4-Sevuokuk MountainArea 4A-Quonset Hut AreaArea 4B-Former Radar StationArea 4C-Stream Drainage at South End of MountainArea 4D-Transformers in Mountainside DrainageSite 5-Former Tramway SiteSite 6-Military LandfillSite 7-Former Military Power Site/Former Motor PoolSite 8-West Beacb/Army LandfillSite 9-Asphalt Barrel Cache (evaluated with a site walk-through only)Site 10-Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System (evaluated with a site walk-through only)Site 11-Communications Cable Route (evaluated with a site walk-through only)Site 12-Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 13-Former Radar Power StationSite 14-Navy Plane Crash SiteSite 15-Troutman Lake Ordinance Site (evaluated with a site walk-through only)Site 16-Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 17-Army LandfillsSite 18-Former Main CampBackground SiteGambell Technical Memorandum - FINALO page 1Comparison of contamination levels found at the Gambell site to benchmark criteria and/or sitespecific factors has resulted in the retention of the following discrete areas that are identified forfurther investigation or remedial action. These areas are shown on Figure ES-1, and are listedbelow along with a brief summary of the reason for concern:•Site 2 - elevated levels of lead and other metals were detected in surface soils;•Site 3 - diesel range organics (DRO), beryllium, and thallium were found at a depth of 5feet;•Site 4/Area 4B - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) anc} several prioritypollutant metals were detected in surface soil;•Site 4/Area 4D - low levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected insediments in a mountainside drainage;•Site 5 - DRO and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) were detected insoils below the water table; and TRPH was detected in groundwater;•Site 6 - DRO was detected in groundwater;•Site 7 - DRO and TRPH were detected in soils in contact with groundwater; volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) were found in groundwater at low concentrations; surfacesoils contained elevated levels of lead; and•Debris qualified for removal as containerized hazardous or toxic waste (CON/HTW)were present at several locations at the Gambell site.Site-specific recommendations at the areas of concern are as follows:•Site 2 - Conduct additional surface soil sampling for priority pollutant metals in order todelineate the areal extent of elevated lead and other metals;•Site 3 - Further surface soil sampling should be performed to confirm the presence ofsurface contamination, refine the delineation of the area of concern, and assess the risk tohuman health or the environment;•Site 4/Area 4B - Perform a limited ecological and human health risk assessment toevaluate risks posed by low levels of dioxin and high levels of priority pollutant metals;•Site 4/Area 4D - Limited amounts of sediment will be removed if staining is encounteredupon removal of the three transormers;Gambell Technical Memorandum - FINALO page 2WEST BEACH\BERINGn ;mSITE(SuspectedAsphalt BarrelCache)SEAtICWIHI""" 'i- "-i fflimBIIIIIB.--"""™™'-''''"'"*!,,._*_...^_^_^11SITE 14[NAVY PLANE CRASH APPRQX, 7 MILES SOUTH), NOTE 4(Submerged)1DRO & TRPH IN SOIL TOGROUNDWATER INTERFACEPb IN SURFACE SQIL,VOCsIN GROUNDWATERTROUTMANLAKENAWAGHAQLAKEjSITE 12*--•-)•"-V• ' V V i ' , -"t -
ACAT FOIA Repository 5
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 5, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 1997
Pages: 344
Document Title: Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization: Montgomery Watson (contractor from Anchorage of the U.S. Department of Defense)
Document Summary:
The report is a contracted request by the US Army Engineer District, Alaska (Alaska District), for Montgomery Watson to investigate a geophysical anomaly reported to be buried transformers located near the only active drinking water supply in the village of Gambell, Sivaquq (St. Lawrence Island, Alaska). The report includes local training, meetings, lab results, and final work done: "The field investigation summarized in this report demonstrated that the geophysical anomalies noted in earlier investigations at Site 5 were caused by non-hazardous metallic debris consisting of cable, empty drums used for tramway anchor points, and Quonset hut roofing material. An intact military-type battery was also found. No transformers were found at the investigated geophysical anomalies or in a supplementary metal detection scan of the area. All debris from Site 5 (with the exception of deeply buried non-hazardous anchor points) was removed from the island. Three transformers within the drainage area of the village water supply were also removed."Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 5, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 1997
Pages: 344
Document Title: Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization: Montgomery Watson (contractor from Anchorage of the U.S. Department of Defense)
Document Summary:
The report is a contracted request by the US Army Engineer District, Alaska (Alaska District), for Montgomery Watson to investigate a geophysical anomaly reported to be buried transformers located near the only active drinking water supply in the village of Gambell, Sivaquq (St. Lawrence Island, Alaska). The report includes local training, meetings, lab results, and final work done: "The field investigation summarized in this report demonstrated that the geophysical anomalies noted in earlier investigations at Site 5 were caused by non-hazardous metallic debris consisting of cable, empty drums used for tramway anchor points, and Quonset hut roofing material. An intact military-type battery was also found. No transformers were found at the investigated geophysical anomalies or in a supplementary metal detection scan of the area. All debris from Site 5 (with the exception of deeply buried non-hazardous anchor points) was removed from the island. Three transformers within the drainage area of the village water supply were also removed."LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat5SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 5," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FINALInvestigation of Geophysical AnomalyGambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaContract No . Delivery Order No .DACA85-93-D-001 1 0016Modification No . P0003December 1997Prepared for :Department of the ArmyUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Prepared by :Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517VOL 1 OF 2F 1 OAK069602 03 .10 0500_p200-1 fTable of Contents1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .... .......... ...... ... . . ....... . ...... . ............................................... .1-11 .1 Previous Documents . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...................................... . ........... . .............................. .1-11 .2 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .... .. .. ............................................ . .................................. .1-21 .3 Background Information . .. .. .. .... .. .. .................................. . . . .... . . . . ... . ... . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1-21 .4 Project Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .... .. .. .............................. . ... . . . ..... . .................................. .1-32 . FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............ . .................... . ....... . .2-12.1 Training Of Local Personnel . .. .. .. .. .. .. ........................... ... . .. . . . . .... .. . ..... ...... ... . ... ..... ........ .2-12.2 Emergency Water Treatment System ........................................................................... .2-12 .3 Public Meeting . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .... .. .................................. . .............................................. .2-22 .4 Anomaly Investigation .. .. .. ............................ . ............... . ................................. ............. . 2-22 .4 .1 Investigation at Anomaly #1 ....... . . . ... . . . ............... . ...................................... . . . . .. .2-22 .4.2 Investigation at Anomaly #2 ... .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .... ... . .. .............. .2-32.5 Supplemental Metal Detection Scanning . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ..................... . .... .2-32.6 Archaeologist Supervision .................. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .2-32.7 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ...................... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. . . .. .. . 2-42 .7 .1 Soil and Wipe Sampling ............ . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .2-42 .7.2 Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring Well Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-42 .7.3 Data Review .. .. ........................ . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......... . .. .. .. .. .... . 2-52.8 Removal Of Transformers At Site 4/Area 4d . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. ... . .. .. . . .. .. . 2-52.9 Collection And Packaging Of Associated Debris .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .2-62.10 Disposal Of Associated Debris . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-63. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .... .............. . ... . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . 4-1AppendicesAppendix A - Archaeological ReportAppendix B - Laboratory ReportsAppendix C - Agenda and Sign-in Sheet for Public MeetingVOLUME IIData PackagesInvestigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, Alaska - FINAL J page iList of Figures1-I VICINITY MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41-2 LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-51-3 GAMBELL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-61-4 SAMPLE LOCATIONS AND GEOPHYSICAL BOUNDARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-71-5 SITE 5 GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-82-1 SIVUQAQ, INC . HAZWOPER TRAINING - JULY 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72-2 SITE 5 INVESTIGATION OF GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY # 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82-3 SITE 5 INVESTIGATION OF GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-92-4 METAL DETECTION SCANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-102-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING - NEW INFILTRATION GALLERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-112-6 MONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-122-7 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF THREE TRANSFORMERS FROM SITE 4/AREA 4D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly , Gambell ,Alaska-FINALOpageiiList of AcronymsADEC Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationATV All-Terrain VehicleBTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and XylenesCDAP Chemical Data Acquisition PlanCFR Code of Federal RegulationsDERA Defense Environmental Restoration AccountDERP Defense Environmental Restoration ProgramDOD United States Department of DefenseDRO Diesel Range OrganicsE&E Ecology and Environment, Inc .FUDS Formerly Used Defense SitesGRO Gasoline Range OrganicsHAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency ResponseMW Monitoring WellOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylsPVC Poly-vinyl ChlorideQA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlRI Remedial InvestigationRI/FS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility StudyRRO Residual Range OrganicsSOW Scope of WorkUSACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyVOC Volatile Organic CompoundInvestigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, Alaska - FINALpage iiiINTRODUCTIONThe United States Army Engineer District, Alaska (Alaska District), requested that MontgomeryWatson investigate a geophysical anomaly reported to be buried transformers located near theonly active drinking water supply in the village of Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska . Thework was performed under contract No . DACA 85-93-D-0011, Delivery Order No . 16,Modification No . 3 . The investigation was performed in August, 1997 according . to theguidelines of the Final Work Plan Amendment for Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly(Montgomery Watson, 1997a) and the Defense Environmental Restoration Program of theUnited States Department of Defense .A previous delivery order provided for a geophysical survey of an area where transformers werereportedly buried near the water supply at Gambell . Results of the 1996 geophysical surveyconfirmed the presence and location of metallic debris, but the specific nature of the debris wasunknown . The objective of the current investigation was to ascertain whether the geophysicalanomaly was actually the reported transformers and whether any PCBs were associated with anytransformers present . This report describes the results of the investigation of the geophysicalanomaly .1 .1 PREVIOUS DOCUMENTSThe site description and background information contained in this report have been summarizedfrom previous documents about the Gambell site . Further site description and backgroundinformation can be found in the documents listed below .Draft Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska . MontgomeryWatson . December 3, 1996 .Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island,Alaska . Montgomery Watson . November 1995 .Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska . Montgomery Watson .January 1995 .Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island,Alaska . E&E . February 1993 .Site Inventory, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska, E&E . December 1992 .The project description and objectives have been summarized from the Final Work PlanAmendment for Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska .Montgomery Watson, August, 1997 .Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, Alaska -FINALOpageI-I1 .2 SITE DESCRIPTIONGambell is located off the coast of western Alaska (Figure 1-1) on the northwest tip ofSt . Lawrence Island (Figure 1-2), in the western portion of the Bering Sea approximately 200 airmiles southwest of Nome, Alaska . Gambell is 39 air miles from the Siberian ChukotskPeninsula. The village of Gambell is built on a gravel spit which projects northward andwestward from the island . Gambell is at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sealevel (MSL) .St . Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc ., in Gambell, Alaska, andSavoonga Native Corporation, in Savoonga, Alaska . Non-Native land on St . Lawrence Island islimited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell (Montgomery Watson1995a) .The village of Gambell is inhabited primarily by native St . Lawrence Island Yupik people wholead a subsistence-based lifestyle . The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds,waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area . The area surrounding the top ofSevuokuk Mountain supports a large bird rookery . The birds and bird eggs serve as asubsistence food source for local inhabitants . The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is usedextensively for subsistence hunting of walrus, seals, sea birds, and polar bears .1 .3 BACKGROUND INFORMATIONA Phase I RI was performed in 1994 (Montgomery Watson 1995a) in which investigations wereperformed at eighteen sites, including the Former Tramway Site ; Site 5 (Figure 1-3) . Specificactivities performed at Site 5 during the Phase I RI included a geophysical survey, installing twoboreholes and two monitoring wells ; and collecting subsurface soil and groundwater samples forchemical analysis . Information on investigative activities and sampling results for the remainingGambell sites can be found in the Phase I and Phase II RI reports (Montgomery Watson, 1995a ;1996c) .Petroleum hydrocarbons were the contaminant of concern found in soils at MW 16 at depths to5 .0 feet . DRO was detected in soils at MW 16 at concentrations ranging from 1,160 mg/kg to1,800 mg/kg . Of primary concern at Site 5 is the human health risk posed by petroleumcontaminated soils in contact with groundwater used for the local water supply, and PCBs fromthe reported transformers . Volatile components of hydrocarbons were not detected in soil andgroundwater, and recent testing of the water supply indicates volatile contaminants are notpresent .Site 5 was retained for further investigation during the Phase II investigation , which involved theresampling of the two existing -monitoring wells for DRO and VOC analysis . In addition, since,the 1994 geophysical investigation showed no anomalous areas that would indicate the locationof the six, 8-foot long transformers reportedly buried at Site 5, the 1994 geophysical surveyboundary was extended to include a 200-foot by 200-foot area in order to locate the area wherelarge transformers were reportedly buried (Figure 1 -4) . Winfred ( Winnie ) James, a life longInvestigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, Alaska - FINALJpage1-2resident of Gambell, brought Montgomery Watson and Alaska District representatives to thereported transformer burial area during a community relations visit in March, 1996 . At the site,Winnie confirmed that the transformers would be found within the extended geophysical gridboundary later completed during the 1996 Phase II RI field work . A supplemental geophysicalinvestigation was performed in this area using the EM-31D terrain conductivity meter and theGSM-19 Overhauser Effect proton precession magnetometer/gradiometer during the 1996 fieldefforts .The local village drinking water supply is located near .Site 5 . The village water supply consistsof an infiltration gallery completed to a depth of 20 feet . The water supply facilities are housedwithin a building within a fenced area, as shown on Figure 1-4 .A large anomaly was found in the center of the 1996 geophysical survey grid in an area with novisible surficial conductive debris, as shown in Figure 2-5 . This anomaly was interpreted to be atrench orientated north-south filled with significant amounts of debris . Both the EM andmagnetometry surveys found strong evidence that this debris could possibly be the six secondarytransformers discussed in the Chemical Data Acquisition Plan (E&E, 1993) .The large anomaly located in the center of the grid has been designated "Anomaly #1 ." Asecond, smaller anomaly located near a large granite boulder in the southeast portion of the gridhas been designated "Anomaly #2 ." All other anomalies in the geophysical survey can becorrelated with metallic features visible at the surface, such as steel pipes or posts .Further geophysical information for Site 5 can be found in the 1994 Geophysical SurveyInvestigations Final Report (Golder, 1994) . Further site descriptions and backgroundinformation can be found in Section 1 of Montgomery Watson's Remedial Investigation Report(Montgomery Watson 1995a), the Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum(Montgomery Watson 1995b), and the Phase II Remedial Investigation Report (MontgomeryWatson, 1996c) .1 .4 PROJECT OBJECTIVEThe objective of this project was to excavate the two anomalous areas located in Site 5, identifythe buried metallic debris, remove, complete confirmation sampling and dispose of the debrisand any associated waste . General investigation procedures were established by the AlaskaDistrict, the City of Gambell, Sivuqaq, Inc ., Montgomery Watson, and two divisions of ADEC(the Contaminated Sites program and the Village Safe Water program) . The anomalyinvestigation activities performed during the 1997 field work are discussed in Section 2 .Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell ,Alaska-FINALOpage1-3JOB No . 2198 .0420 TIME : k$$$SYTIMES$$$$$$ FILE : $$$$OGNSPEC$$$$$stssss$$*$$$$$$$$$ssssts!J° C'l'ark y///'°`'~,~///~ GAMBELL,i~ST . LAWRENCE ISLANDslsAp G/wd"'sO R TNONMaskr,rn~,GOiJ~i /Ro4t«.llkCt~y-~ ' 4 a.J /1i~kp C9R'Oe.eel poor~yI"~bJ, ~ 4 i~Yf"•ve 4 -kmraSlkn k C.p, ~/ ._(Ij1~~D :II` Chukon~'NomS.e,rtkrmr Cam°Mwaut CW~'. _aoP,Nemr""d-: twnukl,ka.drNendwt !Carbwr0KonFeMmnbncMngeUNEAj05PACIFIC OCEAN0600KILOMETERSMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaOFR TSOURCE : U .S. Geological SurveyFIGURE 1-1Reston, Virginia 22092, 1976.Lawrence,AlaskaALASKADISTRICT- CORPS OF ENGINEERSStN6265 - W16830 ,60x210 GAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASurveyed 1948, Compiled 1957Minor Revisions 1974Scale 1 :250,000 Contour Interval 100'VICINITY MAPGAMBELL.~: 4•,5t L& . a IslandQIAp S (.Io'°"'b~ .JOB No . 1189010 .161601FILE : $SSSOGNSPECS$SSSSSSSSSSSSS$SSSS$$$SS$SSS$TIME: SSSSSYTIMESSSSSSSGAMBELL,ST . LAWRENCE ISLANDBering SeaNorthwest Cap ~~~Chibukak PtGambel t . .: t' n ''Landing A reaTategnak Pt'-ATmar tn: nIJ~~' d"ot7£8n1Nkuk Mtnp , Tifldghak BayLakeltl ~1 ` .~~I Meruwlu PtOoynikP~n'~Tf20 5°rnln6aalir Pt / I,'t't?;i'C .~`Akeftapak,~ Akeftapak BayKaghoppalik Pl~C~~ Qe ••Ryp~\°~'° Op7a31'~ ~Nmgeehak° ~ C i eeacnKatalpha ,7BdI+-X64-\, t v Iw Agrist r t \, I . ~, . ' L-( A }v:n'- ! nUpapak pt,-/°y %s04~~ /_ ~° ~1 •~u ,Savukahul ''DShlokovik r~_vaE~Ki154 Pai. ?r rJ ° t`1a C'~ j 4Ktt.;Naskak Camp{j2Kineeghit4JkPak'VA6~s'. 1Pa9neo/t0S40/~n`'tea""';te O~'i ~j n ~:JTaphookt..1Icagnkusahk9GII`0fa~.~FvABy\k~t\=~aMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaSOURCE : U .S . Geological SurveyReston , Virginia 22092,1976St . Lawrence, AlaskaN6265 - W16830 , 60x210Surveyed 1948 , Compiled 1957Minor Revisions 1974Scale 1 : 250 .000 . Contour Interval 200'FIGURE 1-2IVORTHALASKA DISTRICT - CORPS OF ENGINEERSGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND , ALASKALOCATION MAPGAMBELLNOTES :1 . Mapping taken from Chemical Data Acquisition Plan by Ecology &Environment (1993) . Map ing believ d to be sketched from aerial phot graphy taken in 19 5. Accuracy unknown .wESTaEACH-.2 . Plane Crash Site was not visited during 1994 RI .RUNWAYzpBERING SEA5NaW Plane Cnah approx. 7 miles so Oh ), Note2SUSPECTED ORDNANCEBURIAL SITE~Lp-°OLD GAMBELLG°C°°MJNICIPAL BuuurvGTROLTNUN LAKEPUMP HOUSE'~-- ~210~rAREA'~p0 -~-~,-11g•.'~1 0,;I1OYul~~jL ~l1~1~ARow~~G~~-__BURIA~,/3\-2TAANSFOA-0~I'EASVAREA IBAIR FORCELANDING AREAAREA 4D'~`J~~10rARMY TRAIL_____AREA ~4A__riIII-~ - .wTRAILFORMER AIA~ RAOAR SITEFORCE,\. SEVUOKL''__MNrrituFIGURE 1-3LEGEND :zTED OAD ANCESITEFORMER MILITARY HOUSING'OPERATI NS BURIAL SITEs` FA LIEN BURIIA UAREATIONEIr1AARr'/mAREA~ II ~5GUST,s~~IBURLAL~~WATER SUPPLY` `/~/TRANSFORMER~17iANI71NGNFIL RATION GALLERY ~_~ IE(NO' CI.ARENTLY USEDI~Op/iII.,NORTHBEACHARCHAEOIOGICAtsITEsul~~CAaCE BURIAL AREApap.A,NDFILL ND .2}~13-NORTH1.1C'1IIu\12° °°°° o o°°a IANDH,L NDQWATERTRANSMISSION~~° D°°c~ I i ' 7FORMER MAIN CAMP1994 SUM MER LAKE ''`` ~~1994M~/i~A UNNAMFnPONDO°VILLAGE OF WM9ELlti a o ~ ~o ~°~~~ °HIGH SCHOOLsoul ARan %'° OLO MLLAGE WELLI 0° 0 o-8NAYVAGH0.0LAKE°D ac oo D o ° q ° cm Do l000AACHAEOLOCIGA, SITEARMY LANDFILLO8~2G2D-J_'fSITE14(/8IpMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaBoundaryofSiteSCALE _ F~®o1200ALASKA DISTRICT - CORPS OF ENGINEERSGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONSITESBoundary of 1994Geophysical Survey/New Well Housefor New InfiltrationGalleryiAnomal#1cvIl4 Al's/ Trail---------------Abandoned /MW 16 /I''~S lIE 5~'.-- Anomaly77 Digs #2BoulderBoundary of 1996 Geophysical SurveyNOTES :1 . Mapping by AEROMAP U . S ., Inc . from photography dated 7-12-1994for UNWIN SCHEBEN KORYNTA HUETTL .. This map conforms to National Map Standards as related to the projectphoto control for scales of 1"=100' or smaller .The vertical accuracy is approximately one half of the contour interval shownin any given area on the map . Contours in vegetated areas may be lessaccurate, contours in dense vegetation are likely to be less accurate .2 . Mapping taken from CRW Engineering Group, prepared by NorthPacific Aerial Surveys, Inc., date of photography 10-22-85 .SCALE IN FEET60120FIGURE 1-4W MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaU .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASITE 5 SAMPLE LOCATIONSAND GEOPHYSICAL BOUNDARIESJ.z050E100E150E1STEEL FREIGHT CONTAINER/PUMP STATION200EOON(ELEC TRic rY)- .y-HIo-i`¢.6"_VSTF( .- R05IIPIT-ti~ i.A G N :nDEEP_ANOMALY # 1_gZHUMMOCKY GRBU`; , 'Ts . - -.1,4-Difluorobenzene 79 .688 .1( 50-150 )( 50-150 )08/13/97 08/14/9708/13/97 08/14/97DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range organics GC0 .1031 .49 U0 .09951 .49mg/L08/13/97 08/15/97 WAA08/13/ 97 08/ 15/97 WAASurrogates5a Androstane c surr>d-Triacontane < Surr>70 .184 .8XXAK102/103mg/ Lmg/LSW846 8081AK102/103( 50-150 )( 50-150 )08/13/97 08/15/9708/13/97 08/15/97PCBs by GC ECDAroclor-10160 .00101 UAroclor-12210 .00101 U0 .00101 UicLor-12320 .001010 .001010 .00101mg/LSW846 8081SW846 808108/13/97 08/14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/ 14/97 JLB08/13/97 08 / 14/97 JLB4'ICT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.# 974607001Client NameMontgomery Watson Americas IncProject Name/# Gambell TransformersClient Sample ID 97GAMOIONVWMatrix Water (Surface, Eff., Ground)Ordered ByPWSIDParameterResultsPQLClient PO# ANC96CTE04Printed Date/Time 10 /13/97 12 :41Collected Date/ Time 08 /13/97 08 :30Received Date/Time 08 /13/97 17 :10Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeUnitsMethodSW846 8081SW846 8081SW846 8081SW846 8081Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-12540 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .001010 .001010 .00101mg/Lmg/Lmg/LAroctor-12600 .00101 U0 .00101mg/LAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInit08/13/97 08/14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/14/97 JLB'arrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl Tetrachloro-m-xylene !68 .387 .6XXSW846 8081SW846 8081(59 - 122)(10-87)08 /13/97 08/14/9708/13/97 08/14/9711CT&E Environmental----- Services Inc .ICT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID~/I~II NI ~Il ~I974607002Montgomery Watson Americas IncGambell TransformersTrip BlankWater ( Surface , Eff ., Ground)ParameterClient PO#ANC96CTE04Printed Date /Time10/13/97 12 :41Collected Date/ Time 08/13/97 08 :30Received Date/Time08 /13/97 17 :10Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeReleased ByResultsPCLAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisUnitsMethod0 .04000 .00100 .0010mg/Lmg/Lmg/L08/13/97 08/14/97 GSM0 .00100 .00100 .0010mg/Lmg/Lmg/LAK101/8020AK101 /8020AK101/8020AK101 /8020AK101/8020AK101/802008/13/97 08/14/97 GSM08 /13/97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/97 08/14/97 GSMDateInitGRO/602 Combo-'asoline Range Organicsizene,olueneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-Xylene0 .0400 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U08/13/97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/97 08/14/97 GSMSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 077 .988 .1AK101/8020AK101/8020(50-150)( 50-150 )08/13/97 08/14/9708/13/97 08/14/97MONTGOMERY WATSONTo:FileFrom:Date:Bonnie McLeanReference :Subject :Gambell Village Water SupplySamplingAugust 22, 19971189010 .161605On July 24 , 1997, Bonnie McLean collected a water sample (ID : 97GAM 001 N V) from theVillage of Gambell ' s New Water infiltration gallery. Pump #2 was allowed to run 10 minutes bythe operator , Iver Campbell . A sample was collected at 8 a .m ., and submitted for analysis forDiesel Range Organics ( DRO) (Method AK102) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)(Method 8100 M), packed in a cooler containing frozen gel ice, and sealed with a custody seal .Weather prevented transport from St . Lawrence Island until July 26 , 1997 . During the wait, thesample was kept chilled (4°C+ 2°C ) and was locked in the samplers ' quarters . Upon arrival inAnchorage the sample was maintained under the control of the sampler and chilled until it wasrelinquished at CT & E Environmental Services on July 28, 1997 at 8 : 35 a .m. The laboratorywas made aware of the shortened extraction time remaining verbally , and noted on the Chain-ofCustody .cc : Victory HarrisMerle AppasingokSuzanne Beauchamp/dw/1189010 .161605CT&E Environmental Services Inc .L_ IZtElorm,Laboratory DivisionCHAIN OF CUSTODY_~PO#:Reports to:Invoice to:A~--t~-Special Instructions :IT~•QUOTE #0 0 rLaboratory:Page I of ICT&E Environmental Services Inc .200 W Potter Dr.Anchorage, AK 99518-1605Phone (907) 562 -2343 Fax : (907) 561-5301(~~•r•JC'c ccjr VJ rf~t-tt o- % .GC- (/ /c .Phone :Fax: .f-C(B'C S `fContact person for questions concerning these samples :97 .4076 _j01N_ c (._ a r.Phone :f I `t Fax: Z 4< SY5 s 7'N ofContainerLab ISam le Recei' ~. . . . . B :cNumber of ContainersCOC Seals/Intact Y/N/NATemperatureTurnaround RequiredData Deliverables RequiredLevel lLevel li vel illis. ..:NwTimeN.. .:Rowvad By:ivied B3 :D"':DowReceived at Laboratory By- =1 kT"'c1rV \ e o V\ow97 .4607Montgomery Watson USCOE4100 Spenard Road GAMBELLAnchorage AK 99517(907)248-8883Fax(907) 248- 8884•WASTELaboratoryry_CaSSi+a0MCMLEI00amp ers :SignatureDate-~~w/`(t f ~l_ w lTimeSample IDTotalContainers4ozAmber20 mlMeOH4ozAmberNone4ozAmber20 mlMcOH2 . 1-liter 2 . 1-liter 7, 40-m1AmberAmbervialsNoneNoneHCL002 , 1-literAmberNone2, I-literPE, 250ml PENone2 , 40 mlNoneSurgicalswabHexanemRelinquished by :R 'ved,' 12aboVby :_DateTimeDateTimeHand DeliveredY$ 310Shipped Via Airbill Number ,s y /Cooler Temperature aC Laboratory NotifiedUpon Arrival FaxedDateTimeAppendix CAgenda and Sign-in Sheetfar Public MeetingMONTGOMERY WATSONAgendaPublic Meeting in GambellSuspected Buried Transformer InvestigationJuly 23, 1997 7 :00 p.m.Available for Questions:Alaska District, Corps of Engineers : Suzanne Beauchamp, Engineering ManagerSivuqaq, Inc. : Merle Apassingok, PresidentAk. Dept. of Environmental Conservation : Katarina Rutkowski, Envir . SpecialistMontgomery Watson : Victor Harris, Project MangerMontgomery Watson : Bonnie McLean, Field SupervisorTopics to Be Discussed:I, IntroductionII. Background of the InvestigationIII. Project Activities and ScheduleIV . Water ConservationV . Door PrizesVI. Open Discussion/Questions0MONTGOMERY WATSONBYyS_OATE7l Z S7 CLIENTCHKD. BYDESCRIPTIONSfif7d.L~IOleAs AV .3 Sic'99/93L4 D3z3 t.a'2ce Lt~ Qr/D-d;tut~o. A:Aqqq41CM, 4,11q,C~L~sl a L.Q9.w I (,fWl4q. etw.&Ar C,=~p4tAj a:=O ttty%V°•SAt t~~.S'1~ .52. (11/~Ot, - .~ 063.5`(. ^a a'~ ~~e -~-C0EN 1S (10/78)SHEETw~OF130 MAR 1998CEPOA- EN-EE -II (200-1c)MEMORANDUM FOR CEPOA-EN-G (Thomas)CEPOA-EN-EE-TE (Gagnon)CEPOA-EN-CW-ER (McConnell)SUBJECT : Contract No . DACA85-93-D-0011, Delivery Order No . 16,Modification No . 3, Final Report, Investigation of GeophysicalAnomaly, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska, December 19971 . Enclosed for your information is a copy of the subject reportfor your records, which describes activities performed duringAugust 1997 to identify and remove objects at a suspectedtransformer burial site . Review comments and responses are alsoincluded .2 . Please note that Volume II, Data packages, was assembled aspart of the response to comments . A copy of Volume II isincluded in the CEPOA-EN-G package only .3 . If you have any questions concerning the enclosed report orany other Gambell RI/ FS issues , please contact me at (907) 7535606 .2!~) ~J EL~'EnclRichardJacksonEngineering ManagerI TVIECOMNVPROJECT :Investigation of Geophysical AnomalyNT S DOCUMENT : ,Final Report (Montgomery Watson , December 1997)LOCATION :?J .S . ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERSCENPA-EN-CW-ERGambell, St. Lawrence Island , AlaskaDATE : December 12, 1997REVIEWER : Guy R. McConnellPHONE :Action taken on comment by :Location (pg#, para, etc .)COMMENTSI.page2pageItel SNoBonnie McLeanREVIEW CONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW - comment withdrawn(if neither, explain)DESIGN OFFICEC - correction made(If not, explain)The report should state the current status of the artifact such as whetherit was returned to the existing Native village or kept by the archaeologist .A:Text and Appendix A(page 6 ), archaeologist(Pg 2-3) reportcorrected .The report also should state whether the existing Native Village wasconsulted regarding the reburial of the human remains . This consultationA : Text added (page 2 -3) .Text added ( page 2-3) .A : CorrectedCorrectedshould have been part of the project and is required under Federallegislation particularly in this case, the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act .PageTypo on Page 6, paragraph 2, should read planing adze bit, not planningadze bit .IiSHT . 1 Of 2Backcheckby :REV][E PROJECT : Investigation of Geophysical Anomalyk- F ANTS DOCUMENT : Final Report (Montgomery Watson , December 1997)LOCATION : Gambell, St. Lawrence Island , AlaskaJ .S . "-R-MY CORPSOF 1,NG-VEERSCENPA-1,N-CW-ERDATE : December 13, 1997REVIEWER : KissingerPHONE :Action taken on comment by :IterrNo .Location (pg#, para, etc.)COMMENTSIp eBatch QC data is missing . Data for surrogate recovery is included butdata for batch LCS, matrix spikes and method blanks are missing .Bonnie McLeanREVIEW CONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW - comment withdrawn(if neither, explain)DESIGN OFFICEC - correction made(If not, explain)A : Data added as Volume II ,text added to report 2.7.3C -Data added asVolume II, text added toreport 2 .7 .3MS/MSD was notrequired at time ofsampling .iSHT. 1 Of 2Backcheckby :REVIEWPROJECT:Investigation of Geophysical AnomalyC (]1_\ 1 NTS DOCUMENT : Final Report ( Montgomery Watson , December 1997)LOCATION :U ., . A ZMV CORPS0 ' El` GINEL RSCl .NP_ i-EN-C W-ERIt( inI >.(.Location (pg4r, para, etc .)Tpage 2-4°DATE : December 12, 1997REVIEWER : Bret L . WaltersPHONE:Gambell, St. Lawrence Island , AlaskaAction taken on comment byCOMMENTSSection 2 .7 .2 : The fourth sentence should end as follows . "in the pre-andpost-excavation samples, respectively ." .Bonnie McLeanREVIEW CONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW - comment withdrawn(if neither, explain)DESIGN OFFICEC - correction made(If not , explain)A:C -SHT, 1 Of 2Backcheckby :CEPOA-EN-CW-ER.DEC 4 1991MEMORANDOM FOR CEPOA-EN-EE-II (Jackson)SUBJECT : Comments regarding report for Contract No . DACA85-93-D-0011,Delivery Order No . 16, Modification No . 3, Draft Report, Investigationof Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska, October1997 .1 . The report should state the current status of the artifact such as,whether it was returned to the existing Native village or kept by thearchaeologist .2 . The report also should state whether the existing Native Village wasconsulted regarding the reburial of the human remains . Thisconsultation should have been part of the project and is required underFederal legislation particularly in this case, the Native AmericanGraves Protection and Repatriation Act .3 . Typo on Page 6, paragraph 2, should read planing adze bit, notplanning adze bit .Guy R . McConnellBiologistHTRW-CX COMMENT TRANSMITTALComments Transmitted toCommander,Alaska DistrictCEPOA, Richard JacksonAttentionSubmittal #000997 - 65182ActionProjectInformationComments are transmitted with this record .LocationSiteProjectSt Lawrence IslandGambellSite WideDoc TitleDraft Report, Investigation of Geophysical An omaly, Gambell, St Lawrence Island, AKPhaseDesigned byDraftMontgomery Watson , AnchorageDISCIPLINE ACTION'ChemistryRCAGeotechnical NCHealth &Safety12/05/97SIGNIFICANT OR UNRESOLVED TECHNICAL COMMENTSChem : Much of the analytical QC data is missing from the lab report .NCRisk Assessment NCStudies / Liaison ---REQUESTED ACTIONTo further our understanding of the iss ues that affect this project and yourrlic_trirt'S execution, please provide this office a copy of annotated responses tocomments made by your office , other agencies and interested parties .HTRW-CX Point of Con `act ,[~ tTelephone :Hel 1 Novotny(402) 697-2626Transmittal of comments approved by :Ken L : Gr gg, P .E .Chief, Environmental Studiesand Liaison Branch'NC = Reviewed ; No Comments NT = No tech involvment CT = Conferred/Deferred to District CounterpartRCA = Reviewed , Comments Attached SCA = Reviewed w/Significant Comments attached[X] CEPOA -EN-EE-AI Richard Jackson[]POD[) CENWO-HXS Heidi Novotny[ ] CENWO-HX-S (Files)65182 : Investig of magnetic anomaly at St . Lawrence Island , AK - Draft ReporFile : 65182RDK .DBFeTemp ID2344055-462Page : 1Last NameOffice SymbolKISSINGERCENWO-HX-CDisciplineCHEMPage/Sheet Room DtlPost ITAppendix BBatch QC data is missing . Data for surrogate recovery is included but data for batch LCS, matrix spikes and method blanksare missing .This information should be included to support data quality .Printed 11 /25/97 2 :49 :31 PM-FINALInvestigation of Geophysical AnomalyGambell, St . Lawrence Island, AlaskaContract No . Delivery Order No .DACA85-93-D-001 1 0016Modification No . P0003VOLUME IIDATA PACKAGESDecember 1997Prepared for :Department of the ArmyUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Prepared by :Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517VOL2OF2ME Environmental Services Inc .Alaska DivisionLaboratory Data ReportContents :Section 1 : Case Narrative Information (COC, etc .)Section 2 : CTE Final ReportsSection 3 .1, 4.1, 5 .1 . . . :Section 3 .2, 4 .2, 5 .2 . . . :Section 3 .3, 4 .3, 5 .3 . . . :Quality Control Summary FormsInitial CalibrationsRaw Analytical Data, if requiredSections 3 and above are arranged consecutively in the following fashion : Volatiles, SemiVolatiles,Metals , Inorganics, Miscellaneous .Note: All quality assurance/quality control criteria is in compliance with the Alaska Departmentof Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and/or CTE's Assurance Program Plan .Prepared by (Signature)(Printed Name)(Date)Reviewed by (Signature)(Printed Name)(Date)%- 1N_ 1 1~its (11 .I_- a9 - 9 -1Case NarrativeCustomer: JMMENGN Montgomery Watson Americas IncProject:974607 Gambell TransformersThere were no analytical anomalies associated with your data .Page 1Report SummaryLabrepoampsa sampirxnmco aWSCS AK101WSWSCS AK102ECS SW8081WSCS AK101WSWSSDI AKIOIBSI AKIOIWSWSxmco a og a ex a eA na a ea o cKunSW5030A 08/13/97SW3510 08/1319708/13/9708/13/9708/14/9708/15/972640VXX3120XXX1SW3510 08/13/97SW5030A 08/13/9708/13/9708/14/973110XXX1108/13/9708/14/972640VXX1SW5030A / /08/13/9708/14/9708/13/9708/14/972640VXX2640VXX1CC1 AK101SW5030A / /NONE//WSCC2 AK101CC3 AKIOINONE//NONE / /08/13/9708/13/9708/13/9708/13/97WSWSCC4 AKIOILB1 AKIOINONE//SW5030A / /08/14/9708/14/9708/14/9708/14/97WSWSBD1 SW8081BS1 SW8081SW3510 / /08/13/97WSBS2 SW8081SW3510//SW3510 / /WSWSWSBS3 SW8081CC1 SW8081CC2 SW808108/13/ 9708/13/ 97WSCC3 SW8081NONENONE/ l//WSWSCC4 SW8081CC5 SW8081NONENONE/ /WSLB1 SW8081WSWSBD1 AK102EBSI AK102E113804113805WSCC1 AK102E113806WSWSWSCC2 AK102ECC3 AK102ECC4 AK102EWSWSCC5 AK102ECC6 AK102EWSCC7 AK102ENONE/ /NONE / /WSLBI AK102ESW3510 / /97460797GAMO10NVW97460797GAMOIONVW97460700197460700197460797460797GAM010NVWTrip Blank974607001974607002113554113553113566113567114787114788113552113016113015113017113018113621113622113623113624113620113014113512113511113809113834113835113802113510SW3510 / /NONE//08/13/9708/14/9708/14/9708 /14/972640VXX112640VXX2640VXX112640VXX2640VXX113110XXX1311OXXX3110XXX113110XXX3110XXX1108/13/9708/14/9708/14/9708/14/9708/14/9708/14/9708/ 14/9708/14/ 9708/15/9708/14/973110XXX3110XXX111SW3510/ // /08/14/ 9708/15/9708/14/973110XXX3110XXX08/13/9708/14/973110XXX11SW3510/ /08/13/97SW3510 / /NONEI I08/13 /9708 / 15/9708 / 15/973120XXX1312OXXX312OXXX1108/14/9708/14/973120XXX11NONE/ /NONENONE/ // /NONE/ /08 / 15/9708/14/9708/14/9708/15/97312OXXX312OXXX08/14/9708/15 /9708/14 /9708/14 /9708/14/97312OXXX3120XXX08/15/97312OXXX08/15/9708/13/9708/15/9708115 /973120XXX11111u9704607Cc( -WASTEMontgomery Watson USCOE LaboratoryGAMBELL4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage AK 99517(907)248 -8883 Faxq(907) 248- 8884•CLM nyco, ,Dr^5~3mplers :Signature'Dale(vkr1Ol\Sample IDTotalContainers1 r 1 6\AAI03Q¢4ozAmber4ozAmberozAmbervby : ^20 mlMcOHos~<ac<a2, 1-literAmber2, 1-literPE, 250ml PE0None20 mlMcOH3us2, I-liter 2 , I-liter 1, 40 - mlAmberAmbervialsNoneNoneHCLa,Noneit3n~1None00003vt2 , 40 mlNone0cc3.titaui°d ..SurgicalswabHexaneZn (i r CRc, ved for Laboras-~TimeRelinquished by :oDateHand DeliveredTimeDate %Time1311 l UYW,Shipped Via Airbill Numbercq2-)!j yCooler Temperature oC Laboratory NotifiedUpon Arrival Faxed/DateTimeAMIArmy Corp of Engineers Project :%I-YES 0 NO Chem Lab RefComputer W/O# :Lab Due Date:/97 .4607(new) Account #Extraction Date:Holding Time :Client Name: G A,tits~ trOrdered By :Date Due :(iVia: oSample Received : gTime:Purchase Order#:Date Collected Time :Requisition#:Address :Paid (Ck#) (Cash)Amount S:Send Additional Reports to:Phone #:Fax :Phone #pecia!l tnstrncaionc('0Fax #O190C6IEP ToxH20-Meta>s Mien: O/0Sample RemarksChain Of Custody.Custody Seals:Recd By:Logged By:Entered By:Proofed By :10NYITemps. of SampleseSampleConditionsS le C 13IL97 .4607FPoorLI ECT&E Environmental Services Inc .Laboratory Division200 W . Potter DriveAnchorag .. AK 99518-1605SAMPLE RECEIPT CHECK LIST Fo (9907) 561.51Is sample temperature between 2.5 - 6 .0 °C?What is the sample temperatureAre samples within holding times?Were correct container and sample size submitted?Were preservatives checked?The required preservatives found?Do results go to ADECIs the P .W.S .LD.# given with samplesIs this a Corp of Engineers project?NONote #NONONONONONONOAdditional Information Required on all Corp of Engineers ProjecDate Received:' tSDate Opened:11 :6Date Logged in:$CTdtE# of CoolersBy Who (print)mil) CgSkeBy Who (print)54 `+ I )Was there a shipping slip (airbill # 4 2 2 -'seals?MSDcoolersealedwithcustodyWas theWere these seals intact upon arrival?Was there a chain of custody (COC) with cooler 0SWere the COC's filled out properly?Did the COC indicate samples from a COE project? EWere all samples listed on COC accounted forWere samples packed to prevent breakage? SWere bottles unbroken apd clearly labeled?Were bottles sealed in separate plastic bags?Was there headspace in bottles for volatiles?NONote #NONONONONONONONONONONOTES:Was client notified of problems? YES NO Dateltime :Who was notified? By whom? :How was this person notified?Was a copy of this form faxed for confirmation?Fax # sent to:Member d the $0a Group ISoe " GendraM da Surwill.nc./ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA. CAUFORNIA . FLORIDA . ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN . MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY . OHIO. WEST VIRGINIFCode ListCodeName! Out of control limits1 C First Column Result - The Value Obtained from the First Column2C Second Column Result - The Value Obtained from the Second Column< Less ThanEqual To> Greater ThanAELF American Environmental Laboratories, Pensacola, FLAENP American Environmental Network, Portland, ORALTC Alta Analytical Lab Incorporated, El Dorado Hills, CAAPPL Agriculture & Priority Pollutants Laboratories, Fresno, CAARDL Applied Research and Development Lab, Inc ., (ARDL) Mt. Vernon, ILARI Analytical Resources, Inc., Seattle, WAATCA Analytica, Anchorage, AKATCC Analytica, COATIA Analytical Technologies, Inc ., Anchorage, AKATIR Analytical Technologies, Inc ., Renton, WAATIS Analytical Technologies, Inc ., San Diego, CAATOX Air Toxics LTD, Folsom, CABCLB BC Laboratories, Bakersfield, CABD Blank Spike DuplicateBMLA Boreochem Mobile Lab & Analytical ServicesBRS Brelje & Race, Santa Rosa, CABS Blank SpikeCASA Columbia Analytical Services, Inc ., Anchorage, AKCASB Columbia Analytical Services, Inc ., Bothell, WACASK Columbia Analytical Services, Inc ., Kelso, WACC Continuing Calibration VerificationCCAC Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc ., Camarillo, CACCSJ Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc ., San Jose, CACDM CDM Federal Programs CorporationCHEM Chemic Laboratory, San Diego, CACKY CKY Inc ., Torrance, CACLPA Contract Laboratory Program Accuracy Limits for Spiked SamplesCLPCC CLP Continuing Calibration Acceptance CriteriaCLPIC CLP Initial Calibration Acceptance CriteriaCLPLR Contract Laboratory Program Precision for Lab ReplicatesCLPP Contract Laboratory Program Precision Limits for Spiked SamplesCLTP Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc ., Pleasanton, CACS Client SampleCTB Curtis & Tompkins, Berkeley, CACTE CT&E Environmental Services, Inc ., Anchorage, AKDDL Method Defined Detection LimitDMP D & M Laboratories, Petaluma, CADOWL Dowl Engineering Alaska Test Labs, Anchorage, AKEBAEBAECEN Ecology & Environment, Inc .ECI EcoChem, Inc .EQL Estimated Quantitation LimitETCS ETC, Santa Rosa, CAFORA Forensic AnalyticalIC Initial Calibration VerificationIDL Instrument Detection LimitIN Internal StandardCodeNameKD Known (External Reference Material ) DuplicateLAB1 Laboratory ILAB2 Laboratory 2LAL Lockheed Analytical Laboratory, Las Vegas, NVLAS LAS Laboratories, Inc .LB Lab BlankLCC Laboratory Continuing Calibration AccuracyLDC Laboratory Data ConsultantsLIC Laboratory Initial Calibration AccuracyLLD Lowest Level of DetectionLLR Laboratory Established Precision for Lab ReplicatesLR Lab ReplicateLSA Laboratory Sample Accuracy for Spiked . SamplesLSP Laboratory Sample Precision for Spiked SamplesLTL Laucks Testing Lab, Inc.MASA MultiChem Analytical Services, Anchorage, AKMASR MultiChem Analytical Services, Renton, WAMDL Method Detection LimitMEA Method Established Accuracy for Spiked SamplesMECC Method Established Continuing Calibration Acceptance CriteriaMEIC Method Established Initial Calibration Acceptance CriteriaMELR Method Established Precision for Laboratory ReplicatesMEP Method Established Precision for Spiked SamplesMLR Matrix Laboratory Replicate PrecisionMS GC/MS Result - Value Confirmed Using GC/MSMS Lab Matrix SpikeMSA Matrix Spike Accuracy for Spiked SamplesMSP Matrix Spike Precision for Spiked SamplesNA Not ApplicableNA Not Available - Result Not AvailableNC Non-Client SampleNCAB North Creek Analytical, Bothell, WANCAP North Creek Analytical, Beaverton, ORND Not DetectedNETB NET Burbank, Burbank, CANETC NET Cambridge, Bedford, MANETO NET Portland, Portland, ORNETS NET Pacific, Inc ., Santa Rosa, CANR Not Reported - Data Not ReportedNTL Northern Testing Laboratories, Anchorage, AKNU Not Usable - Data Not UsableOEIR OnSite Environmental, Inc ., Redmond, WAPAC Pacific Analytical, Carlsbad, CAPARA Paragon Analytics, Inc., COPHLE Philip EnvironmentalPIC Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Camarillo, CAPIHB Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Huntington Beach, CAPIL Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Lenexa, KSPIM Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Minneapolis, MNPIN Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Novato, CAPINY Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., New York, NYPIP Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Pittsburgh, PAPITB Pace Analytical Services, Inc., Tampa Bay, FLPIWF Pace Analytical Services, Inc., Wappingers Falls, NYPQL Practical Quantitation LimitL.oaeNamePR Primary Result - The Primary Result for a ParameterPRL Parameter Range LimitQALA Quality Analytical Laboratores , Inc ., Montgomery, ALQALC Quality Analytical Laboratories , Inc ., Redding, CAQES Quanterra Environmental Services , Santa Ana, CAQESA Quanterra Environmental Services , Arvada, COQuanterra Environmental Services , North Canton, OHQESCQESFQuanterra Environmental Services, Tampa, FLQESGQuanterra Environmental Services , Garden Grove,QESI Quanterra Environmental Services , City of Industry, CAQESJQuanterra - Research Triangle Park Lab ., Raleigh, NCQESKQuanterra Environmental Services , Knoxville, TNQESL Quanterra Environmental Services , St. Louis, MOQESN Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKQESP Quanterra Environmental Services , Pittsburg, PAQESRQuanterra Environmental Services , Richland, WAQESSQuanterra Environmental Services, Sacramento, CAQESTQuanterra Environmental Services , Austin, TXQESZQuanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKRMKnown ( External Reference Material)RS Reagent SolventSAS Sound Analytical Services , Inc ., Tacoma, WASBSA Both Reagent and Matrix Sample Accuracy for SurrogatesSBSP Both Reagent and Matrix Sample Precision for SurrogatesSC3SS-Cubed , A Division of Maxwell Laboratories, Inc ., San Diego, CASCLAContract Laboratory Program Limits for Surrogate AccuracySUPContract Laboratory Program Limits for Surrogate PrecisionSD Lab Matrix Spike DuplicateSLSA Laboratory Sample Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSLSP Laboratory Sample Limits for Precision for SurrogatesSMEAMethod Established Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSMEP Method Established Limits for Precision for SurrogatesSMSASample Matrix Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSMSP Sample Matrix Limits for Precision for SurrogatesSPEC Spectra Laboratory , Inc., Tacoma, WASRAD Standard Reference Accuracy Defined by Agency/ManufacturerSRMA Standard Reference Material Accuracy Limits Determined by LabSRMP Standard Reference Material Precision Limits Determined by LabSRPD Standard Reference Precision Defined by Agency / ManufacturerSU SurrogateSWAA Shannon & Wilson , Inc ., Anchorage, AKSWLB Southwest LaboratorySWRI Southwest Resarch Institute , San Antonio, TXTI Tentatively Identified CompoundTRID Triangle Laboratories , Inc ., Durham, NCCT&E Environmental Services Inc .IL 3) Laboratory DivisionLaboratory Analysis ReportAugust 15, 1997Chris BrownMontgomery Watson Americas Inc4100 Spenard RdAnchorage , AK 99517-2901Client NameProject IDPrintedMontgomery Watson Americas IncGambell Transformers [974607]August 15, 1997Enclosed are the analytical results associated with the above project .As required by the state of Alaska and the USEPA, a formal Quality Assurance/Quality Control Programis maintained by CT&E . A copy of our Quality Control Manual that outlines this program is availableat your request.Except as specifically noted, all statements and data in this report are in conformance to theprovisions set forth in our Quality Assurance Program Plan .If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of any other assistance , please callyour CT&E Project Manager at (907) 562-2343 .The following descriptors may be found on your report which will serve to further qualify the data .U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected .J - Indicates an estimated value that falls below PQL, but is greater than the MDL .B - Indicates the analyte is found in the blank associated with the sample .* - The analyte has exceeded allowable limits .GT - Greater ThanD - Secondary Dilution;LT - Less Than:! - Surrogate out of range200 W. Potter Drive, Anchorage , AK 99518- 1605 - Tel: (907) 562-2343 Fax : (907 ) 561-53013180 Pager Road , Fairbanks, AK 99709 - 5471 - Tel : (907) 474-8656 Fax : (907 ) 474-9685ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA . CALIFORNIA , FLORIDA, ILLINOIS , MARYLAND, MICHIGAN , MISSOURI, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, WEST VIRGINIA.ALCT& E Environmental Services Inc .I H yI ~• IIH I H/~I yiI ~H/eI yCT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOr dered ByPWSID974607001Montgomery Watson Americas IncGambell Transformers97GAMO1ONVWWater ( Surface, Eff., Ground)Client PO#ANC96CTE04Printed Date/Time08/15/97 16 :18Collected Date/Time 08/13/97 08 :30Received Date/Time 08/13 /97 17 :10Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeReleased By o~-^Sample Remarks :ResultsParameterPCLUnitsMethodAllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate Date InitGRO/602 ComboGasoline Range OrganicsBenzeneToluene7thylbenzene.' & M -Xyleneo-Xylene-0 .0400 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0400 mg/L0 .0010 mg/L0 .0010 mg/L0 .0010 mg/L0 .0010 mg/L0 .0010 mg/LAK101 / 8020AK101 / 8020AK101 / 8020AK101/802008/13/97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/ 97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/97 08/14/97 GSM08/13/ 97 08/ 14/97 GSM08/13/ 97 08 / 14/97-GSMAK101/8020AK101 / 8020Surrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 79 .688 .1XXAK101 / 8020AK101 / 8020(50-150 )( 50-150 )08/13/9 7 08/14/9708/13/97 08/14/97DRO/RRO Combi nat i onDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC0 .1031 .49 U0 .0995 mg/L1 .49 mg/LAK102/103AK102/10308/ 13/97 08 / 15/97 WAA08/ 13/97 08 / 15/97 WAASurro g ates5a Androstane d-Triacontane 70 .184 .8XXAK102 / 103AK102/103(50 - 150)( 50-150 )08 / 13/97 08/15/9708/13 /97 08/15/97PCB's by GC ECOAroctor- 1016Aroctor° 1221ArocLor-1232Aroctor-1242Aroctor-12480 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .00101 mg / L0 .00101 mg / L0 .00101 mg/L0 .00101 mg/L0 .00101 mg/LSW846 8081SW846 8081SW846 8081SW846 808108/13/97 08 /14/97 JL808/13/97 08/14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/14 /97 JLS08/13 /97 08/14/97 JLBSW846 808108/13/97 08/14/97 JLBALCT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample MMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDCT&E Environmental Services Inc .Client PO#ANC96CTE04Printed Date/Time08/15/97 16 :18Collected Date/Time 08/13/97 08 :30Received Date/ Time 08/13/97 17 :10Technical Director: Stephen C . Ede974607001Montgomery Watson Americas IncGambell Transformers97GAMOIONVWWater (Surface, Ef ., Ground)Allowable Prep AnalysisParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/Lmg/LSW846 8081SW846 8081XSW846 8081XSW846 8081Limits Date Date!nitSurrogatesAroctor-1254Aroctor-12600 .00101 U0 .00101 U0 .001010 .0010108/13/97 08/ 14/97 JLB08/13/97 08/14/97 JLBSurrogatesDecachtorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro - m-xylene !68 .387 .6( 59-122 )( 10-87 )08/13/97 08/14/9708/13 / 97 08/14/97LT'..CT&E Environmental Services Inc.ANC96CTE04Client PO#08/15/97 16 :18Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/Time 08/13/97 08 :30Received Date/Time 08/13/97 17 :10Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeCT&E Ref .# 974607002Client Name Montgomery Watson Americas IncGambell TransformersProject Name/#Client Sample ID Trip BlankMatrix Water (Surface , Eff., Ground)Ordered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks:Allowable PrepParameterPQLResultsUnitsMethodmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LAK101/8020AK101/8020AK101 /8020AK101/8020AK101/8020AK101/8020XXAK101 / 8020AK101 / 8020-Limits DateAnalysis .Date/nitGRO/602 ComboGasoline Range OrganicsBenzeneToluene7thylbenzene- & M -Xyleneo-Xylene0 .0400 U0.0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .0010 U0 .04000 .00100 .00100 .00100 .00100 .001008/13 / 97 08/14/97 GSM08/13 /97 08 / 14/97 GSM08/13 /97 08/14/97 GSM08/13 /97 08/14/97 GSM08/13 /97 08/14/97 GSM08/13 /97 08/14/97 GSMSurrogates4-Bromoftuorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene < Surr>77 .988 .1( 50-150 )( 50-150 )08/13 /97 08/14/9708/13/97 08/14/97Volatiles Sample QC Summary PageCT&E. Environmental Services Inc .QA/QC Data DeliverablesAnalysis Lot Number:VDA06060813Prep Lot Number : -7'Workorder Number:Analysis :Aromatic Volatile Organics /Gasoline Range OrganicsMethod : BTEX by EPA 8020/602/AK10I (8015M)Matrix :Solid/LiquidAnalysis:Assurance Notes :Acceptance Criteria:Yes No N/AA . Holding Time :Allcriteriamet .All criteria met .B . Surrogates :All criteria met .El 0714 days from sample collection forTCLP extraction .14 days from sample collection(or TCLP extraction) for analysis .® F-1 50% - 150% RecoveryC. Notes :I certify that except as specifically noted in this report , all statements and data appearing in this report are in conformancewith the provisions of the Quality Assurance Plan (QA P) prepared by this firm and on file with the Alaska Department ofEnvironmentalConservation,/ /Analyst' s Signature :Printed Name & Date : G race S . MarianoReviewer 's Signature :8/13/97Printed Name & Date :Volatiles Quality Control Summanf PageCT&E Environmental Services Inc .:.DeliverablesQA/QC Data8/13/97Analysis Date :Analysis Lot Number:VDA06060813Aromatic Volatile Organics / Gasoline Range OrganicsAnalysis :Method: BTEX by EPA 8020/602/AK101 ( 8015M)Solid/LiquidMatrix:Analysis :Assurance Notes :Acceptance Criteria :Yes NoA.Calibration :All criteria met .QB.Method Blank:All criteria met .0 F7C . Continuing Calibration Verification Std :0All concentrations are below thePractical Quantitation LimitD.Laboratory Standard :All criteria met.0RF 14 .00 _~H12 .00_10 .00Ia2 .000 .00 -102. 04 .4006.Minutes8.010 .00ISampleName IS Acq Meth Set VDA _Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis_Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/13/97 09 :13 :53 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep _Lot 0813VH01 Processing Method VDA_FID _ 0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#1234NameSurrogateHexaneGRODifluorobenzene5aaa -TFT6'4-Bromofluorobenzene7Ret Time(min)Decane2 .682 .684 .675 .42Area(uV* sec)2915701612298497114468114148- 8-.66629 5 -59 .41415SlnConcSur_Rec_1( $ )Sur Rec 2( % )-True GRO128 .473 .052131 .523 .0523 .05235 .2588 .13 .05245 .18--j-j.5979 .03 .0523 .0523 .052SampleName : IB Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VH01Date Acquired : 08/13 / 97 09 : 13 :53 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000S ampleWeight : 1 . 00000 Initials : GSM120 .00 .-1110 . 00_-I100 .00_190 .00 80 .0070 .00 60 .00 ,50 .00 -I0.02.04.06.0Minutes8.010 .00SampleName 1B Acq Meth Set VDA _Mth_SetDilution 1 .000Analysis_Lot VDA06060813Date Acquired 08/13 / 97 09 : 13 :53 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0813V1401Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#NameRet Time(min)11,4-Difluorobenzene4 .672aaa-TFT5 .423P & M -Xylene4-Bromofluorobenzene8 .0748 .66Area(uV*sec )157875164653SlnConc38 .001 .00Amount( PPB )37 .9971 .00011150 .130 .12630094637 .7437 .742Sur _Rec_1( )Sur_Rec_2(-I- )95 .094 .4SampleName : CCV2 Analysis _Lots VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VH01Date Acquired : 08/13 / 97 09 :33 : 53 PM Channel Des,cr . : PID Diluti on : 1 .00000Sampleweight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM110 .00-1AU,100 .00_1- j0HqasNe90 .00 _j14yU)v80 .00 -_13mymN~A 70 .00 _OHm60 .00mNqmAa.040N10MNAba 04MinviV40 .00mmOwMNn0~u1ribwmOin130 .0020 .0010 .00 _~ILUUL0 .00 _-10. 02A O4. 06 .40Minutes8.010!0SampleName CCV2Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis _ Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/13 / 97 09 :33 :53 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0813VH01 Processing Method VDA_PID _ 0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)SlnConcAmount( PPB )1Benzene4 .2521,4-Difluorobenzene20152419 .7119 .7084 .6715177336 .381653121835481 .0036 .3833 aaa - TFT4 Toluene5 Ethylbenzene678P & M -XyleneO -Xylene4-Bromofluorobenzene5 .426 .537 .908 .078 .378 .6615786836711616310229445019 .7019 .841 .000Sur_Rec _ 1( )Sur_Rec_2(-I; )91 .019 .70119 .84441 .2441 .24420 .1336 .7836 .78020 .13491 .9SampleName : CCV Analysis Lott VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VH01Date Acquired : 08/13/99 09 :54 :24 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM30 .00--I8,amab0a:12 .00 -LL0 .000 .0_,V LLL_2.L_L0_L_ ___4.uv,Uv'vL L -L0~v tLLLL1LL6.0MinutesLIt8.U IN 1 .1 VVL. 11 .L ILL _LLLL ILL L. LLL Lt .I010 .00SampleName CCV Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis_Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/13/97 09 :54 :24 PMSampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0813VH01 Processing Method VDA_FID_0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#123NameSurrogate'HexaneGRORet Time(min)140 .262 .68782404344 .7411934836 .7612660850 .118 .66723639 .401002136 .31Difluorobenzene4 .6755 s--TFT5 .424-Bromofluorobenzene7 DecaneSlnConc3183192 .6846Area(uV * sec)26971Sur Rec _ 1Sur_Rec_2True GRO204 .485204 .485204 .48591 .9204 .485204 .48590 .8204 .485204 .485SampleName : QC Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VH01Date Acquired : 08/13 / 97 10 :14 : 31 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution :SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM1 .00000180 .00 . .160 .00140 .00120 .00-100 .00-mOidxwxOmt0I80 .0060 .0040 .0020 .00'f~ 110 .02.11 1~ 1111 11 11 ~04.06.0Minutes8.01'0 .00SampleName QCAnalysis _ Lot VDA06060813Prep_Lot 0813VH01Channel Descr . FIDAcq Meth Set VDA_Mth_SetDate Acquired 08/13 / 97 10 : 14 :31 PMProcessing Method VDA_FID_0624Dilution 1 .000SampleWeight 1 .000Initials GSMVPH ResultsName#12SurrogateHexane3 GRO4 Difluorobenzene5 aaa-TFT674-BromofluorobenzeneDecaneRet Time(min)2 .68Area(uV*sec)SlnConc316796521880139 .5911675335 .962 .684 .6724335161072 .265 .4213142252 .028 .669 .406862249149034 .43Sur Rec_ 1()Sur Rec_2Ft- )True GRO932 .669932 .669932 .669932 .66989 .986 .1932 .669932 .669932 .66932 .00SampleName : 113552 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lots 0813VS01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 03 : 44x22 PMChannel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM30 .0028 .0026 .0024 .0022 .0020 .0018 .00H16 . 0014 .0012 .0010 .008 .006 .004 .00IAA2 .00nT2. 04 .406. 0MinutesV ------T10 .00TATSampleName113552Analysis_Lot VDA06060813Prep _Lot 0813VS01Channel Descr . FIDAcq Meth Set VDA_Mth_SetDate Acquired 08/14 /97 03 : 44 :22 PMProcessing Method VDA_FID_0624Dilution 1 .000SampleWeight 1 .000Initials GSMVPH Results#123NameSurrogateHexaneGRO4 DifluorobenzeneRet Time(min)2 .692 .69Area(uV*sec)3097882494SlnConc326049117789143 .6636 .285 .4312715550 .3332 .54aaa-TFT64-S romofluorobenzene8 .67648457Decane9 .421359Sur Rec 2( % )136 .504 .685Sur_ Rec_1( % )True GRO-7 .1657 .1657 .1657 .16590 .77 .16581 .37 .1657 .165SampleName : 113552 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VS01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 03 :44 :22 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM100 .00_90 .0080 .00 -70 .00 -:s 60 .00 50 .00 -I40 .00 30 .0020 .00 10 .000 .000 .00T2 .006 .40MinutesIio .ooTSampleName 113552 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 03 :44 :22 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep _Lot 0813VS01 Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResultsNameRet Time(min)11,4-Difluorobenzene4 .6823aaa-TFTToluene5 .436 .554P & M -Xylene8 .08#54-Bromofluorobenzene8 .67Area(uV* sec)16177118225720351708305804SlnConc35 .171 .000 .200 .1734 .65Amount( PPB )35 .1741 .0000 .198Sur Rec_ 1( )Sur Rec_2(-%- )87 .90 .17434 .64786 .6SampleName : LS Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0813VS01Date Acqui red : 08/14 /97SampleWeig ht : 1 .0000004 : 04 :55 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000I nitials : GSM30 .0028 .0026 .0024 .00 .22 .00 -20 .0018 . 00>FmromKx16 . 00 _N14 .00 .--N12 .00 _I10 .00-8 .00II-6 .00 -IUm4 .002 .00_i1; 1L`-L_L_L_-ION ~ H~k. W1k -1 X . "W,L _LL _ LL _LLL LL LL _LLL LLPL L -1.1-1-0 .00 -0 .80-2.04A06.0Minutesa.o10 .00M-ASampleName LS Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis _Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14 /97 04 : 04 :55 PMSampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0813VS01 Processing Method VDA_FID_0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)344546SinConc1Surrogate2Hexane2 .70684563GRO2 .7022867474 .6914721945 .34True-GRO855 .772855 .7721007 .59Dfluorobenzene5aaa-TFT5 .4412238348 .4464-Bromofluorobenzene8 .677494437 .619 .511089DecaneSur_Rec_2( )151 .8147Sur_Rec-1( % )855 .7'72113 .4855 .772855 .77294 .0855 .772855 .772SampleName : LS Analysis_ Lot : VDA06060813Prep Lot : 0813VS01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 04 : 04 :55 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM450 .00400 .00-350 .00-'m300 .00--mN[ZmAAONwOH250 .00- .0v200 .00--lmmIIq41A150 .00__®N iOmII,qNSEeNt,00w00QmmNoO t-rn0Co- .~ ~ II ~Il~~ . w100 .00_'Nd~AVLn50 .00 --L--J0 .002. 04. 0l_ ___ II UUL1UA,_ .6.0Minutes8.~-- r-- -~---~ _ _-f--- --010 .00SampleName LS Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis _Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 04 : 04 :55 PMSampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0813VS01 Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResultsName#1BenzeneRet Time( min)4 .28Area(uV * sec)40549836 .4036 .39721,4-Difluorobenzene4Toluene6 .551426640140 .54140 .5435Ethylbenzene7 .9121315424 .5924 .592670 -Xylene8 .388 .6729598734052333 .5439 .0433 .53639 .040aaa-TFTP & M -Xylene8 4-Bromofluorobenzene5 .448 .0818011084981940 .82Amount( PPS )4 .693185540SlnConc1 .0087 .6340 .823Sur_Rec_1( % )Sur_Rec_2( % )102 .11 .00087 .63097 .6SampleName : 113553 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 05 :27 :16 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM30 .00_28 .0026 .00_24 .0022 .0020 .00_18 .00__16 .00_14 .0012 .0010 .008 .00I6 .00im4 .00 -U2 .00J0 .00V ~-L _ L2.U _W _0_ L_ L4.:L-V0-LV\4 LL _6. 0Minutes-_>I 11 L IV Vii _LL Q L V8. 0L:LW W U~0 .00A1SampleName 113553Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis-Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 05 :27 :16 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep_ Lot 0814VH01 Processing Method VDA FID- 0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results412345NameSurrogateHexaneGRO5ifluorobenzeneaaa-TFT6 4-BromofluorobenzenejDecaneRet Time(min)2 .712 .71Area(uV*sec )32865972152SlnConc144 .814 .702266583142619998 .7043 .925 .4511345444 . 919 .518198 .6872586Sur Rec_1( W )36 .42Sur Rec-2( 1True GRO853 .888853.888853 .888853 .888109 .891 .1853 .888853 .899853 .888SampleName : 113553 Analysis Lott VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 05127 :16 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM440 .00---mqw420 .00k400 .00380 .00--wa360 . 00_CO340 .00_0320 .00300 .00_mAmN280 .00_C!260 . 00_WA0nH0N240 .00--H.-1N220 .00-wvmd200 . 00180 . 000mN160 .00-t;mNA?C '.[COMWCD Imm140 .00N120 .00-100 .00-1M80 .00 _tV60 .00 _adO0r1WrIArlO0nm offD om NVO:ANOtabwIInA ~ 1 1 111111 A I40 . 00 _l20 .000 . 00-20 .00_0 .00F-T 2. 04. 06 .40MinuteseTo10 .00T--1-_TSampleName 113553 AcqAnalysis Lot VDA06060813Prep _Lot 0814VH01Channel Descr . PIDMeth Set VDA_Mth _ Set Dilution 1 .000Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 05 : 27 :16 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Processing Method VDA_ PID_0606 Initials GSMResults9Name1Benzene21,4-Difluorobenzene345aaa-TFTTolueneEthylbenzene6 -- V& M -Xylene78O -Xylene4-BromofluorobenzeneRet Time(min)4 .294 .705 .45Area(uV*sec)404813SlnConc38 .8917907642 .181682581 .00Amount( PPB )38 .89542 .1761 .0006 .5514124987 .92148 .95148 .95221286026 .2926 .2888 .098 .388 .6885088029577633247193 .9235 .8740 .80Sur_Rec_I(%)Sur_Rec_2(% )105 .493 .92035 .87340 .802102 .0SampleName : 113554 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 05 :47 :49 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeigh t : 1 .0000 0 In itials : GSMA1Iv~V VI 10 .00 -10 .602 . b0-U-Q v4 .40aI6 .40wL f. 11L L _ ILL _Minutes11_'IL8 .00U U L l1 _LLL LI I10 .00SampleName 113554Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_ Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis-Lot VDA06060813Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 05 :47 :49 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0814VH 01 Processing Method VDA_FID _ 0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)ISurrogate2Hexane2 .72705313GRO2 .7222212204 .721358844Difluorobenzene5aaa-TFT64-Bromofiuorobenzene7 -De-cane----3145145 .461081518 .69704799 .521363SlnConcSur Rec_1()Sur Rec_2( )138 .58True GRO840 .132840 .132978 .7141 .8542 .8135 .37840 .132104 .6840 .132840 .13288 .4840 .132840 .132SampleName : 113554Analysis _Lott VDA06060813 Prep Lots 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 05 : 47 :49 PM Channel Deecr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .0000 0 Initials : GSM440 .00_420 .00400 .00380 .00_360 .00-J340 .00320 .00300 .00 1280 .00260 .00_240 .00_220 .00200 .00-180 .00160 . 00140 .00-120 .00-100 .00-80 .0060 .0040 .00 __20 .000 .00-20 .000.02 .404.06.Minutes08 .0010 .00SampleName 113554 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis-Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 05 :47 : 49 PMSampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0814VP01 Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#Name1Benzene3aaa-TFT21,4-Difluorobenzene4Toluene5Ethylbenzene6178P & M -Xylene0 -Xylene4-BromofluorobenzeneRet Time(min)4 .314 .725 .466 .567 .938 .108 .398 .69Area(uV*sec)SinConc40266639 .981628151 .00171600140315821080984371429404832119341 .77Amount( PPS )Sur_Rec_2( )39 .98241 .7661 .000152 .91152 .91396 .2496 .24226 .90Sur_Rec_1(-%- )104 .426 .90436 .8636 .85540 .7440 .736101 .8SampleName : 974607001 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 06 :07 :56 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM28 .00_26 .00- -~24 .0022 .00_20 .00-118 .0016 . 00 --~12 . 00 710 .008 .00 6 .00-I4 .00 -1maro14x1I1C2 .00 -10 .000 .002. 04.06.0Minutes8.010, .00SampleName 974607001 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 06 :07 :56 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0814VH01Processing Method VDA_ FID_0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)1Surrogate2Hexane2 .712414GRODifluorobenzene2 .714 .713155251110605aaa-TFT5 .4612057047 .7264-Bromofluorobenzene8 .696348531 .867Decane9 .53109034295115SlnConcSur Rec_1( 9 )Sur Rec 2! )130 .03True GRO8 .9938 .993139 .0334 .218 .993 .8 .99385 .58 .99379 .68 .9938 .993SampleName : 974607001 Analysis _Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 06 : 07 :56 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM120 .000110 .000100 .00A90 .00H}~N80 .00v70 .00mqHqm60 .00pN0briIdw,qnLn50 .00Hmn40 .00HLn1'30 .0020 .0010 .000 .000.02.04. 06 .40Minutes8 .4010 .00SampleName 974607001 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14 /97 06 : 07 :56 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0814VH01Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)SinConcAmount( PPB )11,4-Difluorobenzene4 .7115958235 .2535 .2472aaa-TFT5 .461794161 .001 .0003Toluene6 .5725180 .250 .2494P & M -Xylene8 .10240650 -Xylene0 .250 .2498 .4012960 .150 .14764-Bromofluorobenzene8 .6930732435 .3735 .370Sur_Rec_1(-%- )Sur_Rec_2(-%- )88 .188 .4SampleName : 974607002 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 06 : 27 :58 PM Channel Descr . : FID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM28 .0026 .0024 .0022 .0020 .0018 .00-116 .00 7AS 14 .00-~!Da12 .00-110 .00--~8 .00 -6 .00 4 .00I~2 .00 -a0 .00 -a0.\)11--02 . 0A-I-4A O6.0Minutes8.010 .'00SampleName 974607002 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 06 :27 :58 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0814VH01 Processing Method VDA_FID_0624 Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)1SurrogateHexane2 .71167613GRO2 .71Difluorobenzene4 .72321934141 .8512020164-Bromofluorobenzene47 .5878 .696210831 .16Decane9 .53975245aaa-TFT292660SlnConc5 .46110351Sur Rec_1( t )Sur Rec 2( )128 .9533 .99True GRO-12 .89912 .89912 .89985 .012 .89977 .912 .89912 .89912 .899130 .001SampleName : 974607002 Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 06 :. 27 :58 PMChannel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000SampleWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM120 .00p110 .00-)100 .0090 .00 -]80 .0070 .00 R 60 .0050 .00 40 .0030 .00 720 .0010 .000 .002 .404. 06 .40Minutes8 .40101.00SampleName 974607002 Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth _Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 06 : 27 :58 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0814VH01 Processing Method VDA _PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)SlnConcAmount( PPB )1,4-Difluorobenzene4 .7215889535 .2235 .2232aaa - TFT5 .461787681 .001 .0003Toluene6 .5711740 .120 .11754-Bromofluorobenzene8 .118 .6911063051070 .1135 .240 .11535 .24214P & M -XyleneSur Rec_1( )Sur Rec 2( )88 .188 .1SampleName : LS Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14/97 09 :28 : 29 PM Channe l Descr . : FID Dilution :Samp leWeight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM1 .00000ISNIIAIISampleName LS Acq Meth Set VDA_Mth_Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 09 : 28 :29 PMSampleWeight 1 .000Prep_Lot 0814VH01 Processing Method VDA_PID _0624Initials GSMChannel Descr . FIDVPH Results#1NameSurrogateRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)HexaneGRO2 .734Difluorobenzene2 .73333986706502229792S4 .73143381aaa-TFT5 .474-DromofluorobenzeneDecane8 .699 .531172612367733441271SlnConcSur_Rec_1Sur_Rec_2147 .16982 .4944 .1646 .4136 .80True-GR0835 .330835 .330835 .330110 .4835 .33092 .0835 .330835 .330835 .330SampleName : LS Analysis Lot : VDA06060813 Prep Lot : 0814VH01Date Acquired : 08/14 / 97 09 : 28 :29 PM Channel Descr . : PID Dilution : 1 .00000Sampleweight : 1 .00000 Initials : GSM450 .00 .E400 .00-350 .00300 .00-A250 .00-II200 .00-111 f"I am150 .00-JIn,°4HE+ I)an100 . 00__1M.-11'A M50 .00 -JOmMIIIN:111IInOdlh0 .000.02 .404. 06 .40Minutes8. 0f.10 .00SampleName LSAcq Meth Set VDA Mth Set Dilution 1 .000Analysis _ Lot VDA06060813 Date Acquired 08/14/97 09 :28 :29 PM SampleWeight 1 .000Prep Lot 0814VH01 Processing Method VDA_PID_0606 Initials GSMChannel Descr . PIDResults#NameRet Time(min)12Benzene1,4-Difluorobenzene4 .33345678aaa - TFTTolueneEthylbenzeneP & M -Xylene0 -Xylene4-Bromofluorobenzene4 .735 .476 .577 .938 .108 .408 .69Area(uV*sec )4063321858581781251431793213993855500298203340491SlnConc36 .8841 .351 .00142 .6224 .9689 .2034 .1639 .47Amount( PPS )36 .87841 .3481 .000Sur_Rec 1( %) -Sur Rec 2(_g )-103 .4142 .62224 .96389 .19934 .16339 .47298 .7Semi -Volatiles. :Sample :QC Summary Page ::Cl'&E: Environmental Services Inc .QA/QC Data DeliverablesWorkorder Number :Analysis Lot Number :sfReizzagilrExtraction Lot Number.XX)( 3/2 011 Y-1-19 ;IAnalysis : Diesel Range Organics/Residual Range OrganicsMethod : AKI02/103Matrix : LiquidAnalysis:Assurance Notes :Acceptance Criteria:Yes No N/AA . Bolding Time :All criteria met .All criteria met.All criteria met.B.Surrogates :All criteria met.Q14 days from sample collection forTCLP extraction.14 days from sample collection (or7 days from TCLP extraction) forprep extraction.40 days from extraction for analysis.50% - 150% RecoveryC . Notes :I certify that except as specifically noted in this report, all statements and data appearing in this report are in conformanceWith the provisions of the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) prepared by this firm and on file with the Alaska Department of ,Environmental Conservation .Analyst's Signature :. Date :Printed Name .&Reviewer' s Signature:/~=9~Printed Name & Date :-/ r'~ fSemi-Volatiles Quality Control Summary PageCr&E Enviranmental::Services Inc.I QA/QC*Data Deliverables .Analysis Date :..g / y q 0Analysis Lot Number:Extraction Lot NumberAnalysis:Diesel Range Organics/Residual Range OrganicsMethod : AK102/103Matrix:LiquidAssurance Notes :Analysis:YesC/ZLodF/f20Acceptance Criteria :No'A.Calibration :All criteria met.B.Method Blank:All criteria met.All concentrations arc below thePractical Quantitation LimitC.Continuing Calibration Verification Std :All criteria met .IO .995 .Relative Standard Deviation Staraard10Standard01/22 9719 :03 :1101 ;22,9701/22 / 97'_3 :42 :0612Standard19 :53 :4215Standard01/22/ 9701/22 / 97 21 : 17 :2411Standard13Standard161Standard181921222324252728293031StanarStandardStandard; StandardStandardStandardStandardStandardStandardStandardStandardStandardStandard19 :20 :59SATINSCR01220_22SATIN-2SCR01220122SATIN-2SCRO1220122SATIN-2SATIN-2SATIN-201/22 / 97 21 :56 :12 SATIN - 20/29 2 : 4 :5 SATIN 01/22 / 97 23 : 13 :36 SATIN-201 /22/97 23 :52 :16 SATIN-201 /23/97 01 :09 :43 SATIN-201/23/97 01 : 48 :13 SATIN - 201 /23/97 02 :27 :04 ; SATIN-201 /23/97 03 : 05 :38 SATIN-201 /23/97 03 :44 : 341 SATIN-201 723/97 05 :02 : 01 ; SATIN-201/ 23/97 05 :40 :44 SATIN-2~ 01/ 23/97 06 :19 : 24 1 SATIN-201 /23/97 06 :58 :2 5 SATIN - 27 07-.3- -7 :30 SATIN-20172--3T9-SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCR01220122SCR01220122SCR01220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCR01220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122! SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCRO1220122SCR01220122Analysis-Lot-R : SCRO1220814 _ SampleName . . C10-C44 Prep Lot-R :0814EB01N140 .00_120 .00 100 .00-JO80 .00 --60 .00 -p0 .d0-5 .0015 .00MinutesJLJ~--T20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear _ FIDSampleNameR C10-C44Acq Meth Set SC AK102 AK103Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814Date Acquired 08/14/97 03 : 40 :40 PMPrep Lot R 0814EB01Processing Method SCR AK102 AK103S _ 0122 MI- r 3 R 0 .0000Dilution -R1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 . 00000Initials WAASurr 4 R 0 .0000DRO and RRO Results#NameRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)Sln Conc-TRUERRO-RTrueDiesel_R1SURROGATE AK10224142SURROGATE AK1031 .6441964 .7428Diesel2 .0734126 .37143407012 .573104033311964 .74285 alpha Androst5C2415 .773414217 .8001 .3871964 .74284126 .371444128 .0156RRO2920682718 .7203861840DTC20 .2001966 .8151964 .74288C3640701 .62122 .5079288121964 .74284126 .37141964 .74284126 .3714y4126 .37141964 .74284126 .37141964 .74284126 .37144126 .3714Analysis Lot R :SCRO1220814SampleNamek :CCVB 12500Prep-Lot-R :0814EB01200 . 00180 .00_160 .00-1140 .00__120 .00Mu0L0 .00-----------------------%0l0C4.i10 .0015 .00Minutes00I1TI--125 .00TChannel Descr . Rear _FID SampleNameR CCVB 12500 Dilution -R 1 .00000Acq Meth Set SC _AK102_AK103 Analysis _Lot_R SCRO1220814SampleWeightR 1 .00000Date Acquired 08/14/97 04 :18 :06 PM Prep Lot R 0814EB01 Initials WAAProcessing Method SCR AK102 AK103S_01225Ri1-r 3 R 0 .0000Surr 4 R 0 .0000DRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)4Name1SURROGATE AK1022SURROGATE AK103j3Diesel45 alpha Androst5C256RRO7DTC8C361Area(uV * sec)TRUERRO-R12229537 7048 .526120 .981511 .0171 .9203328388715 .77313206 .960120 .981512229540 .944--- -18 . -1 306569518 .130_Sln- Conc241317122 .901---20--.247 - --3 7701 .50122 .660171852120 .9815120 .9815120 .9815120 .9815120 .9815120 .9815TrueDiesel-R13158 .434013158 .434013158 .434013158 .434013158 .434013158 .434013158 .434013158 .4340Analysis-Lot-R :SCRO122O814S ampleNamei. . SFIB 100/100 Prep Lot R : O814EB01_280 .00_UNA260 .00-nin240 . 00 _160 .00 7140 .00-120 .00_;100 .0080 .0060 .00 40 .00 -120 .00 -111-0 .000 .00ir5 .010 .0015 .00Minutes20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear _ FIDSampleNameR SFIB 100 / 100Acq Meth Set SC_AK102 _AK103Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 04 : 55 :37 PMPrep_ Lot R 0814EB01Processing Method SCR_AK102_AK103S_0122_SRi '1-r_3_R 100 .0000Surr 4 R 100 .0000Dilution -R 1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 .00000Initials WAADRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)Area(uv * sec)#Name1SURROGATE AK1023300382SURROGATE AK103130 .9583Diesel450174229 .271501940199 .16947 .977Sln Conc-5 alpha Androst15 .7705C2819 .7436RRO62968719 .743707816360 .487DTC20 .1574501748C3622 .893179 .26230102330038110 .497Surr(~Rec _3)Surr Rec_ 4(%)TRUERRO-R131 .215668 .2105131 .215668 .2105131 .2156110 .497131 .2156179 .262TrueDiesel_R68 .210568 .2105131 .215668 .2105131 .215668 .2105131 .215668 .2105131 .215668 .2105Analysis L ot R : SCRO1220814SampleName _ . CCVR 10000 Prep Lot R :, 0814EB0 1280 .00-260 .00 .1240 .00--_220 .00200 .00-y180 .00_160 .00140 .00-A!120 .00--100 .0080 .00 -60 .0040 .00 -20 .00 0 .000.TTT05. 0Ir 15 .00Minutesr 20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear FIDSampleNameR CCVR 10000Acq Meth Set SC AK102 AK103Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814Date Acquired 08/14 / 97 05 : 33 :11 PMPrep Lot_R 0814EB01Processing Method SCR AK102 AK103S_0122j'?r 3 R 0 .0000Surr 4 R 0 .0000Dilution- R 1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 . 00000Initials WAADRO and RRO Results#NameRet Time(min)1SURROGATE AK1032SURROGATE AK1023Diesel415 .6975 alpha Androst5C256RRO7DTC8C36 -Area(uV * sec)533552Sln Conc-TRUE-RRO-RTrueDiesel-R271 .73510472 .217710 .2451668 .8775423168810472 .21771668 .877515 .8031679 .12310472 .2177258208 .6451668 .877518 .127321821810472 .21771668 .877520 .04010472 .2177210957411668 .877520 .24310743 .95310472 .2177533552212 .4641668 .8 77510472 .21771668 .877510472 .21771668 .877525820____22 .66783552Analysis Lot R : SCRO1220814SampleNamer >_ LSB 8000 Prep_Lot_R : 0814EB01480 .00__7460 .00440 .00 420 .00400 .00 :_380 .00_ .360 .00__340 .00320 .00:300 .00280 .00 ::0140 .00120 .00100 .0080 .0060 .0040 .0020 .00 0 .000 .005. 0r10 .0015 .00MinutesT20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear-FIDAcq Meth SetSCDate AcquiredAK102SampleNameRAK10308/15 / 97 02 : 17 :52LSBAnalysisLotRAMLotRPrep8000DilutionSCRO12208140814EB01InitialsDRO RearArea(uV*sec)#Name1SURROGATE AK10227055627 .996SURROGATE AK1038799 .55883Diesel33201 .6918799 .5588410 .990222470088827 .5555 alpha Androst15 .780705568799 .558818 .1305709723 .6228799 .55885C256RRO78Sln Conc-18 .130DTC18561894 .53420 .23033201 .322C3622 .6531252021 .000000SampleWeightRProcessing Method SCR AK102 AK103S - 0122 R7 Surr_3 R 0 .0Ret Time(min)RTrue Diesel R-8799 .55888799 .55888799 .55888799 .5588WAA1 .00000A a_lvsi. s _Lot-T-i-R_ !SS_R_ O1__22_ 0814_Sampl eNamek :LSB 8nnn Pr ep L ot R :0 814ER0'1480 .00460 .00_440 .00420 .00--400 .00--380 .00 "360 .00340 .00320 .00300 .00=280 .00_260 .00_240 .00_220 .00--.200 .00180 .00-1160 .00_140 .00120 .00_100 .00 _80 .00In60 .00 _-40 .00 120 .00 00 .00 -10 .00•14AOM10 .0015 .00Minutesto%DO20 .00MUO%0MrqNn00L------------------------------ '45 .00UNUTNI25 00Channel Descr .AcqMethSetRearSC_FIDAK102SampleNameRAK103Date Acquired 08/15/97 09 :29 :20AMAnalysisPrepLSBLotLotRR8000DilutionSCRO12208140814EB01RSampleWeightRInitialsWAAProcessing Method SCR AK102 AK103S-0122 R7 Surr_3 R 1 .0DRO RearRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)#Name1SURROGATE AK102391282SURROGATE AK10315 .5263Diesel5 alpha Androst25601 .30445 C256RRO7DTC8 C3610.987Sin Conc-15 .83021811003391288654 .54918 .16014567374 .19120 .23325601 .01918 .16022 .660495449357013 .100Surr R'c_3aTrue Diesel R8639 .02358639 .02351310 .01 .0000008639 .02358639 .02358639 .02358639 .02358639 .02358639 .02351 .00000Analys is-L ot R : SCRO1220814 S ampleNamek .BLK 3120 Prep Lot R ®XXX310445 .00 . .40 .00 _135 .00-30 .0025 .00_20 .00 .InNU15 .00%0mUMa,1'10 .00_1wQ- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I5 .00b0 .00-5 .00-- 0InUHqhMIn.05 .6010 .0015 .00MinutesinON20 .00I25 .00~SampleNameR BLK 3120Channel Descr . Rear_ FIDAnalysis Lot R SCRO1220814Acq Meth Set SC _AK102 AK103Date Acquired 08/15 / 97 11 : 24 :41 AMPrep Lot R XXX3104Processing Method SCR AK102 AK103S _ 0122 M'_-r 3 R 100 .0000Surr 4 R 100 .0000Dilution R 1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 .00000Initials WAADRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)Sin Conc-Surr Rec-3Surr Rec_4J)Name1SURROGATE AK10225162599 .84486 .860974 .97992SURROGATE AK103232023118 .16886 .860974 .97993Diesel440588- i5 .720 - -174 .82486 .860974 .9799-i5 --alpha Androst86 .860974 .97995C2515 .75718 .4932516254793984 .2446RRO88 .493402574205 .0297DTC20 .13323202392 .3938C3622 .693332884 .244TRUE RRO R- -86 .860986 .860992 .39386 .860986 .8609True Diesel R-74 .979974 .979974 .979974 .9799Analysis-Lot-R :SCRO1220814SampleName , . . LCS 3120 Prep LotR : XXX31O4280 .00 __260 .00- .240 .00--A'220 .00200 .00in180 .00'160 .00-140 . 00__120 .00--100 .0080 .00._j60 .00 _-0 .005.010 .0015 .00Minutesr20 .00T25 .00Channel Descr . Rear _ FID SampleNameR LCS 3120 Dilution -R 1 .00000Acq Meth Set SC -AK102-AK103 Analysis_Lot_R SCRO1220814SampleWeightR 1 .00000Date Acquired 08/15/97 12 :02 : 30 PMPrep _Lot R XXX3104Initials WAAProcessing Method SCR AK102 AK103S_0122SSfj-r 3 R 100 .0000Surr 4 R 100 .0000DRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)Area(uV * sec)4Name1SURROGATE AK1022292367116 .010SURROGATE AK1033274903Diesel166 .789- i6 -.990 -- ---1968 16857809 .64229236797 .8844565 alpha AadrostPRODTC15 .763Sln Conc-20 .12397 554844988 .79020 .147327490130 .409Surr Rec _3(g )Surr Rec_4(g)TRUERRO_R4822 .00094822 .00094822 .000997 .8844822 .0009130 .4094822 .00094822 .0009True _Diesel_R7693 .63127693 .63127693 .63127693 .63127693 .631-j--7693 .6312Analysis Lot R : SCRO1220814SampleName ._ . LCSD 3120 Prep Lot R : XXX3115280 .00---260 .00- .240 .00--!220 .00 200 .00180 .00160 .00 .140 .00120 .00__100 .0080 .00 60 .00 _ -~N440 .00A20 .00~nnu1u0 .00 0 .005.010 .0015 .00Minutes20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear_FIDSampleNameR LCSD 3120Acq Meth Set SC AK102 AK103Analysis_Lot R SCRO1220814Date Acquired 08/15/97 12 :39 :51 PMPrep-Lot-R XXX3115Processing Method SCR AK102 AK103S_0122 j7 -r 3 R 100 .0000Surr 4 R 100 .0000Dilution -R 1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 .00000Initials WAADRO and RRO Results0Name1SURROGATE AK102234Ret Time(min)SURROGATE AK103Diesel5 alpha Androst10 .99015 .767Area(uV*sec)Sln- Conc320619127 .221297627151 .580205348338148 .180320619107 .3435RRO20 .1276DTC98853305034 .54820 .1472976277C3622 .673118 .51791741Surr Rec_3Surr Rec_4TRUE RRO_R4882 .96798020 .95954882 .96798020 .95954882 .9679107 .3434882 .9679118 .517True Diesel R4882 .96794882 .96794882 .96798020 .95958020 .95958020 .95958020 .95958020 .9595. .na lys is Lot R : SCRO1220814SampleNameR .x74607001Prep_Lot_R : XXX311545 .0040 . 00 _35 .00_-130 .00-25 .00 -20 .0015 .00-10 .00-5 .00 -0 .00 ----5 .000.0~~~5 .0010 .0015 .00Minutes20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear _ FIDSampleNameR 974607001Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814Acq Meth Set SC _AK102 _AK103Date Acquired 08/15/97 01 : 17 :12 PMPrep Lot R XXX3115Processing Method SCR _AK102 AK103S- 0122 j1 r_3_R 100 .0000Surr 4 R 100 .0000Dilution -R 1 .00000SampleWeightR 1 .00000Initials WAADRO and RRO ResultsName#1Ret Time(min)Area(uV*sec)Sln Conc-Surr Rec -3Surr Rec-4TRUE RRO R- -True Diesel R-SURROGATE AK10220949883 .128109 .7203- SURROGATE AK103213045108 .503103 .1786109 .7203103 .1786109 .7203103 .1786109 .7203103 .1786109 .7203103 .1786109 .7203103 .1786109 .7203103 .17863 Diesel15 .723469527186 .30745 alpha Androst15 .75320949870 .1405RRO19 .933428481218 .2236DTC20 .13321304584 .8367C3622 .663137270 .14084 .836-nalysis_Lot_R : SCRO1220814280 .00-_.260 .00-240 .00220 .00_-a140 .00_-~120 .00-1S ampleNameR .SB 8000 Prep Lot_R : XX X3115Channel Descr . Rear -FIDAcq Meth Set SC_AK102 AK103Date Acquired 08/15 / 97 02 :07 : 19 PMSampleName1 LSB 8000Dilution R 1 .00000Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814Prep_ Lot R XXX3115Processing Method SCR AK102 _AK103S_ 0122 AT r_3_R 0 .0000Surr 4 R 0 .0000SampleWeightR 1 .00000Initials WAADRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)Area(uV*sec)#Name1SURROGATE AK10319702SURROGATE AK1021 .00364 .3820688868642 .24203Diesel10 .99027 .33464 .38208642 .242045 alpha l-~ndrost218488728669 .57615 .7806888664 .38208642 .24205RRO18 .15723 .06364 .3820C2565 .3858642 .24206128383434138642 .2420718 .15764 .3820DTC20 .23764 .38208C3622 .66019708642 .242064 .38208642 .242083001Sln Conc-0 .784TRUERRO-R64 .3820TrueDiesel-R8642 .2420ialysis Lot R : S CRO122 0814eSampleNameR SR 5000 Prep Lot R :0814EB013280 .00 ._)260 .00240 .00-~220 .00--140 .00-120 .00___,'100 .0080 .00 -SnC460 .00 -NN40 .00 _~20 .00_11/I111I1I11III1I- - - - - - ' - - -V- - - - - - - - 1' - - - - - - A- - - - - - - - -I0 .000 .005.010 .0015 .00Minutes20 .0025 .00Channel Descr . Rear _ FID SampleNameR LSR 5000 Dilution R 1 .00000Acq Meth Set SC _AK102 AK103 Analysis Lot R SCRO1220814 SampleWeightR 1 .00000Date Acquired 08/15/97 02 :44 :34 PM Prep Lot R 0814EB01 Initials WAAProcessing Method SCR AK102 AK103S-01225M'tr 3 R 0 .0000Surr 4 R 0 .0000DRO and RRO ResultsRet Time(min)Area(uV* sec)#Name1SURROGATE AK102222342SURROGATE AK-1038 .865814 .91343Diesel998155240 .146620760685240 .14665 alpha Androst18 . 22715921487 .480814 .9134C25223425240 .1466515 .790823 .779814 .9134415 .70050 .8355240 .1466814 .91346RRODTC10388838814 .9134720 .0375240 .146620 .17399815Sln Conc-TRUE-RRO-R5290 .9825240 .146639 .7475240 .1466TrueDiesel-R814 .9134814 .9134Semi-Volatiles Sample QC SummaryCT&E Environmental ServicesQA/QC Data De liverablesWorkorder Number :a- . 4&Analysis :Method :8081Matrix :c-(Polychlorinated BiphenylsEPALiquidAnalysis :Analysis Lot Number : W02-34[!.XaExtraction Lot Number:)C)(X 31( DAcceptance Criteria :Assurance Notes:Yes No N/AA . Holding Time :All criteria met .XEE1All criteria met.ElAll criteria met.13 . Surrogates :C . Notes :All criteria met.®aQZ F114 days from sample collection forTCLP extraction .7 days from sample collection (orTCLP extraction ) for prep extraction.40 days from extraction for analysis.10% - 87% Recovery for Tetra or59% - 122% Recovery for Deca./ certify that except as specifically noted in this report, all statements and data appearing in this report are in conformancewith the provisions of the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) prepared by this firm and on file with the Al9skp Department ofEanvironmental Conservation .Analyst's Signature :Reviewer 's Signature :Printed Name & Date Lizhen ZhangPrinted Name & Date:Semi -Volatiles Quality Control Summary PageCT&E Environmental Services . Inc .QA/QC Data DeliverablesAnalysis Date :$ llt_lq_Analysis :Polychlorinated Biphenyls-2Analysis Lot , Number : SzRv7 3 4144Extraction Lot Number :X x X 3 l 10Method : EPA 8081LiquidMatrix :Acceptance Criteria :Assurance Notes:Analysis:Yes No'RA2 >0 .99A . Calibration :All criteria met .®F7B . Method Blank :All criteria met.®0C . Continuing Calibration Verification Std :All criteria met .©F7D . Laboratory Control Sample :All criteria met.0050% - 139% Recovery for Aroclor 124244% - 116% Recovery for Aroclor 125439%- 110% Recovery for Aroclor 1260E . Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate :All criteria met.®Q50% - 139% Recovery for Aroclor 12420±25% Relative Percent DifferenceAll criteria met.All criteria met.F. QC Surrogates:G . Notes :®a Greater ThanACZACZ Laboratories , Steamboat, COAELF American Environmental Laboratories , Pensacola, FLAENP American Environmental Network , Portland, ORALTC Alta Analytical Lab Incorporated, El Dorado Hills, CAAPPL Agriculture & Priority Pollutants Laboratories , Fresno, CAARDL Applied Research and Development Lab, Inc ., (ARDL) Mt . Vernon, ILARI Analytical Resources , Inc ., Seattle, WAATCA Analytica, Anchorage, AKATCC Analytica, COATIA Analytical Technologies, Inc ., Anchorage, AKATIR Analytical Technologies, Inc ., Renton, WAATIS Analytical Technologies, Inc ., San Diego, CAATOX Air Toxics LTD, Folsom, CABCLB BC Laboratories, Bakersfield, CABD Blank Spike DuplicateBoreochem Mobile Lab & Analytical ServicesBMLABRS Brelje & Race , Santa Rosa, CABS Blank SpikeCASA Columbia Analytical Services , Inc., Anchorage, AKCASB Columbia Analytical Services, Inc ., Bothell, WACASK Columbia Analytical Services, Inc ., Kelso, WACC Continuing Calibration VerificationCCAC Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc ., Camarillo, CACCSJ Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services , Inc., San Jose, CACDMCDM Federal Programs CorporationCHEM Chemic Laboratory, San Diego, CACKY CKY Inc ., Torrance, CACLPA Contract Laboratory Program Accuracy Limits for Spiked SamplesCLPCC CLP Continuing Calibration Acceptance CriteriaCLPIC CLP Initial Calibration Acceptance CriteriaCLPLR Contract Laboratory Program Precision for Lab ReplicatesCLPP Contract Laboratory Program Precision Limits for Spiked SamplesCLTP Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc ., Pleasanton, CACS Client SampleCTB Curtis & Tompkins, Berkeley, CACTE CT&E Environmental Services, Inc ., Anchorage, AKCTEC CT&E Environmental Services, Inc ., Charleston, NCDDL Method Defined Detection LimitDMP D & M Laboratories, Petaluma, CADOWL Dowl Engineering Alaska Test Labs, Anchorage, AKEBAEBAECEN Ecology & Environment, Inc .ECI EcoChem, Inc .EQL Estimated Quantitation LimitETCS ETC, Santa Rosa, CAFORA Forensic AnalyticalIC Initial Calibration VerificationCodeNameIDL Instrument Detection LimitIN Internal StandardKDKnown ( External Reference Material ) DuplicateLAB1 Laboratory 1LAB2 Laboratory 2LAL Lockheed Analytical Laboratory , Las Vegas, NVLASLAS Laboratories, Inc .LB Lab BlankLCC Laboratory Continuing Calibration AccuracyLDC Laboratory Data ConsultantsLIC Laboratory Initial Calibration AccuracyLLD Lowest Level of Detection _LLR Laboratory Established Precision for Lab ReplicatesLR Lab ReplicateLSA Laboratory Sample Accuracy for Spiked SamplesLSP Laboratory Sample Precision for Spiked SamplesLTL Laucks Testing Lab, Inc .MASA MultiChem Analytical Services , Anchorage, AKMASR MultiChem Analytical Services , Renton, WAMDL Method Detection LimitMEA Method Established Accuracy for Spiked SamplesMECC Method Established Continuing Calibration Acceptance CriteriaMEIC Method Established Initial Calibration Acceptance CriteriaMELR Method Established Precision for Laboratory ReplicatesMEP Method Established Precision for Spiked SamplesMLR Matrix Laboratory Replicate PrecisionMSGC/MS Result - Value Confirmed Using GC/MSMS Lab Matrix SpikeMSA Matrix Spike Accuracy for Spiked SamplesMSP Matrix Spike Precision for Spiked SamplesMSSL Mountain States Analytical , Salt Lake City, UTNA Not ApplicableNA Not Available - Result Not AvailableNC Non-Client SampleNCAB North Creek Analytical , Bothell, WANCAP North Creek Analytical , Beaverton, ORND Not DetectedNETB NET Burbank, Burbank, CANETC NET Cambridge , Bedford, MANET Portland, Portland, ORNETONETS NET Pacific , Inc., Santa Rosa, CANR Not Reported - Data Not Reported .NTL Northern Testing Laboratories , Anchorage, AKNU Not Usable - Data Not UsableOEIR OnSite Environmental , Inc ., Redmond, WAPAC Pacific Analytical , Carlsbad, CAPARA Paragon Analytics, Inc ., COPHLE Philip EnvironmentalPIC Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., Camarillo, CAPIHB Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., Huntington Beach, CAPIL Pace Analytical Services , Inc., Lenexa, KSPIM Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., Minneapolis, MNPIN Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., Novato, CAPINY Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., New York, NYPIP Pace Analytical Services , Inc ., Pittsburgh, PACode NamePITS Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Tampa Bay, FLPIWF Pace Analytical Services, Inc ., Wappingers Falls, NYPQL Practical Quantitation LimitPR Primary Result - The Primary Result for a ParameterPRL Parameter Range LimitQALA Quality Analytical Laboratores, Inc ., Montgomery, ALQALC Quality Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Redding, CAQES Quanterra Environmental Services, Santa Ana, CAQESA Quanterra Environmental Services, Arvada, COQuanterra Environmental Services, North Canton, OHQESCQESF Quanterra Environmental Services, Tampa, FLQESG Quanterra Environmental Services, Garden Grove,QESI Quanterra Environmental Services, City of Industry, CAQESJ Quanterra - Research Triangle Park Lab ., Raleigh, NCQESK Quanterra Environmental Services, Knoxville, TNQESL Quanterra Environmental Services, St . Louis, MOQESN Quanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKQESP Quanterra Environmental Services, Pittsburg, PAQESR Quanterra Environmental Services, Richland, WAQESS Quanterra Environmental Services, Sacramento, CAQEST Quanterra Environmental Services, Austin, TXQESZ Quanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKRM Known (External Reference Material)RS Reagent SolventSAS Sound Analytical Services, Inc ., Tacoma, WASBSA Both Reagent and Matrix Sample Accuracy for SurrogatesSBSP Both Reagent and Matrix Sample Precision for SurrogatesSC3S S-Cubed, A Division of Maxwell Laboratories , Inc ., San Diego, CASCLA Contract Laboratory Program Limits for Surrogate AccuracySCLP Contract Laboratory Program Limits for Surrogate PrecisionSD Lab Matrix Spike DuplicateSLSA Laboratory Sample Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSLSP Laboratory Sample Limits for Precision for SurrogatesMethod Established Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSMEASMEP Method Established Limits for Precision for SurrogatesSMSA Sample Matrix Limits for Accuracy for SurrogatesSMSP Sample Matrix Limits for Precision for SurrogatesSPEC Spectra Laboratory, Inc ., Tacoma, WAStandard Reference Accuracy Defined by Agency/ ManufacturerSRADSRMA Standard Reference Material Accuracy Limits Determined by LabSRMP Standard Reference Material Precision Limits Determined by LabSRPDStandard Reference Precision Defined by Agency /ManufacturerSU SurrogateSWAG Shannon & Wilson, Inc ., Anchorage, AKSWLB Southwest LaboratorySWRI Southwest Resarch Institute, San Antonio, TXTI Tentatively Identified CompoundTRID Triangle Laboratories, Inc ., Durham, NCti11CT&E Environmental Services Inc .D Laboratory DivisionLaboratory Analysis ReportAugust 15, 1997Victor HarrisMontgomery Watson Americas Inc4100 Spenard RdAnchorage, AK 99517-2901Client NameMontgomery Watson Americas IncProject ID COE-Gambell-New Well [9740761PrintedAugust 15, 1997Enclosed are the analytical results associated with the above project.As required by the state of Alaska and the USEPA, a formal Quality Assurance/Quality Control Programis maintained by CT&E. A copy of our Quality Control Manual that outlines this program is availableat your request.Except as specifically noted, all statements and data in this report are in conformance to theprovisions set forth in our Quality Assurance Program Plan.If you have any questions regard this report or if we can be of any other assistance, please callyour CT&E Project Manager at (9n 562-2343 .The following descriptors may be found on your report which will serve to further qualify the data .U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected.J - Indicates an estimated value that falls below PQL, but is greater than the MDL.B - Indicates the analyte is found in the blank associated with the sample.* - The analyte has exceeded allowable limits .GT - Greater ThanD - Secondary DilutiomLT - Less Thaw- Surrogate out of rangy200 W . Potter Drive, Anchorag.. AK 99618-1606 - Tel: (907) 562-2343 Fax : (907) 561-53013180 Pager Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709-6471 - Tel: (907) 474-8658 Fax: (907) 474-9685ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA . CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA . ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN. MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY, OHIO, WEST VIRGINIACT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .# 974076001Montgomery Watson Americas IncClient NameCOE-Gambell-New WellProject Name/#Client PO# 605Printed Date/Time08/15/97 17 :26Collected Date/Time 07/24/97 08 :00Received DateJTime 07/28/97 08 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . EdeClient Sample ID 97GAM001 NVWMatrixOrdered ByWater ( Surface, Eff., Ground)PWSIDReleased By It`sample Remarks :ParameterResultsPQLUnits MethodAllowable Prop AnalysisLimitsDateDatelnitAK102Dirsel Range Organics0 .1240 .101 mg/L77 .1%AK102 DRO07/29/9T 07/30/97 WAASurrogates5a Androstane csurr>AK102 DRO (50-150) 07/29/97 07/30/97Semi-Volatiles Sample QC Summary PageCT&E Environmental Services Inc..QA/QC Data DeliverablesWorkorder Number :SCRotZZO73 0xPc 30{Extraction Lot Number :vu x(* 7t(57LAnalysis : Diesel Range OrganicsMethod : AKI02Matrix :Analysis Lot Number :LiquidAnalysis :Assurance Notes : Acceptance Criteria :Yes No N/AA . Holding rime :All criteria met.All criteria met.All criteria met.B . Surrogates :Allcriteriamet.014 days from sample collection forTCLP extraction .7 days from sample collection (orTCLP extraction) for prep extraction .40 days from extraction (orcollection time if oil) for analysis.50% - 150% RecoveryC . Notes :I certify that except as speeiftcallv notedin this report, all statements and data appearing in this report are in conformancewith the provisions of the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) prepared by this firm and on file with the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.Analyst' s Signature :Reviewer's Signature :- -Printed Name & Date :Printed Name & Date :Semi-Volatiies Quality Contro l Summary Page.Cf&E Environmental Services Inc .QAIQC Data . . Deliverables- 3,0 - 47Analysis Date :Analysis :Method :Matrix :Analysis Lot Number:Extraction Lot Number:Diesel Range OrganicsAK102LiquidAssurance Notes :Analysis :SCRo' tLo7;~Yx/3d a8Acceptance Criteria :Yes NoA . Calibration :All criteria met.ME]Correlation Coefficient >/=0 .995,Relative Standard Deviation -
ACAT FOIA Repository 6
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 6, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 23, 1998
Pages: 123
Document Title: Final Phase II Remedial Investigation
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
This report presents the results of the Phase II Remedial Investigation (RI) performed at the Gambell Site, during July and August 1996. Five sites were included in Phase II: North Beach (1), Former Military Housing (2), Former Communications Site (3), Sevuokuk Mountain (4), and Former Tramway Site (5). A summary of remediations is included.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 6, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 23, 1998
Pages: 123
Document Title: Final Phase II Remedial Investigation
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
This report presents the results of the Phase II Remedial Investigation (RI) performed at the Gambell Site, during July and August 1996. Five sites were included in Phase II: North Beach (1), Former Military Housing (2), Former Communications Site (3), Sevuokuk Mountain (4), and Former Tramway Site (5). A summary of remediations is included.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat6SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 6," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FINALPHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONGAMBELL, ALASKAPrepared for:u.s. Army Engineer District, Alaska (Alaska District)December 23,1998Prepared by:Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517Montgomery Watson Project No. 1189010.15090440Contract No. DACA85-98-D-0007F1OAK069603__03.10_0012_a200-1 eNPDL WO# 96-0313TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARYES-l1.INTRODUCTION1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES1.2 PROJECT DESCRIP110N1.3 SITE DESCRIP110NIBACKGROUND INFORMATION1.3.1 Location1.3.2 Site Description1.3.3 Site History1.3.4 Previous Investigations1.4 REGIONAL SETIING1.4.1 Climate1.4.2 Topography1.4.3 Geology1.4.4 Hydrogeology1.4.5 Hydrology1.4.6 Demography and Land Use1.4.7 Ecology and Sensitive Environments1.4.8 Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources1.5 INVESTIGATIVE SITE DESCRIPTIONS1.5.1 Site 1 - North Beach1.5.2 Site 2 - Former Military Housing/Operations Site1.5.3 Site 3 - Former Communications Site1.5.4 Site 4 - Sevuokuk Mountain1.5.5 Site 5 - Former Tramway Site1.5.6 Site 6 - Military Landfill1.5.7 Site 7 - Former Military Power Facility1.5.8 Site 8 - West Beach/Army Landfill1.5.9 Site 9 - Asphalt Barrel Cache1.5.10 Site 10 - Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System1.5.11 Site 11 - Communication Cable Route1.5.12 Site 12 - Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site1.5.13 Site 13 - Former Radar Power Station1.5.14 Site 14 - Navy Plane Crash Site1.5.15 Site 15 - Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial Site1.5.16 Site 16 - Gambell Municipal Building Site1.5.17 Site 17 - Army Landfills1.5.18 Site 18 - Former Main Camp1.5.19 Background Site1-11-21-21-31-31-41-41-41-61-61-71-71-81-91-101-101-111-121-121-131-141-151-171-181-181-191-191-201-201-211-211-211-221-221-231-231-23INVESTIGATION APPROACH AND PROCEDURES2·12.2.1 GENERAL FIELD OPERATIONS2.1:1 Site Reconnaissance2.1.2 Radia:' -.In ReconnaissanceFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation. Gambell, AlaskaDACA85-98-D-007 - DO 00042-12-12-1o page i2.1.3 North Beach Debris Exposure Reconnaissance2.1.4 Sampling Procedures2.2 QUALITY ASSURANCFlQUALITY CONTROL2.3 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE3.4.5.RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION3.1 SITE 2 - FORMER MILITARY HOUSING/OPERATIONS SITE3.2 SITE 3 - FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BURIAL AREA3.3 SITE 4 - SEVUOKUK MOUNTAIN3.3.1 Area 4B - Former Air Force Radar Site3.3.2 Area 4D - Transformers in Mountainside Drainage2-22-22-22-33-13-13-1· 3-23-23-2:SITE EVALVATION4.1 GATIlERINFORMATION4.2 COMPARE RESULTS TO BENCHMARK4.3 DETERMINE WHETIlER EXPOSURE PATRW AYEXISTS4.4 FURTIlER ACTION4-14-1.4-1.4-14-2REMEDIAL ACTION ..........•.............•........•.........•......•.•....•.••.......................................... 5-15.15.25.35.45.5APPLICABLE REGULATORY CRITERIAAREAS RECOMMENDED FOR CLEANUPRECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE FOR TIlE INTERIM REMOVAL ACTION oFCONIHTRWRECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE FOR TIlE REMOV AL ACTION OF BDIDRRECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE FOR SOIL REMOVAL AT SITE 4/AREA 4B5-15-15-15-25-36.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6-17..REFERENCES7-1APPENDICESAppendix AAppendix BAppendix CAppendix DField FormsLaboratory Analytical Results SummaryAlaska District NPD Laboratory CQARSummary of Applicable Regulatory CriteriaFINAL Phase 1I Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page iiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1Figure 1-2Figure 1-3Figure 1-4Figure 2-1Figure 2-2Figure 3-1Figure 3-2Figure 3-3Figure 4-1Vicinity Map - Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaLocation Map - Gambell, AlaskaSite Locations - Gambell, AlaskaAreas of Concern - Sites 2, 3, and 4 - Gambell, AlaskaPhotographs of Selected Sites and Acti vitiesDebris Exposure at North BeachSite 2 and Site 3 Sample LocationsSite 4 (Area 4B) Sample LocationsSite 4 (Area 4D) Sample LocationsEnvironmental Fate and Transport1-241-251-261-272-42-53-33-43-5.4-3LIST OF TABLES1-11-22-12-2Investigative Sites and Historic FunctionsSummary of 1994 Analytical Data for Areas of ConcernSummary of Site Investigation ActivitiesSite Summary of Sampling Matrix and Analytical Parameters2-3 QAJQC Listing3-1 Summary of 1996 Analytical Data4-1 Site Evaluation5-1 Summary of DERP-FUDS Eligible Debris and Physical Hazards6-1 Summary of Conclusions of Phase II Remedial InvestigationFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaska1-281-292-62-72-83-64-25-46-2Qpage iiiLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAC&WSACHPADECAlaska DistrictATVBD/DRbgsBLMBNABTEXCDAPCFR2cmCONIHTRWCQARDERPDODDROE&EEPAFFUDSgpmlftGPRIDWkWLOAELmg/kgMSLNHPANPDLPCBsPCDFpg/gpptQAQA/QCQCRAATMRIDRISHPOSOWAircraft Control and Warning StationAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationUnited States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska Districtall-terrain vehiclebuilding demolition/debris removalbelow ground surfaceBureau of Land Managementbase neutral and acid extractable compoundsbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenesChemical Data Acquisition PlanCode of Federal Regulationscentimeter squaredcontaminated hazardous toxic or radiological wasteChemical Quality Assurance ReportDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramUnited States Department of Defensediesel range organicsE&E EnvironmentalUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyFahrenheitFormerly Used Defense Sitesgallons per minute per footground penetrating radarinvestigative-derived wasteskilowattlowest-observed-adverse-effect levelmilligrams per kilogrammean sea levelNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966North Pacific Division Laboratorypolychlorinated biphenylspolychlorinated dibenzofuranspicograms per gramparts per trillionquality assurancequality assurance/quality controlquality controlRemedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandumreference doseRemedial InvestigationState Historic Preservation Officescope of workFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation. Gambell, Alaskao page ivTCDDTRPHugldluglkgURSUSGSVOCstetrachlorodibenzodioxintotal recoverable hydrocarbonsmicrograms per decilitermicrograms per kilogramURS CorporationUnited States Geological Surveyvolatile organic compoundsFINAL Plulse II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskaa page vEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report presents the results of the Phase II Remedial Investigation (RI) performed at theGambell Site on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, during July and August 1996. Gambell is locatedon the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island in the western portion of the Bering Sea,approximately 200 air miles southwest from Nome, Alaska, and 39 air miles from the SiberianChukchi Peninsula. The RI was performed as part of the United States Army Corps ofEngineers, Alaska District (Alaska District) Defense Environmental Restoration Program Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP-FUDS) Contract No. DACA85-93-D-00l1. Originally, 18sites were identified as part of the RI effort. As a result of a 1994 Phase I RI conducted byMontgomery Watson, five sites were identified as areas where additional data collection effortswere necessary to further quantify the extent of contamination.The 18 sites identified as part of the RI, including the background site, are listed below. Sitesretained as part of the Phase II RI are denoted with an asterisk; areas retained within sites aredenoted in bold.*Site 1North Beach:Area lA-Army Landing AreaArea IB-Air Force Landing AreaFormer Military Housing/Operations Site*Site 2*Site 3Former Communications Site*Site 4Sevuokuk Mountain:Area 4A-Quonset Hut AreaArea 4B-Former Radar StationArea 4C-Stream Drainage at South End of MountainArea 4D-Transformers in Mountainside Drainage*Site 5Former Tramway Site[Information concerning Gambell Site 5 will be contained in a separate report,"Remedial Investigation Gambell Site 5," by Montgomery Watson in 1999.]Site 6Military LandfillSite 7Former Military Power SitelFormer Motor PoolSite 8Army LandfillSite 9Asphalt Barrel CacheSite 10 Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemSite 11 Communications Cable RouteSite 12 Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 13 Former Radar Power StationSite 15 Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial SiteSite 16 Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 17 Army LandfillsSite 18 Former Main CampBackground SiteFINAL Phase 11 RemediaL Investigation, Gambell. ALaskaa page ES-IThe site-specific reasons for concern and Phase II activities performed at the investigation areasare as follows:SiteSite 1Site 2Site 3Site 4/Area 48Site 4/Area 4DReason for ConcernPartially exposed military debris,dangerous to ATV and snowmobiletraffic.Elevated. levels of lead and othermetals detected in surface soils.Diesel range organics (DROs),beryllium, and thallium found at adepth of 5 feet.Trace levels of dioxins and severalpriority pollutant metals weredetected in surface soils.Trace levels of PCBs detected insediments.Phase II Activity PerformedAll easily removed exposed debriscollected, barged to Seattle forrecycling.Additional surface soil samplingperformed to delineate the arealextent of elevated lead.Surface soil sampling was performedto evaluate the presence of berylliumand thallium at the surface.Further surface soil sampling wasperformed to evaluate extent ofcontamination of priority pollutantmetals.Wipe sampling was performed onthree transformers for disposalcharacterization.Results of the Phase II sampling program indicated no significant surface soil or groundwatercontamination at Sites 2, 3, 4B and 4D. Information concerning Gambell Site 5 will becontained in a separate report, "Remedial Investigation Gambell Site 5" (Montgomery Watson,1999).This study indicates that only Site 4/Area 4B, investigated in the Phase I and Phase II Rls,warrants cleanup or removal of contaminated media. Contaminated soil removal at this site isplanned to be completed during BDIDR removal activities. There is a significant amount ofdebris on the ground surface and subject to exposure by erosion along North Beach that has beenidentified for removal under the DERP-FUDS categories for removal action. These removalaction categories include building demolition and debris removal (BDIDR) and containerizedhazardous toxic or radiological waste (CONIHTRW). All visible surface debris on North Beachwas removed or cut below the gravel surface and then barged during the 1997 field season toSeattle for recycling (Montgomery Watson, 1997a).FINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AlaskaQpage ES-21. INTRODUCTIONPursuant to Contract No. DACA85-93-D-00ll, the United States Army Corps of Engineers,Alaska District (Alaska District), requested that Montgomery Watson address areas where furthercollection of data was necessary to resolve the extent of contamination at Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. This Phase II RI has been prepared according to the guidelines of the DERPFUDS of the United States Department of Defense (DOD).CA previous delivery order (DACA85-93-D-00ll, Delivery Order No. 0003) provided for aPhase I RI. The objectives of the Phase I RI were to gather sufficient chemical, geophysical, andhydrogeological data to identify and characterize sites requiring remediation, and to developremedial alternatives. Field work for the Phase I RI was completed in 1994; the Phase I RIreport, completed in January 1995 (Montgomery Watson, 1995a), presented the results of thefield investigations, chemical sampling and analysis, and quality assurance/quality control(QNQC) activities performed during the investigation.This Phase II RI report includes seven sections and four appendices describing remedialinvestigation activities, analytical results, data interpretation, and recommendations for closure.These sections are:Section 1Introduction - contains information on project objectives, site background,regional setting, and individual site descriptions.Section 2Investigation Approach and Procedures - explains investigation methods andprocedures.Section 3Results of the Investigation - contains specific information on geophysicalsurveys conducted, laboratory analytical results, and possible sources ofcontaminationSection 4Site Evaluation - describes a phased approach to evaluating areas of concern.Section 5Remedial Action -lists waste and debris eligible for removal from Gambell.Section 6Conclusions and Recommendations - presents conclusions based on Phase II RIefforts and recommendations for future activities on Gambell.Section 7References - documents sources of information used to complete this Phase II RIreport.Appendix AField Forms - contains sampling field note forms, a residents' survey, and fieldsurveys.FINAL Phase l/ Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-1Appendix BLaboratory Analytical Results Summary - presents a summary of laboratoryanalytical results.Appendix CAlaska District North Pacific Division Laboratory (NPDL) CQAR - includes acopy of the Chemical Data Quality Assurance Report (CQAR) done by the AlaskaDistrict on data from the Phase II RI.Appendix DSummary of Applicable Regulatory Criteria - lists regulations pertinent to theGambell site.1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVESThe objective of the Phase II RI activities was to collect additional environmental samples to filldata gaps from the Phase I RI.1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe objective of project activities was to address the need for additional sampling infonnationconcerning contaminants in soil and groundwater at the site. The field activities included thefollowing tasks:•Wipe-sampling three transfonners (which were subsequently transported to Seattle forrecycling).•Perfonning individual investigative site reconnaissance, North Beach debris exposurereconnaissance, and radiological surveys at all known landfill locations and the burn siteat Site 4/Area 4B (Fonner Radar Site).•Collecting surface soil samples to further delineate the extent of contamination at threesites (Sites 2, 3, and 4) for the purposes of assessing the extent of contamination.•Mapping all sample locations using measurements from previously mapped features andcurrent surveys.•Collecting groundwater samples to detennine potential groundwater impacts adjacent toGambell's water supply.•Investigating the geophysical anomalies identified during the 1996 geophysical survey atSite 5 (Montgomery Watson, 1997b).•Collecting nine subsurface soil samples at Site 5 to further delineate any risk to the newvillage water well.•Constructing and sampling five additional monitoring wells to further delineate any riskto the new village water well.FINAL Phase II Remedial/nvestigation. Gambell. Alaskao page /-2•Developing groundwater contours to help evaluate any possible impact to the new villagewater well.The last five tasks are described in a separate report, "Remedial Investigation Gambell Site 5"(Montgomery Watson, 1999).1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND INFORMATIONSite description and background information contained in this Phase II RI has been summarizedfrom previous documents about the Gambell site and updated by current field conditionsidentified during the 1996 Phase II investigation. Further site description and backgroundinformation can be found in the documents listed below:•Site 5 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, MontgomeryWatson, 1999.•Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska,Montgomery Watson, December 1997b.•Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska, Montgomery Watson, November 1995b.•Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, Montgomery Watson,January 1995a.•Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska, E&E, February 1993.•Site Inventory Report, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska, E&E, December 1992.1.3. 1 LocationGambell is located off the coast of western Alaska (Figure 1-1) on the northwest tip ofSt. Lawrence Island (Figure 1-2) in the western portion of the Bering Sea, approximately 200 airmiles southwest of Nome, Alaska. The island is accessible by boat or regularly scheduledcommercial airline from the city of Nome. Gambell is 39 air miles from the Siberian ChukotskPeninsula. The Village of Gambell is built on a gravel spit which projects northward andwestward from the island. The location of the site is 63 degrees 47 minutes north latitude and171 degrees 43 minutes west longitude, in Township 20 south, Range 67 west, Kateel RiverMeridian.FINAL Phase II Remedial investigation. Gambell, Alaskao page i-31.3.2 Site DescriptionThe Gambell site encompasses approximately 2.7 square miles of the island, and it extends fromthe top of Sevuokuk Mountain (at an elevation of approximately 620 feet above mean sea level)to the sea. The area of the Village of Gambell is relatively flat, with an elevation range of sealevel to approximately 15 feet mean sea level (MSL). There are no standing military structurespresent at the site.1.3.3 Site HistoryThe Gambell site was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force fromapproximately 1948 until the late 1950s. Various facilities around the Village of Gambell wereconstructed to provide housing, communications, and other military functions. The U.S. AirForce operated an Aircraft Control and Warning Station (AC&WS) as early as 1948, but the sitewas abandoned about 1956 when a similar facility was constructed at Northeast Cape on thenortheast end of St. Lawrence Island (E&E, 1992). The Army operated a base at Gambell thatreportedly supported several hundred personnel. A search of historical record failed to yield baseplans or site information for the Army installation (URS, 1986). However, according to WinfredJames, a local Gambell resident, the army was active in Gambell from 1954 to 1957 (E&E,1992). Extensive background research into Naval activities at Gambell yielded no pertinentinformation. The Air Force land was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in1962, and the Army's land was transferred to BLM in 1963. All DOD structures weredemolished, burned, or scavenged and the debris buried on-site.St. Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., in Gambell, Alaska, andSavoonga Native Corporation, in Savoonga, Alaska. Land not owned by Alaska Natives on St.Lawrence Island is limited to state lands used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell(Montgomery Watson, 1995a). The area around the Village of Gambell is classified as aFormerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) under DERP.The Village of Gambell is inhabited primarily by Alaska Native Yupik people who lead asubsistence-based lifestyle. The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds,waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area. The area surrounding the top ofSevuokuk Mountain supports a large bird rookery. The birds and bird eggs serve as asubsistence food source to the local inhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is usedextensively for subsistence hunting of walrus, seal, sea birds, polar bear, and whale.1.3.4 Previous InvestigationsIn 1985, URS Corporation (URS) conducted a file search and preliminary reconnaissance of theGambell site (URS, 1986). The site reconnaissance included an inventory of materials left by themilitary, and collection of a limited number of soil and water samples. The samples wereanalyzed for physical, biological, and chemical characteristics. Soil samples were analyzed forpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Surface water and groundwater samples from six wells wereanalyzed for oil ap~ grease, PCBs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, and secondaryFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-4water quality parameters. Sampling occurred at Sites 2,3,4/Area 4B, 4/Area 4D, 6, 7, and 13.No PCBs were detected in either soil or water. No contamination was found at Site 4/Area 4Band Site 4/Area 4D. The URS sample locations were not clearly defined and the validity of thedata is unknown (it is unclear whether or not the metals samples were filtered). In general,elevated concentrations of metals in groundwater found by URS were not substantiated by theresults of the Phase I RI perfonned by Montgomery Watson.The Alaska District awarded a contract for overall cleanup work on St. Lawrence Island in thefiscal year 1986. This contract was tenninated in April 1986, at a cost of over $1 million withoutanyon-site construction. This contract termination reportedly occurred because the local NativeCorporations were unwilling to provide a Letter of Non-Objection to the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) agreeing to Solid Waste Disposal Pennits as required inthe construction contract. In February 1988, a fonnal Land Use Agreement and Letter ofAgreement regarding access right-of-way and solid waste disposal for the island was developedby the Alaska District and the local Alaska Native Corporations (ADEC, 1991a).In July 1991, ADEC, Nome District, visited Gambell in order to respond to concerned citizens'complaints about military hazardous waste at Gambell and to sample the water in Troutman Lakeand Troutman Creek. The lake and creek water were analyzed for PCBs, VOCs, herbicides,pesticides, and metals. Analysis of the sample results concluded that Troutman Creek andTroutman Lake were not contaminated by chemicals (ADEC, 1991b).In 1991 and 1993, Ecology and Environment (E&E) conducted site reconnaissance visits andinterviewed individuals living at Gambell during the period of DOD occupation. E&Ecompleted a Site Inventory Report (E&E, 1992) as well as a Chemical Data Acquisition Plan(E&E, 1993). The Chemical Data Acquisition Plan (CDAP) by E&E served as a Work Plan forthe Phase I RI perfonned by Montgomery Watson.A Phase I RI was completed by Montgomery Watson in 1995 under contract to the AlaskaDistrict in accordance with the requirements of the Scope of Work (SOW) for Contract No.DACA85-93-D-00ll, Delivery Order No. 003.The objectives of the Phase I RI (Montgomery Watson, 1995a) were to gather sufficientchemical, geophysical, and hydrogeological data to identify and characterize sites requiringremediation, and to develop remedial alternatives for these sites. The RI report presented theresults of the field investigations, chemical sampling and analysis, and QAlQC activitiesperfonned during the investigation. Eighteen sites, including the Background Site, wereidentified as part of this RI effort and were either sampled, or observed and photographed duringa walk-through. Sites at which further evaluations were recommended are denoted in bold in thelist below, and are also shown on Figure 1-3.*Site 1North Beach:*Site 2Area lA-Army Landing AreaArea IB-Air Force Landing AreaFormer Military Housing/Operations SiteFINAL Phase II Remedial1nvestigation. Gambell. Alaskaa page 1-5Former Communications SiteSevuokuk Mountain:Area 4A-Quonset Hut AreaArea 4B-Former Radar StationArea 4C-Stream Drainage at South End of MountainArea 4D-Transformers in Mountainside Drainage*Site 5Former Tramway Site[Information 90ncerning Gambell Site 5 will be contained in a separate report,"Remedial Investigation Gambell Site 5," by Montgomery Watson in 1999.]Site 6Military LandfillSite 7Former Military Power Site/Former Motor PoolSite 8Army LandfillSite 9Asphalt Barrel CacheSite 10 Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemSite 11 Communications Cable RouteSite 12 Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 13 Former Radar Power StationSite 15 Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial SiteSite 16 Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 17 Army LandfillsSite 18 Former Main CampBackground Site*Site 3*Site 4In the Phase I RI, sampling results from the investigated sites were compared to conservativebenchmark criteria in order to identify sites in which further evaluation was recommended.Many sites were removed from further consideration because contamination was not present, waspresent at concentrations below benchmark criteria, or site-specific criteria showed no risk tohuman health or the environment.Further site description and background information can be found in Section 1 of MontgomeryWatson's RI report (Montgomery Watson, 1995a) and the Remedial Action AlternativesTechnical Memorandum (Montgomery Watson, 1995b).1.4 REGIONAL SETTINGIn Section 1.4, various aspects of the Gambell site regional setting are briefly described,including climate, topography, geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, demography, land use,ecology and archaeology.1.4. 1 ClimateSt. Lawrence Island has a cool, moist, subarctic maritime climate with some continentalinfluences during winter, when much of the Bering Sea is capped '-'jth pack ice. Winds and fogFINAL Phase Il Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AlaskaQpage 1-6are common; precipitation occurs approximately 300 days per year as light rain, mist or snow.Annual snowfall is about 80 inches per year. Annual precipitation is about 16 inches per year,and more than half falls as light rain between June and September. Summer temperaturesaverage between 34° F and 48° F, with a record high of 65°F. Winter temperatures range from_2°F to 10°F, with an extreme low of _30°F (DRS, 1985). Freeze-up normally occurs in Octoberor November, and breakup normally occurs in June.The wind is generally in a northerly to northeasterly direction from September to June, andsouthwesterly in July and August. Winds exceeding 10 knots occur 70 percent of the time, andwinds average 20 knots in winter months. The average wind speed is 16 knots with windsexceeding 10 knots 70 percent of the time (USKH, 1993).1.4.2 TopographyThe Village of Gambell is located on a gravel spit which projects north and westward from theisland into the Bering Sea (Figure 1-2). Gambell is relatively flat, with an elevation range of sealevel to approximately 30 feet MSL (E&E, 1992). Sevuokuk Mountain forms the easternboundary of the gravel spit and rises steeply to a height of approximately 619 feet (DRS, 1985).The spit is relatively barren and is sparsely covered by beach grass. Tundra is present near moistareas at higher elevation, such as Sevuokuk Mountain.1.4.3 GeologyA reconnaissance investigation of the geology of St. Lawrence Island was conducted by the U.S.Geological Survey (Patton and Csejtey, 1971, 1980). The island is composed of oldersedimentary rocks (limestone, graywacke, and shale), granitic rocks (monzonite), and Quaternarybasalt and unconsolidated surficial deposits.The Gambell Village area is underlain by highly permeable, unconsolidated Quaternary gravels,with minor coarse sands, over continuous permafrost occurring at 3 to 15 feet below groundsurface (bgs). The gravels have strong linear topographic expressions and were likely depositedas successive beach ridges. The gravels may be deposited on an underlying wave-cut terrace ofthe same bedrock which composes Sevuokuk Mountain (Patton and Csejtey, 1971). Theboundary of relatively flat-lying gravel of the Gambell Village area and the granitic rocks ofSevuokuk Mountain consists of several colluvial aprons formed by erosion of bedrock highlands.Sevuokuk Mountain is composed of Cretaceous quartz monzonite, a gray, coarsely crystallinegranite rock rich in quartz and feldspars. The Cretaceous quartz monzonite of the SevuokukMountain Pluton is exposed along the cliffs and higher elevations on the island. Exposedoutcrops of quartz monzonite are coarsely crystalline and massive, with widely-spaced (1 foot to3 feet) joints (Montgomery Watson, 1995a). A ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveyconducted 80 feet west of the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, north of Site 5 (Former TramwaySite) located the contact between the gravel deposits and bedrock at a depth of approximately20 feet. Radar signatures from the bedrock suggest it is fractured or jointed (Golder, 1994). ThisFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation. Gambell, Alaskilo page 1-7is consistent with surface expressions of the quartz monzonite. The mountain is topped by a flat,wave-cut plateau.Additional information on soils in the Gambell area is available in the following documents:•Soil Investigation/Bering Straights Regional Housing Authority, Gambell, Alaska (DuaneMiller & Associates, 1995).•Analysis of Potable Water-Supply Options, Gambell, Alaska (Munter and Williams,1992).•Geotechnical, Geophysical & Soil Groundwater Quality Studies, Gambell, Alaska (RZA,1985).1.4.4 HydrogeologyGroundwater occurs within the highly permeable gravels under much of the Gambell area and asshallow subsurface water recharged from the slopes of Sevuokuk Mountain. Groundwater hasbeen encountered at depths ranging from 2 to 17 feet, and is postulated to perch abovecontinuous permafrost. In several local areas, permafrost acts as an impermeable layer. Shallowgroundwater beneath Gambell does not appear to be continuous because of the presence ofshallow permafrost (Munter and Williams, 1992).During the Phase I RI, permafrost was encountered as shallow as 3 feet bgs south of TroutmanLake, and as deep as 15 feet in the central Gambell area. Along the coastline, permafrost was notencountered. Thin lenses of gravels with an ice matrix occur at various depths above thepermafrost horizon. These lenses are discontinuous and are several inches to 1 foot thick. Thisice granulates and shatters easily during sampling. These thin layers are not likely to remainpermanently frozen, and they are not considered year-round impermeable layers. The perchedaquifer is thick in areas where the permafrost surface is deeper, and thin or not present in areas ofshallow ice. Along the shorelines and the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, permafrost isencountered at deeper depths than in the central Gambell area.Beyond the obvious role of climatic conditions, permafrost and groundwater distribution may becontrolled by environmental conditions unique to the Gambell area, including tidal activity alongthe shoreline and surface water recharge.The sandy-gravelly spit material in which the Gambell site is located consists of a selectivedepositional environment determined by the confluence of long-shore currents. These currentstend to transport sediments northward along the western side of St. Lawrence Island where, at thenorthernmost tip, a reduction in transfer energy permits the deposition of medium-coarse sandsand fine gravels, forming the existing spit (URS, 1985).Based on slug test data collected at the site, the hydraulic conductivity of the coarse sand andgravels underlying the Gambell spit are in the range of 30 to 1,500 feet/day (MontgomeryFINAL Phase II Remedial1nvestigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-8Watson, 1995a). Specific capacity measurements of 200, 86, and 100 gpm/ft taken at threemonitoring wells during the Phase I RI also indicate a high transmissivity.Additional information on groundwater dynamics in the Gambell area is available in thefollowing documents:•Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island (Montgomery Watson, 1995a)•Evaluation of Ground Water at a Proposed Wastewater Disposal Site, Gambell, Alaska(Munter, 1994)•Water Hydrological Data, Water-Resources Reconnaissance of Gambell and SavoongaVillages, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (Alaska Department of Health, 1959)•Presentation of Data from the Gambell, Alaska Well Project (Ireland, 1994)•Aquifer Exploration, Exploitation and Dynamics at Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska(Munter and Knoll, 1993)•Analysis of Potable Water-Supply Options, Gambell, Alaska (Munter and Williams,1992)•Geotechnical, Geophysical & Soil Groundwater Quality Studies, Gambell, Alaska (RZA,1985)1.4.5 HydrologyDue to the highly permeable gravels over continuous permafrost on which Gambell is built,standing water is localized. Surface water features in the vicinity of Gambell consist ofTroutman Lake and Nayvaghaq Lake. These lakes are similar in characteristics to lagoons. Theacreage of these lakes is estimated as 574 and 93 acres, respectively; however, seasonal climacticchanges may affect the water levels and extent of the lakes. Based on measurements of specificconductivity, both are brackish. Brackish water is caused by storm surges which are reported tobreak over the spit periodically (Munter and Williams, 1992).Numerous small, ephemeral ponds and bogs are present on the tundra east of Troutman andNayvaghaq Lakes. The plateau of Sevuokuk Mountain supports wet tundra and bogs; smallstream channels drain the western slopes of Sevuokuk Mountain. Many of these stream channelsreach the base of the mountain and turns north to discharge into the "cannon shape" aquiferwhose gradient leads to the ocean along the western edge of Sevuokuk Mountain (Figure 1-4).The influence of warm recharge water from Sevuokuk Mountain has produced a throw bulbeffect on the area permafrost, resulting in a deeper permeable aquifer. This aquifer is surroundedby shallow, impermeable permafrost (Ireland, 1994).FINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskaa page 1-91.4.6 Demography and Land UseAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 1990 year-round population of Gambell was 525persons, with 505 of Yupik descent (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996). There are 164 (1998) homes inthe village, two stores, and municipal, community, and educational buildings.1.4.7 Ecology and Sensitive EnvironmentsThe Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds, waterfowl, and mammals that eitherbreed in or visit the area. The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is used extensively forsubsistence hunting of walrus, seal, sea birds, polar bear, and whale.VegetationVegetation in the gravel spit areas of Gambell is rare. Where present in other areas at higherelevation, vegetation in the Gambell area is classified as moist tundra, and is dominated byheaths, grasses, sedges, mosses, and lichen with prostrate dwarf birch and willow. These plantsare typically growing on 1 to 3 feet of undecayed organic mat over saturated and frozen soil.Wet tundra is found in the low marshylbog areas, while alpine tundra (dwarf, prostrate plantsincluding heaths and tundra species adapted to dry, thin soil conditions) is found on the slopesand exposed ridges primarily on Sevuokuk Mountain (USKH, 1993). Military activities, privateall terrain vehicles (ATVs), and other community activities have ravaged most of the vegetationon the coarse gravels and sand around Gambell and Troutman Lake (URS, 1985).BirdsBirds inhabiting the Gambell area include seabirds, waterfowl and geese, other water birds,raptors, and passerine species (USKH, 1993). St. Lawrence Island provides habitat for amajority of the seabirds in the northern Bering Sea. Seventeen breeding colonies of species,including auklets, murres, puffins, guillemots, gulls, and cormorants, occur on the perimeter ofthe island. Waterfowl and geese use the coastal waters, ponds, and moist tundra wetlands of theGambell area for nesting, molting, feeding, and migration resting/staging. Natives report thatthey hunt and use as a food source many of these species of waterfowl and geese on the island(URS, 1985).MammalsLarge mammals are generally not abundant on St. Lawrence Island. However, polar bears can beseen on the island year-round, especially when the ice pack is near shore. A population of abouta thousand reindeer can also be found on the island. In addition, arctic fox, crossfox (lesscommonly), red fox and several small mammals (tundra shrew, Arctic ground squirrel, theGreenland collared lemming, the red-backed vole, and the tundra vole) can be seen on the island(URS, 1985).FINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation. Gambell. Alaskno page 1-10Marine mammals are present in the vicinity of Gambell as seasonal migrants in the offshore andnear-shore marine waters, at haul-out sites, and in association with the advancing and retreatingpack ice. However, no haul-out areas exist within the Gambell area. During the summer, walrus,whales, sea lions, and spotted seals may be present in the offshore waters. During the ice season,ringed seals, bearded seals, walrus, and spotted seals can be found in near-shore and offshoreleads and open water. Whales that can be seen near Gambell include bowhead, gray, minke,killer, and beluga whales (USKH, 1993).FishTen primary species of fish reside in the streams and tundra ponds of S1. Lawrence Island. Theseinclude blackfish, nine-spined stickleback, grayling, Arctic char, and whitefish. Five species ofPacific Salmon occur around the island. The fisheries resources in Troutman Lake, which is thelargest lake in northwest S1. Lawrence Island, have not been determined (URS, 1985).Endangered or Threatened SpeciesEndangered or threatened species of animals on S1. Lawrence Island include the Spectacled Eider(endangered), the Steller's Eider (proposed threatened) and the Steller's sea lion (threatened).Polar bears are not an endangered or threatened species; however, they are protected under theMarine Mammal Protection Act. Alaska Natives are exempt from this act and are allowed tohunt polar bears for subsistence purposes or for handcrafts, as long as the population is notdepleted and the takes are not wasteful. Vegetation that are proposed threatened on the island areRumex krause; and Primula tschuktschorum.1.4.8 Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural ResourcesThe Gambell site has the potential for significant archaeological, historical, and culturalresources. As such, excavation activities associated with the site should be undertaken only afterthe Section 106 process promulgated under the State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO)has been completed. This process, although a federal regulation under 36 CFR 800 of theNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), is administered by SHPO. The processentails the identification and evaluation of potential historical properties and federal reviewthrough the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).If, at any time during activities conducted at the Gambell site, there is a question as to theeligibility or identification of items or areas which may be of archaeological, cultural, orhistorical importance, the guidelines set forth under Section 106 should be observed. Anyactivities that may affect the area or item in question will cease until the nature of the area oritem is discerned.An archaeological and historical survey will need to be performed and completed prior to anycontractor work beginning at the site. The Alaska District should have an archaeologist on siteduring any construction activities to provide preconstruction briefings regarding the potential forarchaeological artifacts to be found at the site.FINAL Phase 11 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskaa page 1-111.5 INVESTIGATIVE SITE DESCRIPTIONSThe identified investigation sites retained for further investigation ("areas of concern"), as listedin Section 1.3.4, are described in detail below, as well as other sites visited during the Phase I RI.After site descriptions, contaminants of concern and recommended remedial actions forcontainerized hazardous toxic or radiological waste (CON/HTRW), building demolition anddebris removal (BDIDR), an.d soil and water are listed. A summary of analytical data from theareas of concern prior to the Phase II investigation is shown on Table 1-2. The investigative sitedescription information is derived from E&E's Site Inventory (E&E, 1993) as well asobservations made during Montgomery Watson's 1994 through 1998 Rls.1.5.1 Site 1 - North BeachNorth Beach is the coastline strand which extends approximately 7,000 feet along the northshoreline of Gambell, from the base of Sevuokuk Mountain to West Beach (Figure 1-3). NorthBeach is largely undeveloped, except for the area immediately surrounding the Village ofGambell where there is a human waste landfill, a drum dump with discarded aboveground tanksand household refuse, and a fenced solid waste landfill. In addition, there is a barge landing areaat a location on North Beach and at West Beach (Figure 1-3). Residents use North Beach to fishand ride ATVs.Area lA, the former Army Landing Area, is located in the central portion of North Beach wheretwo well-established ATV roads intersect. It is located east of the barge landing area.Area IB, the Former Air Force Landing Area, is located adjacent to a beach berm approximately1,900 feet east of the southeast corner of Site IIArea lA. Near the northeast corner of the site isa decaying drum. Rust-stained gravel and a 5-foot by 4-foot patch of tar-stained gravel suggestsa former roadbed near the center of the area.Investigations completed at Site 1 during the Phase I RI included geophysical surveys, drillingand installing eight monitoring wells (five at Area lA and three at Area IB), and collectingsubsurface soil at each monitoring well location, two surface soil samples (one at each area), andeight groundwater samples for chemical analysis. Analytical results indicated no significantcontaminants of concern at Site 1 (Montgomery Watson, 1995a).As a result of significant landfill debris being exposed by wind and wave erosion, 'a debrisreconnaissance was performed during the 1996 Phase II investigation to determine the rate atwhich landfill materials have been uncovered since 1994.Partially exposed military debris continued to cause a danger to ATV and snowmobile trafficthrough the Gambell area, especially on North Beach and near ATV trails. In 1997, all easilyremovable exposed debris on North Beach was collected and barged to Seattle for recycling.This also included the exposed portions of the large buried debris, i.e., crane tower and pulleyFINAL Phase II Remedial Investiga'tion. Gambell, AlaskaQ page I-I2systems, which were cut off just below the gravel surface and covered with gravel (MontgomeryWatson, 1997a).Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBDIDR: Remove buried debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.2 Site 2 - Former Military Housing/Operations SiteSite 2, the Former Military Housing/Operations Site, is located approximately 600 feet south ofArea 1B, the Former Air Force Landing Area (Figure 1-3). This site includes: a former MilitaryHousing/Operations Burial Site, a Power Plant Burial Site, and an Ordnance Burial Site, allreportedly located in the southeast portion of the Gambell area. All of the facilities associatedwith these areas were allegedly demolished and buried on-site. Exposed debris observed duringthe 1994 and 1996 investigations from the Former Military Housing/Operations Site included:remnants of an apparent fireplace and a concrete pad, pieces of burned wood, scattered metaldebris, and two locations of discolored gravel. Remaining debris from the Former Power Plantincludes a large gear, rectangular metal boxes, part of a tiltdozer blade which protruded from theground, a portion of weasel track, and rusted metal fragments.Investigations completed at Site 2 during the Phase I RI included a geophysical survey (EM-31conductivity and GSM-19 magnetometry), drilling and installation of three monitoring wells,collection of subsurface soil at each monitoring well location, two surface soil samples, and threegroundwater samples for chemical analysis. In addition, fibrous materials observed on-site werecollected for asbestos analysis. Site 2 was retained for further investigation following the 1994RI due to elevated concentrations of lead and other metals in surface soils. Most notable was alead concentration of 749 mg/kg detected in surface soil sample 27 (SS27) during the 1994 RI(Montgomery Watson, 1995a). Concentrations of metals from a second surface soil sample atthe site were not elevated, and the aerial extent of metal contamination was unknown. It wasbelieved that the elevated metals concentrations were most likely caused by the debris containedin the Former Housing/Operations Burial Area.Additional surface soil samples for lead analysis were collected during the 1996 Phase IIinvestigation surrounding the location of elevated metals concentration (SS27). Eight surfacesoil samples were collected at 5-foot and lO-foot intervals from SS27. The S-foot samples werecollected in the four cardinal directions, and the lO-foot samples were taken at 45 degrees fromthe cardinal directions.Contaminants of Concern: LeadFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-13Recommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove metal debris and large gearBD/DR: Remove empty drumsSoil and Water: No further action1.5.3 Site 3 - Former Communications Si'I'eSite 3, the Former Communications Site, is located approximately 700 feet southeast of Area IB,and 750 feet northeast of Site 2 (Figure 1-3). Items that were reportedly buried in this area(E&E, 1993) include: two Jamesway huts, a 10- to 15- kilowatt (kW) power plant containingauxiliary generators, transformers, oils, fuels, and batteries, and approximately 5 to 10 glasscarboys of sulfuric acid. Exposed aboveground debris observed during the 1994 and 1996 RIsincludes metal debris, pipe, and anchors for guy wire.Investigations completed at Site 3 during the Phase I RI included a geophysical survey, drillingand installation of two monitoring wells, and collection of subsurface soil and groundwatersamples. Priority pollutant metals, including beryllium, cadmium, mercury, selenium, silver, andthallium, were detected above regulatory benchmark criteria (see Table 1-2) in soils collected at adepth of 2.5 feet. Beryllium and thallium are unlikely to occur naturally at these concentrations.Petroleum hydrocarbons were also detected at depths of up to 5 feet at a maximum concentrationof 533 mg/kg. Because of the shallow depth of the contaminated soil, it was hypothesized that asurface source which is no longer present was responsible for the contamination (MontgomeryWatson, 1995a).Further investigations were performed at Site 3 during the 1996 Phase II RI. In order to assessthe risk of the contamination, additional surface soil samples for beryllium and thallium analysiswere collected 120 degrees apart at 5-foot intervals from MW9. Additionally, one sample wascollected directly adjacent to the monitoring well.Contaminants of Concern: BeryIli urn and thalli urnRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove drumsBD/DR: Remove buried debrisSoil and Water: No further actionFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AlaskaQpage 1-141.5.4 Site 4 - Sevuokuk MountainThis site has been broken up into four separate areas for purposes of the investigation. These areshown on Figure 1-3 and include:•Area 4A - the remains of two Quonset huts and the surrounding area;•Area 4B - the Former Air Force Radar Station Area;•Area 4C - the area at the southern end of the mountain where drums were found in astream drainage; and•Area 40 - the area which contains three transformers in a mountainside drainage abovethe Village of Gambell water supply pump house.Site 41Area 4A - Quonset Hut AreaArea 4A, the Quonset Hut Area, contains the frames of two fallen Quonset huts. In addition tothe two transformers indicated in the COAP (E&E, 1993), an additional transformer was locatedin the vicinity by the Montgomery Watson field team. The additional transformer located byMontgomery Watson field personnel was empty, with some apparent rust. Surface soil samplesfor total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRPH), PCB, base neutral and acid extractable compounds(BNA), and dioxin analysis were collected during the 1994 Phase I RI. All results were belowdetection limits.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove drums, transformers, and generatorBOIDR: Remove buried debrisSoil and Water: No further actionSite 4/Area 48 - Former Radar StationArea 4B, the Air Force Radar Station Area, covers an approximately 375-foot by 500-foot areawhere buildings burned down, causing ordnance to explode and, in tum, scattering debris.Remains of the site include a 3D-square foot area of stained soil that contains scattered rusteddebris and burned timbers, a standing steel pole (useful in locating the site), and a fallentransformer pole (no transformer present).The area surrounding Site 4/Area B was formerly used for animal trapping. However, residentsrarely trap animals to the extent historicall" trapped.FINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskaa page I-ISThe topography of Site 4/Area B consists of large cobbles and boulders that have staining incertain areas. The site has approximately 50% vegetative cover, with the majority being mainlylichen, with some sedges and grasses. The remainder of the site consists of silty sands andcobbles having very little moisture and high fetch. There are no drainages or standing water onthe site. The predominant wind direction is northwest or northeast (Apatiki and Tungiyen,1996).Three surface soil samples were collected at a burned area and analyzed for TRPH, PCBs,priority pollutant metals, BNA, dioxins, and furans during the 1994 investigation. Lead,antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and copper were present at concentrations above EPA Region IIIrisk-based levels (EPA, 1996a) and normal background concentrations (Montgomery Watson,1995a). Dioxins, represented in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence also exceeded EPA RegionIII risk-based criteria. Contaminant concentrations, benchmark, and risk-based criteria areshown in Table 1-2.To assess the maximum concentration of metals contamination and the potential risks to humanhealth and the environment, a total of four samples were collected within the boundary of thestained area during the Phase II investigation. The samples were analyzed for antimony, arsenic,cadmium, copper, and lead.Contaminants ofConcem: Antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, leadRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove drums, tank, generator, engine blockBD/DR: Remove buried debrisSoil and Water: Remove soilsSite 4/Area 4C • Stream Drainage at South End of MountainDiscarded drums were located in Area 4C in a stream drainage at the southern end of SevuokukMountain along the Site lO-Mountain Trail System. Seen at this site during the Phase I RI werea wooden frame and scattered drums, some of which were located directly in the stream drainagewhich passes through a culvert underneath the mountain trail system.It was reported by a local resident, Winnie James, Sr., that transformers were located in thewooden framed building at the site. A drainage leads through the area including the woodenframe building; this was the location area of three sediment samples taken for PCB analysisduring the Phase I RI. No PCBs were detected at Site 4/Area 4C.Contaminants of Concem: NoneFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskaa page 1-16Recommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBD/DR: NoneSoil and Water: No further actionSite 4/Area 4D - Transformers in Mountainside DrainageArea 4D is located where three transformers were observed in a mountainside drainage on top ofSevuokuk Mountain above the Village of Gambell water supply during the 1994 investigation.Ex.posed debris at this location includes three empty electrical transformer casings, rustedsupport structures for a Quonset hut, drums, sonar cable and wire, sheet metal, and a guy wireanchor.Four sediment samples and one hand-augered soil sample were collected during the 1994investigation and analyzed for PCBs. Three of these sediment samples were taken adjacent tothe three transformers, and one was taken upslope of the transformers for background results.Aroclor® 1254 was detected at a concentration of 194 micrograms per kilogram (J..lg/kg) at theupslope (background) location (SEI62). The concentration detected is below regulatory criteriafor soils (1 mg/kg), although a criterion has not been established for sediments (Table 1-2).The three transformers were wipe-sampled during a preliminary Phase II visit in order toadequately characterize the transformers for future disposal. Results of the wipe samplesallowed the transformers to be transported to Anchorage for recycling (Montgomery Watson,1997b).Contaminants of Concern: PCBsRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Transformers removed in 1997; no further actionBD/DR: Remove metal debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.5 Site 5 - Former Tramway SiteSite 5 is located approx.imately 1,920 feet southeast of the Former Military Power SitelFormerMotor Pool (Site 7). This site includes two disposal areas, the Cable Burial Area and theSecondary Transformer Burial Area (E&E, 1993).FINAL Phase l/ Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AlaskaQpage 1-17Information concerning Gambell Site 5 will be contained in a separate report, "RemedialInvestigation Gambell Site 5" (Montgomery Watson, 1999).Contaminants of Concern: DRORecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: No further actionBDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.6 Site 6 - Military LandfillThis site is located north of the Gambell High School. During the 1994 Phase I RI, extensiveconstruction was being done for an expansion of the high school. While excavating thefoundation on June 15 through 17, 1994, Neeser Construction uncovered a debris burial pileapproximately 50 feet in diameter and 15 feet high, an apparent portion of a military landfill.The buried debris uncovered by Neeser Construction in 1994 is not eligible for cleanup under theDERP-FUDS program since the debris, an apparent military landfill, was safely covered in-placeuntil excavated up by Neeser Construction. Other exposed debris remaining at Site 6 includesnumerous partially-exposed drum remnants and weasel tracks.URS reported the presence of 3,000 drums filled with human waste that were buried at Site 6during military activities at Gambell (E&E, 1992). The barrels containing human waste werereportedly treated with lime prior to final sealing, and then buried underneath a thin soil covering(URS, 1985a). During the 1994 RI, Montgomery Watson field personnel noted that severalbarrels were visible throughout the area.The Village of Gambell reburied the unearthed debris near the North Beach City Landfill.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove exposed drumsBDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.7 Site 7 - Former Military Power FacilityF1NAL Phase 11 Remedial1nvestiga'tion, Gambell, Alaskaa page 1-18This facility was reportedly buried north of the municipal building in an estimated 375-foot by85-foot area. Remaining surface debris includes protruding power cable, copper wire, and rustedmetal. This debris marks the area where the primary transformers were allegedly buried (E&E,1993). The debris excavated from the 1994 high school expansion was piled in the center ofSite 7.There are several areas of stained gravel on the west side of a diesel/gasoline pipeline which runssouth from North Beach and branches east and west near the center of, the site. Also, burnedwood, sonar cable, and landing mat are located near a concrete pad at the east end of the site. Aformer motor pool was reportedly located near this concrete pad.Contaminants of Concem: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBD/DR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.8 Site 8 - West BeachlArmy landfillThe Army Landfill at Site 8 is located near West Beach, which extends for approximately threemiles from the southwest end of North Beach to Nayvaghaq Lake along the western shore.Remaining surface debris includes scattered metal, small quantities of wood and concrete, and anexposed 25- to 30-foot wide layer of landing mat which reportedly underlies the existing runwayand the road south of the runway for 4,500 feet. The Army Landfill is located on the northwestside of Nayvaghaq Lake.Contaminants of Concem: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove drumsBD/DR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.9 Site 9 - Asphalt Barrel CacheRemaining surface debris from the Former Asphalt Barrel Cache located east of the runwayincludes two areas having up to six apparently empty 55-gallon drums with associated tar-likeFINAL Phase II Remedial1nvestigation, Gambell, AlaskaQ page 1-19soil stains that are approximately 100 square feet in area. According to E&E (1993), these drumsare not of DOD origin.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBDIDR: NoneSoil and Water: No further action1.5.10 Site 10 - Sevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemThis trail system ongmates at the southeast end of Troutman Lake and separates to formindividual trails to the north, south, and east. Two of these trails, the Army Trail and the AirForce Trail, lead to the top of Sevuokuk Mountain. These trails are marked by approximately157 empty 55-gallon barrels located approximately 200 feet apart. Other noticeable debrisincludes landing mat and weasel track.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove exposed drumsBDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.11 Site 11 - Communication Cable RouteThis site extends eastward approximately 2,700 feet from the Former Military Power Facility(Site 7) across the Former Tramway Site (Site 5) to the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. Four sonarcables extend from the base of the mountain to a destroyed Jamesway building that served as theNavy Sonar Pick-up Station (E&E, 1993). This station was located approximately 300 feet westof the Army Trail at Site 10. During the 1994 RI, the only evidence of sonar cables observed bythe field team were some cable spools near Site 4/Area 4D.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove exposed dfl'!1SFINAL Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AlaskaQpage 1-20BDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.12 Site 12 - Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteThis site is located south of Site 13 and north of Nayvaghaq Lake, on the southwest side of an .ATV trail which extends south from the runway. This site includes a north area at theintersection of the ATV trails, and another area approximately 470 feet further south. The northarea contains approximately 120 drums, battery remnants, and household refuse. The southernarea contains approximately 50 drums, about 18 of which contain garbage.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove exposed drums and batteriesBDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5. 13 Site 13 - Former Radar Power StationThis area is located east of the pond located south of Troutman Lake. The radar power stationconsisted of two wooden Quonset huts, one long wooden building, and a number of ISO-foottowers that were reportedly demolished and buried on-site (E&E, 1993). Remaining surficialdebris and stains include wire and pieces of ceramic material, guy wire, pipes, and a 9-squarefoot area of darkened gravel containing burned wood and rusted electrical equipment.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBDIDR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5.14 Site 14 - Navy Plane Crash SiteThis site is located approximately 7 miles south of the Village of Gambell. The main body of theplane, which crashed in 1955, remains on the tundra with r-;bris largely confined to theFINAL Phase 11 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-21immediate area surrounding the plane. According to E&E (1992), the belly gasoline tankexploded and most of the fuels burned, leaving no apparent stains or any stressed vegetationsurrounding the crash site. Per the SOW for the 1994 RI, no samples were to be collected fromthis site.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBDIDR: NoneSoil and Water: No further action1.5.15 Site 15 - Troutman Lake Ordnance Burial SiteA suspected ordnance burial site is located at the north end of Troutman Lake. This site isreportedly submerged and no traces of this site are visible along the shores of Troutman Lake.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneBDIDR: NoneSoil and Water: No further action1.5.16 Site 16 - Gambell Municipal Building SiteThis site consists of a 35-foot by 55-foot area of stained gravel located immediately west of theMunicipal Building. Staining is most visible immediately after rainfall, or if the top 6 inches ofgravel is removed. The origin of the stain is unknown. It could be the result of spills occurringduring the construction of the Municipal Building or local motor vehicle traffic. An areaimmediately to the west of Site 16 is a house with about a dozen motor vehicles (snowmobiles,ATVs, dirt bikes) in disrepair. Shortly after Montgomery Watson collected the samples fromthis area, parts of Site 16 were excavated by the Village Electric Cooperative as part of generalconstruction work conducted to lay power cables.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: NoneFINAL Phase 1/ Remedial Investigation, Gambell, Alaskao page 1-22BD/DR: NoneSoil and Water: No further action1.5. 17 Site 17 - Army LandfillsThis site is located immediately south of Site lA, and immediately north of Site 6. There are twolandfills in this area which contain materials that were regulaily burned and covered (E&E,1993). Surface debris exposed in this area observed during the 1994 RI includes: drums,landing mat, scrap metal, and exposed drum tops.Contaminants of Concern: NoneRecommended Remedial Action:CONIHTRW: Remove wasteBD/DR: Remove debrisSoil and Water: No further action1.5. 18 Site 18 - Former Main CampThis area is adjacent to the northeast end of Troutman Lake and extends from the location of thecurrent Municipal Building east to the high school. There were reportedly ten 25,000 gallon fueltanks present on the site. The disposition of these tanks, including whether or not they wereaboveground, underground or disposed of, is not known (E&E, 1993). White powdery materialcan be seen along the berm which borders Troutman Lake. The material has been tentativelyidentified as diatomaceous earth, previously used for water filtration by the Army (Waller, 1959).According to E&E (1993), this material contained minerals such as aluminum, calcium,magnesium, and sodium and was determined to be non-hazardous.1.5.19 Background SiteThis area is located northeast of Site 5 and consists of one monitoring well location (MW14).This site was identified during the 1994 RI to provide representative background soil andgroundwater concentrations for the entire Gambell site.FINAL Phase /l Remedial Investigation. Gambell, Alaskaa page 1-23JOB No. 1189090.01TIl.4E: 21-0EC-1998 11:18"'-"./,~FILE: s:\cod\pro J\usoce\llJombell\wrkpln\slte4\ fQu.dllJn(.// L,~*-I )~-!"i'".- ,,~~, ~. ,.-.',1,:"I- r"'-'~• -,.,0,-., ....,,~< ~ "'1~'>0t.....c:: ' i'\-~,~':;':'~:-'••" ' \'~ I'· -.It .~..l"t.itC.....P"'_"I-" " '". . .,tre: : ;-I- =J;: ~. . .- :;~(-;J'1~-\-"'{;,'vt".o.p,I0•\,~l.'/~",~ -5*678910II121315161718Key:~CIl~'0ZDescriptionNorth Beach/Army Landing AreaNorth Beach/Air Force Landing AreaFormer Military Housing/Operations SiteFormer Communications SiteSevuokuk Mt.lQuonset Hut AreaSevuokuk Mt.lFormer Radar StationSevuokuk Mt.lStream Drainage at South End of MountainSevuokuk MtIrransformers in Mountainside DrainageFormer Tramway SiteWest Beach/Military LandfillFormer Military Power Site/Former Motor PoolArmy LandfillAsphalt Barrel CacheSevuokuk Mountain Trail SystemCommunications Cable RouteNayvaghaq Land Disposal SiteFormer Radar Power StationTroutman Lake Ordnance Burial SiteGambell Municipal Building SiteArmy LandfillsFormer Main Camp0..c!I:SiteIAIB234A4B4C40~c0CIl...u~::l'0CIl~c'C0~'0u~::0..§...CIl~~~"0'":::l.0c:::leUCIlCIl0XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX~c0..~~cCIl'-0..""~CIl2:l...u~::lCIl§Cll)E:.all)CIl...;>,~CIlc;u'Vi;>,.cXXXXXXXXXXXXCIl~0.:: :E t'0.. o 0§ ...E -cCIl'"0en15-3CIlc;uVi;>,c.ce...0.=c..;>,Q.,00...'"c;>0c.. ...E~ ~'C...0- .0'"...~ ClCIl~CIl...'-'iii~"0c::le0'0CIl~c'C0~-....~::l'"::l.0c0~c;jenc~::XXXXXXXXXXCIlgc:::lCUVi0CIl"0eCIl~0XXXXXXXXMt. - Mountain*Information concerning Gambell Site 5 will be contained in a separate report. "Remedial Investigation Gambell Site 5" (Montgomery Watson, 1999).FINAL Phase II Remediallllvestigation, Gambell, Alaska;>,...2:l""~OJ~~c'C3'2XXXXXXXXX...- §0.o page 1-281::::lIhe ,ieinil~shm p mellli edges pi esenlll'blanding "'IIIDBf9RIhe •ieinil,,~ellble wire(lI)::::*,~ ;,;',(: i",!". ',,1Site41Area'0 .I.bDBf9R•miscellaneous metal debrismetal sheetingmetal gas tank(a)empty drums(a).'BO/ORBOIDRCONIHTWCON/HTWITlIVe!Me pottnth1003J35 Ipounds0sharp metal edges hazardousto villagers who hunt. orchildren exploring invicinity; fog is common onmountaintop which increaseschance of collision890 I pounds0sharp metal edges hazardousto villagers who hunt. orchildren explorir ut vicinityN/AN/A15 pounds50 pounds80 I pounds000:. j"•. !,,iii'."!Table 5·1Summary of DERP·FUDS Eligible Debris and Physi~ HazardsGambell. St. Lawrence Island. AlaskaSite LocationFUDScategorization!eligihilityDebrisEv~uationofPhyg~HazardEstimatedQuantityEstimatedRemovedQuantity Unitsin 1997NOTE: Striheellt te'lt indicates that debris was removed (or partially removed) in 199710 kW generators(a)N/A\,700 I poundsCON/HTW2 engine blocksN/ACONIHTW400 poundsSite4fArea 4&,"S5by~ ~ &,~(signature)1. Were custody seals on outside of cooler and intact? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+ ~ btu."- 1e-8-\ &IN'o-a. If YES, how many and where:YES NOv-\;.....~ NO2. Were custody papers taped to the lid inside the cooler? . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..w;:> NO3. Were custody papers properly filled out (ink, signed, dated, etc.)? . . . . . . ..~ NO4. Did you sign custody papers in the appropriate place? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@5. Did you attach shipper's packing slip to this form?~ NOb. Were signature and date correct?6. What kind of packing material was used?.~lLku:t£A.f--7. Was sufficient i~ed (if appropriate)? ~...Approved by~~())~ NO5.3"cTemperatureqt.rDate DNO8. Were all bottles sealed in separate plastic bags?..@ NO9.. Did all bottles arrive i~ good condition (unbroken)?.~10. Were all bottle labels complete (ID. No., dated, Anal. method, etc,)NO~NO.11. Did all bottle labels agree with custody papers?.~NO12. Were correct bottles used for the tests indicated?.@NO13. If present, were VOA vials/containers checked for absence of air bubbles/.head space and noted if found? Size of bubble '), fhlU'44..'fS '114. Was sufficient volume of sample sent in each bottle?15. Were correct pres~sed?Approved by: ~DateIf not approved:\ ' \ (l a. Name of person contacted ~b. Corrective action taken; if necessary:,3..~~NO--z.~NOYES®> I'--L \ c:;UI i1rYt.U.eJ..=-= Date ~0 \I ._.(see attached)c0I ref 2 SQ-..W\ P\e...s ~ r C} ~, G A,?1 M'U ;5$0 \ ~-Lurl~ \ed±\e.s) ~s t1C ,~sexve.eR w d:b i+ -
ACAT FOIA Repository 7
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 19, Date Received July 2023
Year: March 26, 1999
Pages: 268
Document Title: Remedial Investigation, Site 5, Gambell, Groundwater Sampling
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The objective of this round of groundwater sampling was to determine if hydrocarbons might be present in the potable water system in Gambell. The scope of work consisted of collecting and analyzing water samples from the four monitoring wells (MW) constructed in 1998 and two samples from the village water well. In summary, DRO, RRO, GRO, and BTEX were a non-detect (ND). The Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) contaminant level was below the ADEC Drinking Water Regulation.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 19, Date Received July 2023
Year: March 26, 1999
Pages: 268
Document Title: Remedial Investigation, Site 5, Gambell, Groundwater Sampling
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The objective of this round of groundwater sampling was to determine if hydrocarbons might be present in the potable water system in Gambell. The scope of work consisted of collecting and analyzing water samples from the four monitoring wells (MW) constructed in 1998 and two samples from the village water well. In summary, DRO, RRO, GRO, and BTEX were a non-detect (ND). The Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) contaminant level was below the ADEC Drinking Water Regulation.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat7SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 7" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONSITESGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGROUNDWATER SAMPLINGPrepared for:U.S. Anny Engineer District, AlaskaUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaP. O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898March 26, 1999Prepared by:Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517Montgomery Watson Project No. 1189098.040101Contract No. DACA85-98-D-0007F1 OAK069603_03.1 O_0011_a200-1e~ MONTGOMERY WATSONMay 17, 1999Ms. Suzanne BeauchampDepartment of the AnnyU.S. Anny Engineer District, AlaskaEnvironmental Engineering BranchP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Dear Ms. Beauchamp:Montgomery Watson is forwarding this letter (document) for your files. This shall serve asthe final requirement of the groundwater sampling at Gambell, Alaska in March 1999.The objective of this round of groundwater sampling was to detennine if hydrocarbons,which might be present in the soil resulting from former military activities, might bepresent in the potable water system in Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.The scope of work consisted of collecting and analyzing water samples from the fourmonitoring wells (MW) constructed in 1998 and two samples from the village water well.The village water well samples were to be collected from the village well point and a postc1orination tap, located in the village water treatment facility.This report is being presented in the following format:• Summary of events and results.• Tabbed sections containing the Sample Results Comparison to AlaskaRegulations, Field Forms, and Laboratory Results.The field team consisted of Bonnie McLean, field team leader, and Doug Quist, senior fieldchemist. On March 25, a field survey verified that all the monitoring wells were frozensolid. Below top of casing ice measurements were collected and recorded, except MW 29,which was covered by four feet of hard packed snow.Sampling of the village water well and tap were completed on March 26, 1999. All qualitycontrol (QC) samples (a duplicate and MSIMDS) were collected with the primary sample(99 GAM NVW 001) from the new village well house. A second primary sample wascollected from a tap (99 GAM TAP 001) just after the clorinazation treatment in the watertreatment building. All samples were analyzed for the following: DROIRRO, GROfBTEX,VOC, SVOC, Alkalinity, Chloride, and Ion balance. The results are included in thisdocument.The pump has been pulling a greater amount of sediment than normal and the operator hasto wash the filters every other day instead of weekly.4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska99517·2901Te:' 907 248 8883Fa' 907 248 8884Serving rhe World's Environmenral NeedsMs. Suzanne Beauchamp2May 17, 1999It was learned that a 1 1/4" return supply line feeds treated water back to the well houseand dumps directly into the well gaBery.This results in treated return water beingincluded in part, with the wen water sample. Analytical results are shown in the attachedtable and a comparison is of results to ADEC applicable regulatory criteria are alsopresented.In summary, DRO, RRO, GRO, and BTEX were an non-detect (ND). Four compoundscomprising Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) were not ND seem to be a result of theclorination process. TTHMs are the sum of the concentration of bromodichloromethane,dibromochlormethane, tribrornmethane (bromoform), and trichloromethane (cloroform).The results were much higher in the TAP sample for these compounds then in the dilutednew village wen (NVW) sample. The Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) contaminant levelwas below the ADEC Drinking Water Regulation.An sample results were below ADEC regulations.If you have any questions, please gi ve me a caB at 266-1141.Sincerely,.-.Bonnie McLeanField Team Leaderpis COl_3.1.2/1189098.040101SAMPLE RESULTS COMPARED TO ALASKA REGULATIONSThe following table is a summary of primary and duplicate positive sample resultscompared to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Title 18Chapter 80 Drinking Water Regulations (ACC 80.070), 1994. Sample results are belowmaximum contaminant levels.- -.... _. --- ... -_. - -_.-- ......... __ ..... --.-00cc...~0.0E...EeE..cu~~..c..c0E0l0..cu:s0Sample illE~o 0.0~ E99GAMNVWOOI0.0017*99GAMNVW201 0.00170.02799GAMTAPOO 1c.20I-0000E~~..co E0.0010.00150.00140.028UNO0.014~EEc.20E0I-TIHMsmgILMaximumContaminantLevelTIHMsmgIL~NONO0.0110.00420.00310.080.10.10.1*-Sample 99GAMNVW201 is the field duplicate sample of 99GAMNVWOOI.TIHMs -Total Trihalomethanes (the sum of the concentrations of bromodichloromethane.dibromochloromethane. tribromethane(bromoform) and trichloromethane (chloroform».DATA REVIEW OF PRIMARY AND FIELD DUPLICATE SAMPLESWater analysis data for the March 26, 1999 sampling of Gambell Site 5 have beenreviewed for precision, accuracy, and completeness. Four samples, including twoprimary samples, one trip blank, and one field duplicate were submitted to QuanterraEnvironmental Services, Anchorage, Alaska for analysis.The following quality control (QC) samples and indicators were reviewed in accordancewith the established PARCC parameters (PARCC parameters were defined in the QAPPAddendum for Site 5 Remedial Invistigation Work Plan, Gambell, Alaska).•••••••Holding TimesField and laboratory blanksField and laboratory duplicate/split samplesMatrix spike/duplicate matrix spike samplesLaboratory control/duplicate laboratory control samplesMethod reporting limitsSurrogates•Sample receipt informationA review of the data submitted indicates that the resulting data set is suitable for itsintended use, with some qualification, as described in the following sections.Data Review ResultsA review of the Gambell Site 5 data packages indicates that all sample results and reportsubmittal elements (hard copy) were complete, correct, consistent and complied withcontract requirements. The following text summarizes significant data review findings.•The VOC by SW8260 MS/MSD percent recoveries were within laboratoryacceptance limits, with the exception of 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether, styrene, and vinylacetate in sample 99GAMNVW201. Two analytes were qualified as rejected (VR)due to 0% recoveries, and one analyte qualified with an estimated practicalquantitation limit (VQQ).AnalytesampleresultugIL% recoveriesMS% recoveriesMSDAcceptanceCriteriaQualifier2-chloroethylvinyl etherstyrenevinyl acetateNDNDND130-70VRNDND7.754.70ND18.2136-45130-70VRVQQ•The SVOC by SW8270 MS/MSD percent recoveries were within laboratoryacceptance limits, with the exception of benzidine, acenaphthylene, bis(2chloroisopropyl) ether in sample 99GAMNVWOO1. One analyte was qualified asrejected (VR) due to 0% recovery, and two analytes were qualified with an estimatedpractical quantitation limit (VQQ).Analytebenzidineacenaphthylenebis(2chloroisopropyl)ether•sampleresultugILNDNDND%recovenesMSND41.958.7%recoveriesMSDAcceptanceCriteriaQualifierND178-1126-56169-63VRVQQVQQ41.155.6The percent difference between the cation and anion for sample 99GAMNVW201exceeded the acceptable percent difference limit of +/- 2% with a percent differenceof 4.89%. All other ion balances did met acceptance criteria.GambellComplete Analytical DataField Sample IDSamp. DateParaIJJeterResultMRLUnitsFlagMethodLab Samp_ No.LabQESZ99GAMNVWooI03126/1999Gasoline Range OrganicsNO(0.10)mgllAKIOI0636640002SA99GAMNVWool03126/1999Diesel Range OrganicsNO(100)ugllAKI020636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWooI03126/1999Residual Range OrganicsNO(250)ugllAKID30636640002SAQESZQESZ99GAMNVWooI03126/19991.1,1.2-TetraChloroethaneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SA99GAMNVWooI0312611999I, 1,1-TrichloroethaneNO(1.0)ugIlSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03/26/1999I, I,2,2-TetraChloroethaneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,1,2-Trichloro-l,2.2-tritluoroethaneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,1.2-TrichloroethaneNO(1.0)ugIlSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/1999I,I-DichloroethaneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/1999I,I-DichloroetheneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SA . QESZ99GAMNVWool03126/1999I,I-DichloropropcneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,2,3-Trichlorobenz.eneNO(1.0)ugIlSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,2,3-TrichloropropaneNO(1.0)ugIlSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,2,4-Trichlorobenz.eneNO(1.0)ugIlSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWool03126/19991,2,4-TrimethylbcnzeneNO(1.0)ugllSW82600636640002SAQESZ99GAMNVWOOI03126/19991,2-Dibromo-3,Q. I.e.(Laboratory:Quantem. Illc5761 Silverado WayAnchorale, Ak 99502907-563-4100907·563-4815 FAX'Alln: andy LeFemMW Job Number:1189098.04010114·DAY~:i.~o,TURNAROUND99GAMTAP 00 f99GAMtJV~ 00199 GAMfJ\J W 20 I99 GAM~T'3G;V,~ fCj I \J99 GAM99 GAM99 GAM99 GAMDalehTime--~----Laboratory NOli liedFiledI~--.?0312419911 :01 '" MQAlQC for USCOEProject Name (~be\\Project Number_Date: 3-'21 ... f'lqcoc:Completed By:l1un\ ..- 'Primary9C1 C A-n-'\ t.J V 1.1 ) ~Ic;;:..~ ScqCf C'n... \\/ ~I"l\Parameters~,(.tII2.DJ -
ACAT FOIA Repository 8
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 1, Received July 2023
Year: September 2000
Pages: 62
Document Title: Gambell Sites, GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis (Historical Photographic Analysis)
Agency/Organization: USACE Engineer Research and Development Center and Topographic Engineering Center
Document Summary:
Report of historical aerial photograph analysis (from the 1950s to the 1990s), historical maps, and ancillary data/documents for the 2,542-acre FUDS sites around Gambell, looking at possible disturbed grounds for toxic burial/disposal sites.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 1, Received July 2023
Year: September 2000
Pages: 62
Document Title: Gambell Sites, GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis (Historical Photographic Analysis)
Agency/Organization: USACE Engineer Research and Development Center and Topographic Engineering Center
Document Summary:
Report of historical aerial photograph analysis (from the 1950s to the 1990s), historical maps, and ancillary data/documents for the 2,542-acre FUDS sites around Gambell, looking at possible disturbed grounds for toxic burial/disposal sites.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat8SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 8," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGambell SitesGIS-BASED HISTORICAL TIME SEQUENCE ANALYSIS(HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS)PRODUCED BY THEUSACE ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERTOPOGRAPHIC ENGINEERING CENTERSeptember 2000FinalF10AK0696--_01.04_0504_a200-1eUS Army Corps of EngineersSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGambell SitesGIS-BASED HISTORICAL TIME SEQUENCE ANALYSIS(HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS)PRODUCED BY THEUSACE ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERTOPOGRAPHIC ENGINEERING CENTERSeptember 2000FinalUS Army Corps of EngineersGambell, AK - Site LocationsSite 8St. Lawrence Islandmap by Montgomery Watson, 2/3/97Army ActivityAir Force ActivityUS Army Corps of Engineers3Gambell, AK3-D PERSPECTIVE VIEWVILLAGE OFGAMBELL1955 AERIAL OBLIQUE PHOTOGRAPHUS Army Corps of Engineers4Gambell, AK - General Study AreaGambellSevuokuk Mtn.TroutmanLakeNayvaghaqLake1984 Image MosaicUS Army Corps of Engineers5Gambell, AK - Objectives & BackgroundOBJECTIVES:• Analyze a series of historic aerial photographs, historical maps, and ancillary data/documents for the 2,542 acre area weshall refer to as the Gambell Sites.• Determine if there are features on these photos that could be indicative of possible burial and/or areas of general grounddisturbance and/or possible historical, cultural features. These features may be potential areas of interest for possible HTRWdisposal and/or conventional ordnance disposal, requiring further site investigation.• Map the location of historical features of interest onto a current aerial photo base produced for the site.BACKGROUND:• Some of the features identified represent new or refined data found during the Topographic Engineering Center’s (TEC’s)analysis of historical aerial photography and therefore are meant to be used in addition to the data found in previousinvestigations and the Archive Search Report. Some information used in this report was provided by USACE Huntsville andUSACE Alaska District.• Data is presented in Geographic Information System (GIS) form and additional information for features is provided onthe CDROM. ArcView is the common GIS display mechanism, though .dxf files are provided in addition to the arccoverages.US Army Corps of Engineers6Gambell, AKINTRODUCTIONMETHODOLOGYThis report presents the results of a historical aerial photographic analysis (GIS-basedhistorical time-sequence analysis) for an area known as the Gambell Sites located onSaint Lawrence Island in the state of Alaska. This study was compiled for the U.S.Army Engineering & Support Center, Huntsville, Alabama by the United States ArmyEngineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Topographic EngineeringCenter’s (TEC) Operations Division (CEERD-TO), located in Alexandria, Virginia.In preparation for this report, research was conducted for historicalaerial photography (AP), maps and some textual information.Information and photography were gathered from the NationalArchives and Records Administration (NARA) in College Park,Maryland and other sources. The analysis was primarily based uponthe interpretation of black and white AP over the project area,spanning the years 1948 through 1994. Stereo-paired aerialphotographs were analyzed for 1948, 1955, 1972, 1973, 1980, 1984,1985, and 1994. Orthophoto base maps was produced using 1984color infrared AP and 1994 true-color AP.The Terrain Analysis Branch (TAB) of the Operations Division was tasked to searchfor and collect historical photographic records and map data relevant to the Gambellarea. The objective of this study was to locate any sites that may be of interest forfurther investigation. These sites may be linked to buried waste or equipmentand/or ordnance and explosives (OE) activities. OD was asked to map any suchsites identified on the historical aerial photography (AP). For the purposes of thisstudy, the entire Northwest Cape peninsula was examined south to a line where thesand spit terminates on the western coast.SITE LOCATION and HISTORYThe study area for the Gambell Sites is located on Northwest Cape, St. LawrenceIsland, in the Bering Sea. It is 36 miles from the Chukotsk Peninsula, Siberia, and 200miles southwest of Nome, Alaska.The Gambell Sites were established in the 1950s as part of the surveillance andintelligence-gathering network of the military. Seven individual leases were initiatedby the DoD in this area. The first lease agreement was implimented in September1950, and the final lease was terminated in September 1973. Various units of the U.S.Army and the U.S. Air Force utilized the area. Prior to lease terminations, all DoDowned material was demolished and/or buried on site.The Air Force established an installation in September of 1950 with a lease consistingof 1,580 acres. A base camp was built on the western base of Sevuokuk Mountain anda radar site was built directly above this camp on the mountain top. The Air Forceabandoned this site in 1956, though the lease ran until September of 1962. The Armyoccupied several sites from 1954 through 1963, with a main base camp located justnorth of Troutman Lake. The Navy laid communication cables from the village ofGambell up Sevuokuk Mountain and across to Dovelawik Bay and then south toBrunnell Cape. A final lease by the Gambell National Guard was terminated inSeptember of 1973. The military presence was essentially gone by the late 1970s.US Army Corps of EngineersStereoscopic viewing was performed on the collection of historicalphotos. Film and paper based aerial photo material were used in theanalysis. Features assessed as possible sites of interest were identifiedand labeled. Photos with these features of concern were scanned on ahigh-resolution scanner at 200 to 600 DPI resolution in TIF format. Thehistorical aerial photos were rectified to the 1984 digital orthophoto.All of the identified historical features were digitized on theirrespective rectified image. These features could then be placed ontothe current 1984 and 1994 orthophotos as vector overlays.The image rectification was accomplished using ERDAS IMAGINE 8.3software. Vector layers were generated using ArcView 3.2 software.Shape files were created. The digital data was transferred to a CD-ROM.The digital orthophoto and rectified aerial photos are in tagged image fileformat (TIF) with an associated “world file” or .tfw file. The tfw filecontains the pixel size, and upper left geographic coordinate for theimage file.The orthophoto, rectified photos and corresponding vector layersare georeferenced to the Alaska State Plane (Zone 9), NAD83(datum), and GRS 1980 (spheroid) Zone #6301. Units are in feet.SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe review of maps and photos for the site reveal numerous changes inthe area over time. Features mapped for the area include pits, disturbedground, possible trenches, and some possible mounded material. Manyof the features occur in burial areas identified in previous studies.A digital version of this report is on CD-ROM media. The CD-ROMalso contains the historical features in vector layers (for use in a GISsystem).7Gambell, AKDocuments ReviewedDocuments ReviewedAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Site Summary Update – Saint Lawrence Island.December 1999.Alaska Department of Highways, Mapping Section, City of Gambell, Alaska, Map, Scale 1:3,000, 1973.Alaska Historical Commission studies in history, Anchorage; no. 174, Notes to the historical photographsof Saint Lawrence Island, June 1985.Army Magazine, “The Rock,” May 1984.Bandi, H. G., Preliminary Report on the “St. Lawrence Island Archeological Field Project 1967” of theUniversity of Berne/Switzerland and the University of Alaska. 1967.Beikman, H. M., USGS, Geologic Map of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, Map, Scale 1:250,000, 1980.Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP FUDS), “Findingsand Determination of Eligibility (FDE), St. Lawrence Defense Area, Alaska,” July 1985.Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E), 1992, Site Inventory Report, Gambell Formerly Used DefenseSite, St. Lawrence Island, AK. December 1992.Holmes, C.E. and R.O. Stern, Fairbanks: Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, CulturalResources Survey: Gambell Evacuation Route, St. Lawrence Island, February 1983.Masters, P.M. and Zimmerman, M.R., “Age Determination of an Alaskan Mummy: Morphological andBiochemical Correlation.” Science, Vol. 201, 1 September 1978.Staley, David P., (Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska, Anchorage.Archeological Work Plan for 1992 Construction Projects in Gambell, Alaska. April 1992.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Archives Search Report – Findings for the FormerGambell Site. Revised March 1998.U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, Final Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, AK. December1998.U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Gambell – Its History, Population, and Economy.January 1977.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Site Inspection Report – St. Lawrence Island – City ofGambell, Alaska, September 1994.U.S. National Archives. Multiple still photographs. July 1972, July 1960, 1959, 1953, 1955.USGS, St. Lawrence, Alaska, Map, Scale 1:250,000. 1948.US Army Corps of Engineers8Gambell, AK - Aerial PhotographyNOTE: FOR CERTAINYEARS ONLYPARTIAL COVERABEWAS AVAILABLEUS Army Corps of EngineersDATETYPESCALEAugust 24, 1948Black and White1:21,000September 15, 1955Black and White1:10,000September 15, 1955Black and WhiteobliquesJanuary 15,1958Black and White1:6,000July 4, 1972Black and White1:1,500July 4, 1972Black and White1:3,000October 30, 1973Black and White1:3,000July 19, 1980Black and WhiteobliquesAugust 19, 1980Black and White1:6,000August 19, 1980Black and White1:24,000October 22, 1985Black and White1:6,000October 22, 1985Black and White1:18,000July 19, 1984Color Infra-red1:65,000July 12, 1994True ColorobliquesAugust 12, 1994True Color1:10,000 Orthophoto base mapOrthophoto base map9Gambell, AK - Aerial Photography19481955Aerial PhotographicCoverage ExtentbyYear1958197219731980198419851994US Army Corps of Engineers10Gambell, AK - Span of AnalysisChange DetectionThrough TimeCaptured Features:Disturbed GroundTrenchesPitsMounded MaterialDepressionsBuildings of InterestCultural Features ofInterest1948 Aerial Photo1984 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers11Gambell, AK - Archeological SitesSEKLOWGHYAGET SITEIEVOGHIYOQ SITEMIYOWAGH SITEANDHILLSIDE SITEMERUWTU POINTUS Army Corps of EngineersLocations Approximate12Gambell, AK - Pre-DOD FeaturesBuilding Footprintsof former structures1948 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHFeatures of InterestCleared area for runway1994 AERIAL PHOTO WITH 1948 FEATURESUS Army Corps of Engineers13Gambell, AK - Features of InterestSep 1953 North Beach, GambellVillage of GambellUS Army Corps of Engineers1953 Army Site from Mtn.1953 View of North Beach from Mtn.1959 North Beach and Sevuokuk Mtn.Ancient Village Site14Gambell, AK - DOD Leased TimelineDOD ComponentCommentsTimelineAir ForceAircraft Control and WarningSep 1950 - Sep 1962AIR FORCEUSEARMY USE19501953ArmyGambell Army Site No. 1Oct 1954 - Sep 1963ArmyGambell Army Site No. 2Jan 1955 - May 1958ArmySt. Lawrence Island Army SiteJan 1956 - Dec 1963ArmyGambell National Guard SiteMar 1962 - Sep 1973ArmyGambell Army StationNov 1963 - Dec 1963Air ForceGambell Communications AnnexJun 1960 - Sep 1962US Army Corps of Engineers1963196215Gambell, AK - DOD Leased AreasArchives Search Report 1998Plate 2US Army Corps of EngineersArchives Search Report 1998Plate 316Gambell Sites, AKSTUDY AREAS2113STUDY AREA 1US Army Corps of Engineers17Gambell, AK - STUDY AREA 1Air Force 1960 - 1962Army 54 -62DOD LeasedPropertyArmy Nov - Dec 631Army1958 - 1963Army1963 - 1963Air Force 1950 - 1962Army 1953 - 1962US Army Corps of Engineers1984 OrthophotoBase Map18Gambell, AK Installations in Northern AreaAir Force Radar SiteArmy and Air ForceInstallations in 1955Air Force CampTramway SiteGeneral Locations inNorthern AreaTroutmanLakeVillage of GambellArmy InstallationN1955 Oblique Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers19Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Disturbed GroundFeature of Interest for ReferenceFeatures Identified from1955 Aerial PhotosPits and TrenchesTroutman Lake1955 Aerial Photo and FeaturesUS Army Corps of Engineers20Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1PitsDepression1984 Aerial PhotoDisturbed GroundFeatures Identified from1973 Aerial Photos1973 Aerial Photo and FeaturesUS Army Corps of Engineers21Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Note: the 1973 Depression nolonger apparent in 1980 and1994 aerial photosTroutman Lake1980 Aerial Photo1955 and 1973 Identified Features onmore current Aerial Photos1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers22Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Navy Station(Vacant in 1980)as per Dept. ofHighways MapHigh SchoolPanning to theEastfrom theprevious slideareaTroutman Lake1980 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers23Gambell Sites, AK - Army Installation 1955NFeatures ofPossibleConcern1955ObliqueAerialPhotoArmy FacilityPossible AmmoFacilityTrenchStacks of drumsIdentified as MilitaryLandfill in SiteInvestigation ReportOutdoor StoragePossible PitUS Army Corps of Engineers24Gambell Sites, AK - Army Installation 1955Troutman LakeNArmy FacilityStacks of drumsOutdoor StoragePossible AmmoFacility/Quonset HutPossible PitIdentified asMilitary Landfillin SiteInvestigationReportUS Army Corps of EngineersNote: Trench25Gambell Sites, AK - Army Installation 1955Possible AmmoFacilityArmy Facility Northof Troutman Lakewith Detail of PossibleAmmo FacilityUS Army Corps of Engineers26Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Rows of DrumsArmy Facilityin 1953Troutman LakeLooking tothe SoutheastSeptember1953ObliqueAerial PhotoLumberStacksSeptember 1953US Army Corps of Engineers27Gambell Sites, AK - Army Installation 1955Stacks of DrumsNote: Trench1955 Aerial ObliqueNote: QuonsetHut Building/Berm1955 Building Footprints1955 Features on 1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers28Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1DrumsDisturbedGroundTrenchPitTrench1994 Aerial PhotoPitFeatures Identified from1955 Aerial PhotographyTrenches1955 Building Footprints of1955 Building FootprintsArmy Facility1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers29Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Army Installation 1953 - North of Troutman Lake1953ObliquePhotoPossible Debris BurialSite/Disturbed GroundDrums MarkingPathwayUS Army Corps of Engineers30Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Approximate Locationon 1994 Aerial Photo1953 Oblique PhotoPossible DebrisBurial Featurefound only on1953 ObliquePhotoNote: ASR Army Site #11954 - 1962Pits1994 Aerial Photo With 1955 Identified FeaturesUS Army Corps of Engineers31Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Possible PitFeature1955 AerialOblique PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers32Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1PitTrench1973 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers33Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 11973 Trench and Pits1973 Trench and Pits1973 Trench and Pits1973 Aerial Photo1980 Aerial PhotoPit Feature LocationUS Army Corps of Engineers1994 Aerial Photo34Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 11955 DisturbedGroundNorth BeachNorth BeachDisturbed Ground1955 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers1955 Feature on 1994 Aerial Photo35Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 11980 Identified FeaturesDepressionsDepressionsTrenchesTrenches1980 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of EngineersTrenchesTrenches1980 Features on 1994 Aerial Photo36Gambell Sites, AK - RUNWAY AREA1994 Aerial Photo with Mounded MaterialIdentified from 1972 Aerial PhotoMounded Material and LeakingDrum Stack Found near RunwayEvident in 1972 Aerial PhotosUS Army Corps of Engineers37Gambell Sites, AK - July 1960 Ground PhotosNote Drums nearVillage of GambellJuly 1960US Army Corps of EngineersPossible Photo LocationNote Drums nearVillage of GambellJuly 196038Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 22213STUDY AREA 2US Army Corps of Engineers39Gambell Sites, AK1953 - Ground PhotosArmy Landing Area Supply ShipDisposal Site ?Stacked Drums1953 North BeachUS Army Corps of EngineersHandling of Drums 1953 - North Beach40Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2U.S. Air Force Installation “Camp” - July 1952US Army Corps of Engineers41Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Air Force Installation at Base of Sevuokuk MountainJuly 1952Looking EastBerm Surrounding EquipmentJuly 1952US Army Corps of Engineers42Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Air ForceInstallationAreaNote: Yellow Rectangleindicates approximatelocation of Air ForceInstallationDisturbed GroundDepressions(Military Housing/Operations)1980 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers43Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Depressions and Disturbed ground from 1980 Aerial PhotosJuly 1952DisturbedGroundDepressionsFormer Communications Facility Burial AreaFormer Military (AF) Housing/OperationsBurial AreaDisturbed GroundIdentified as BurialAreas on Fig. 2-2 ofSite InvestigationReportOrdnance Burial SiteUS Army Corps of EngineersFigure 2-2 of SI Report44Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Disturbed GroundIdentified from1980 AerialPhotographyDetails from Figure 2-2 of Site Investigation ReportUS Army Corps of Engineers45Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Quonset HutDetailJuly 19601948 Aerial PhotoTop ofSevoukukMountainUS Army Corps of EngineersTramway DetailDecember 5, 195346Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Disturbed Ground and Quonset “Footprints”1980AerialPhotoBuilding FootprintRemnants Found on1980 AerialPhotographyJuly 1960 PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers47Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 21980AerialPhotoDisturbed Groundfound at possible siteof Upper TramwayStationDecember 519531980 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers48Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 32South ofTroutman Lake133STUDY AREA 3US Army Corps of Engineers49Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3Troutman LakeTroutman LakeBuildingsand PitIdentified as Former RadarPower Station area in Table 2-1of SI Report1955 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers1955 Features on 1994 Aerial Photo50Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3As per Plate 2 ofArchives SearchReport, Leased byArmy Jan ‘55 to May‘58Troutman Lake1955 Aerial PhotoTroutman LakeDisturbed Ground andPossible StackedOutdoor Storage ofsome kind1955 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers19941955 Features on1994 Aerial Photo51Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3As per Plate 2 ofArchives SearchReport, Leased byArmy Jan ‘55 to May‘58Troutman LakeTroutman LakeArmy1972 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of EngineersGround Disturbance NotIdentified until 1972Timeframe with AerialPhotos1972 GroundDisturbance on 1994Aerial Photo52Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3As per Plate 2 ofArchives SearchReport, Leased byArmy Jan ‘55 to May‘581980 AerialPhoto1980 Disturbed Ground featuresoverlaid upon SI Report Figure 2-2Note: # 12 = Lake Disposal Site (SI Report)US Army Corps of Engineers1980 Disturbed Ground on 1984Air Photo Base Map53Gambell Sites, AKGambell Sites, AlaskaSummary of FindingsUS Army Corps of EngineersGambell Sites, AK - Study Area 1Possible DisturbedGround Identifiedon 1955 AerialPhotos1994 AerialPhotographyAs per Site Investigation Report Previously identified Military LandfillsAdditional QuonsetHut and Bermidentified from 1955Aerial ObliquesUS Army Corps of EngineersPossibleDepressions andPits identified on1980 Aerial PhotosPossible1953/55/73Trenches,DisturbedGround, andDepressions(approximate)55Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Historic Featureson 1994 Aerial PhotoBase Map1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers56Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 1Historic featureson 1994 Aerial PhotoBase Map1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers57Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Previous Location ofAir Force RadarFacilityPrevious Locationof Air ForceCamp FacilitySevuokuk Mtn.Previous Location ofQuonset Hut FacilityPrevious Location ofTop of Tramway1980 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers58Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 2Base of Sevuokuk MountainTop of Sevuokuk MountainDisturbed GroundDepressions andDisturbed groundPrevious Location ofAir Force RadarFacility1980 Aerial PhotoApproximate Location ofFormer Air ForceFacilityBuilding footprints found on1980 Aerial PhotosUS Army Corps of EngineersPrevious Location ofAir Force QuonsetHut Facility1980 Aerial Photo59Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3Troutman LakeDisturbed Ground andOutdoor Storage wereID’d from 1955 AerialPhotosNayvaghaqLakeBuildings and Pit wereID’d from 1955 AerialPhotos1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers60Gambell Sites, AK - STUDY AREA 3Disturbed Ground andStacked Storage foundon 1955 AerialPhotographyBuildings foundon 1955 AerialPhotographyTroutman LakeNayvaghaq LakePitDisturbedGround foundon 1972 AerialPhotography1994 Aerial PhotoUS Army Corps of Engineers61Gambell Sites, AKPROJECT POCs:Joseph HarrisonCOMM 703.428.6026jfharris@tec.army.milJohn WilderCOMM 703.428.8006jwilder@tec.army.milUS Army Corps of Engineers -
ACAT FOIA Repository 9
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 2, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 2000
Pages: 130
Document Title: Final Strategic Project Implementation Plan
Agency/Organization: Montgomery Watson (contractor from Anchorage of the U.S. Department of Defense)
Document Summary:
The Native Village of Gambell (IRA) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Defense (DoD) under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). This agreement includes the development of a Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP). The report includes community knowledge in a survey about toxics at Gambell. Includes an Appendix with a Geophysical Report from Golder Associates, August 2000, asbestos survey, and cost estimations for toxics removal.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 2, Date Received July 2023
Year: December 2000
Pages: 130
Document Title: Final Strategic Project Implementation Plan
Agency/Organization: Montgomery Watson (contractor from Anchorage of the U.S. Department of Defense)
Document Summary:
The Native Village of Gambell (IRA) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Defense (DoD) under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). This agreement includes the development of a Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP). The report includes community knowledge in a survey about toxics at Gambell. Includes an Appendix with a Geophysical Report from Golder Associates, August 2000, asbestos survey, and cost estimations for toxics removal.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat9SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 9," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Final Strategic Project Implementation PlanGambell, St . Lawrence Island, AlaskaContract No. DACA85 -98-D-0007Delivery Order No. 18, Task 1December 2000Prepared for :Native Village of GambellP.O. Box 90Gambell, Alaska 99742Prepared by :Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517sTable of ContentsAcronyms .................... ..Introduction ........ ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .1The SPIP .. .. ....................................... . ... ...................................... .................................... ....... . 1Approach ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ................... .................... . ..... . ......... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .1Location ................ . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. ................. . ... . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2Site History .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 2Site Descriptions ....... ........................................... ......... ..... ... ................ .. ................ .................... ... 4Site 1A, Army Landing Area .... ........................... . ....... .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .... .......... .. .. ........ ......... . 4Site 1B, North Beach/Air Force Landing Area ......................... . . ............................... . . . . . ...... . 4Site 1C, North Beach . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . ....................... . .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. ... . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .4Site 2, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Site 3A, Former Communications Facility Burial Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Site 4E, Western Face of Sevuokuk Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Site 5, Former Tramway Site ..... . . .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 5Site 6, Military Landfill .................................. .. . ............... .............. ...... ............ ................ ..... . 5Site 7, Former Military Power Facility ....... .. . . .............................. ....................................... .. 6Site 8, Small Arms Ammunition Burial Site . . . . . . . . ............................. .... . . . ... . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 6Site 8A, Eastern Edge Of Runway . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. ..... . .. .... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .6Site 8B, West Beach, Old Gambell Village Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Site 8C, Navy Landfill .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. 6Si te 13, Former Radar Power Station ..................... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ............. . . . .. .. ................ .. 7Site 15, Troutman Lake Debris Burial Site ............. . ................................ .................... ......... . 7Site 16, Gambell Municipal Building Site .. . ................. ............. ......... .... ..... ......... ........... . 7Site 17, Air Force Landfill . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. ......... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 7Site 18, Former Main Camp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Site 19, Diatomaceous Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Site 20, Schoolyard . . . . . .. .. ... . .. .... .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . 8Site 21, Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain .................. .... ........ .. .. .. .. . . . . .. ...... .. . ......... .. .. .. .. .......... .... .. . 8Site 22, Former CAA Housing . . . .. ... . ... . ..................... .............................. ................ . .. .. . . .. .. ... . 8Site 23, Debris from High School Construction .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ......... . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. 8Site 24, South of Municipal Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Site 25, Village of Gambell, South Housing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Costs.............. ...... .............................. ... ............................ .............................. ......................... ..... .10References .... ............................ ............................... ................................ . . .......................... ........ .15Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - FinalPagei1189098.180101/6 .2.2December2000List of Figures1Gambell Vicinity Map ....... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. ... . ........... . ......... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . 32 Gambell Site Map . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Historical Photographic Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12List of TablesCleanup of Former Department of Defense Facilities ...... .. .. .. .......... .. .............. .. ................. .13AppendicesAppendix A Community SurveysSurvey Summary TablePriority ListSummary . Location MapsExample of Survey QuestionnaireAppendix B Geophysical Report - July 2000Appendix C Asbestos Survey Field NotesAppendix D Future Construction InformationAppendix E Removal Cost EstimationsGambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page ii1189098.18010116.2 .2December2000AcronymsACMAir ForceArmyATVBLMCAADERPDoDFUDSIRANALEMPNavyRISPIPUSAEDasbestos-containing material(s)United States Air ForceUnited States Armyall-terrain vehicleBureau of Land ManagementCivil Aeronautics AdministrationDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramDepartment of Defenseformerly used defense sites'Native Village of Gambell, Indian Restoration ActNative American Lands Environmental Mitigation ProgramUnited States Navyremedial investigationStrategic Project Implementation PlanUnited States Army Engineer Division, HuntsvilleGambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page iii1189098.180101/6.2 .2December2000INTRODUCTIONThe Native Village of Gambell (IRA) entered into an cooperative agreement with theDepartment of Defense (DoD) under the Native American Lands Environmental MitigationProgram (NALEMP) . This agreement includes the development of a Strategic ProjectImplementation Plan (SPIP) .THE SPIP• Identifies DoD impacts• Discusses how DoD activities affects land use• Provides a time frame for anticipated land development• Proposes desired remediation of DoD-impacted areas• Estimates the cost of remedial activities• Prioritizes the remedial actionsThe SPIP is a tool to express tribal members' ideas and concerns to the DoD, and will serve as abasis for further discussions with the DoD regarding military impacts to Gambell . The SPIPdoes not guarantee that any DoD money will be available to perform removal actions at Gambell .APPROACHA community survey was performed in cooperation with the Native Village of Gambell (IRA) tosolicit information from community members regarding the whereabouts of remaining militarydebris, primarily buried debris . The survey forms included a site map of the Gambell area(Appendix A) and were completed by the survey participants to better locate the areas inquestion . The surveys were compiled, a priority list completed (Appendix A), and theinformation combined with information gathered through previous remedial investigations and,removal actions . Previous restoration activities were performed under the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP) for Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) andmanaged by the United States Army Engineer District, Alaska .To aid in the development of the SPIP, a geophysical investigation of several sites identified inthe community survey was performed in the summer of 2000 (Golder, 2000) . Seven sites wereinvestigated covering an area of approximately 13 acres . The purpose of the geophysicalinvestigation was to confirm the presence and estimate the quantity of suspected buried metallicdebris resulting from military activity . The results of the geophysical investigation were used inthe SPIP to help estimate cost of remediation (Appendix B) .Montgomery Watson completed a visual inspection of nine former Civilian AeronauticsAdministration (CAA) buildings to identify the possibility of the presence of friable asbestos .Seven of the buildings are currently being occupied by local native residents . The field notes arelocated in Appendix C .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page IDecember 2000LOCATIONGambell is located off the coast of western Alaska (Figure 1) on the northwest tip of St .Lawrence Island in the western portion of the Bering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwestof Nome, Alaska . The island is accessible by boat or regularly scheduled or charteredcommercial airline from the city of Nome . Gambell is 39 air miles from the Siberian ChukotskPeninsula. The village of Gambell is built on a gravel spit that projects northward and westwardfrom the Island . The location of the site is 63 degrees 47 minutes north latitude and 171 degrees43 minutes west longitude, in Township 20 South, Range 67 West, Kateel River Meridian .SITE HISTORYThe Gambell area was used by the United States Army (Army), United States Navy (Navy), andUnited States Air Force (Air Force) from approximately 1948 until the late 1950s . Variousfacilities around the village of Gambell were constructed to provide housing, communications,and other military functions . The Air Force operated an Aircraft Control and Warning Station asearly as 1948, but the site was abandoned about 1956 when a similar facility was constructed atNortheast Cape on the northeast end of St . Lawrence Island . The Army operated a base atGambell that reportedly supported several hundred personnel . A search of historical recordsfailed to yield base plans or site information from the Army Installation . However, according toWinfred James, a local Gambell resident, the Army was active in Gambell from 1954 to 1957 .Information regarding Navy activities at Gambell is sparse ; however, their presence in Gambellis known to have occurred during the beginning the cold war .Extensive background research into Navy activities at Gambell yielded no pertinent information .Air Force property was transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1962, andArmy property was transferred to the BLM in 1963 . All DoD structures were demolished,burned, or scavenged, and the debris buried on site .Today, as a result of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, St . Lawrence Island isheld jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc . in Gambell and Savoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga . Landnot owned by Alaska Natives on St . Lawrence Island is limited to state lands used for airstripsand related facilities . The area around the village of Gambell is classified as a FUDS under theDERP .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 2December 2000JOB No . 1189098.040101TIME: 15-DEC-2000 10.46FN-E : 5.\Cod\ Proj\ueace\ gambeN\geowrkpln \fgl .dgn_lrnb el I,it . Lawrence Islandi.~t. ift^t3 Lauenoe~IslandAfi"~r~AJ~ttN'P"Ok~WN7G~ao~gMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage , AlaskaRSOURCE : U . S . Geological SurveyReston , Virginia 22092, 1976St . Lawrence , AlaskaN6265 - W16830 ,60x210Surveyed 1948, Compiled 1957Minor Revisions 1974Scale 1 :250,000 Contour Interval 100'TFIGURE 1U .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASTRATEGIC PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANVICINITY MAP - GAMBELL.~ r . t' -44SITE DESCRIPTIONSThis section presents the sites (areas of concern) identified by the community survey (AppendixA) as being impacted by former DoD activities, the primary focus being buried debris and areaswhich have been identified for future land development (Appendix D) . The site descriptions arepresented in numerical order for clarity . Table 1 lists the sites in order of community priority,provides a brief site description, and presents the preferred remedial alternative and its estimatedcost . Figure 2 shows the site boundaries, areas of concern identified in the community surveyforms, and locations of geophysical anomalies . Figure 3 presents historical photographs ofGambell showing the locations of the former military sites and areas where there is a potentialfor buried material .SITE 1 A , ARMY LANDING AREASite IA, the Army Landing Area, is located in the central portion of North Beach where twowell-established all-terrain vehicle (ATV) roads intersect . It is located east of an area that iscurrently used to beach whaling boats . Near the intersection of the two ATV roads, there is asubstantial amount of buried metallic debris, primarily Marsten matting, which continues to beexposed and reclaimed by the shifting gravels along the beach area . This site also includes ahalf-buried crane. The debris presents a physical hazard to ATV and snowmobile traffic .SITE 1 B , NORTH BEACH/AIR FORCE LANDING AREASite 1B, the former Air Force Landing Area, is located adjacent to a beach berm approximately1,900 feet east of the southeast corner of Site IA . As with Site 1A, it is believed that there is asubstantial amount of Marsten matting and other buried metallic debris remaining at the site .Portions of buried debris are exposed periodically as the gravel beach deposits shift . This areareceives a large amount of ATV traffic due to its proximity to the bird rookeries, which areutilized by the villagers for both subsistence and tourism activities . The debris presents aphysical hazard to ATV and snowmobile traffic .SITE 1C, NORTH BEACHThis site runs the majority of the length of North Beach and consists of underwater metallicdebris located just offshore . The majority of the debris is thought to be Marsten matting used toconstruct the two landing areas, Sites 1A and 113 . Community survey information also noted thatmiscellaneous metallic debris, such as wire and drums, were disposed at the shoreline . NorthBeach is the primary area used for launching boats in Gambell . The underwater debris presents apotential physical hazard to villagers while launching and returning to shore .SITE 2, FORMER MILITARY HOUSING/ OPERATIONS BURIAL SITEThis site is located approximately 600 feet south of Area 1B . A partially-buried concrete padremains on site and presents a physical hazard for ATV and snowmobile traffic .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 4December 2000SITE 3A, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BURIAL AREAThe former Communications Facility is located approximately 700 feet southeast of Site 1B, and750 feet northeast of Site 2 . Items that were reportedly buried in the area include : two Jameswayhuts ; a 15-kilowatt power plant containing auxiliary generators, transformers, oils, fuels, andbatteries ; and approximately 5- to 10-gallon glass carboys of sulfuric acid (E&E, 1993) . Resultsfrom a 1994 geophysical survey of the site indicate the presence of buried debris (Golder, 1994) .Buried debris in this area presents a potential physical hazard (e .g., sinkholes) to villagers whouse the area for subsistence activities associated with the nearby bird rookeries .SITE 4E , WESTERN FACE OF SEVUOKUK MOUNTAINThis area consists of the steeply sloped western face of Sevuokuk Mountain . The area containsvarious types of cabling used to support military activities at the summit . The debris represents aphysical hazard to villagers who use the area for subsistence activities .SITE 5, FORMER TRAMWAY SITESite 5 is located approximately 1,900 feet southeast of the former military power facility and isimmediately adjacent to the new village water supply . In 1997, Montgomery Watson conductedan investigation of two large geophysical anomalies north-northwest of the Village well house .Debris was removed or identified as not being an environmental or human health threat . Onesmaller geophysical anomaly remains just north of the well house (MW, 1997) . This site isthought to contain buried transformers and wire . The presence of buried debris at Site 5 maypose a hazard to the village water supply .SITE 6 , MILITARY LANDFILLThis site is located north of the Gambell High School and east of the new housing area . URSCorporation reported there to be approximately 3,000 drums filled with human waste buried atSite 6 during military activities at Gambell (E&E, 1992) . The barrels containing human wastewere reportedly treated with lime prior to final sealing, and then buried underneath a thin soilcovering (URS, 1985a) . During a 1994 Remedial Investigation (RI), a geophysical survey of thesite confirmed the presence of substantial subsurface metallic debris (Golder, 1994) . In 2000,additional geophysical surveys were performed to support the SPIP at Grids H, K, and M, eachof which partially overlaps Site 6 (Figure 2) . Anomalies associated with Grids H and K arewithin the original boundaries of Site 6, while anomalies at Grid M are outside the originalboundaries of Site 6 (Golder, 1994 ; 2000) . For simplicity, the geophysical survey Grids H, K,and M have been combined with and are now referred to collectively as Site 6 .The Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority is proposing to construct 8 to 10 additionalhouses east of the existing homes located adjacent to Site 6 in the near future (Appendix D) .This would place them in the vicinity of Site 6 and the buried debris . The buried debris maypose difficulties in the construction of planned and future housing projects in the vicinity .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 5December 2000SITE 7, FORMER MILITARY POWER FACILITYThis facility was reportedly buried north of the Municipal Building in an estimated 375- by 85foot area .Geophysical surveys performed in 1994 and 2000 suggest that there is buried ferrous materialremaining at the site (Golder, 1994 ; 2000) . The City of Gambell is planning the construction ofa fire hall in the immediate vicinity of Site 7 . Buried debris may underlay the area proposed fordevelopment and hinder the construction efforts .SITE 8, SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION BURIAL SITEThis area is located approximately 1,500 feet south of Troutman Lake near the natural ridge ofthe shoreline . The United States Army Engineer Division, Huntsville (USAED) removedapproximately 800 30-caliber rounds in the summer of 2000 (USAED, 2000) . An areaapproximately 15 feet square by 3 feet deep is thought to contain additional small arms roundsand associated metallic debris, such as empty ammunition cans, all of which are intermingledwith the beach gravels .Site 8A, Eastern Edge Of RunwayThis area is located immediately east of the current runway . The construction of the originalrunway by the military used Marsten matting to stabilize the soils . The current runway, nowowned and maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,overlays the original runway and Marsten matting . Large sections of the Marsten matting haverecently been exposed due to severe weather events . This area is heavily traveled by ATV andsnowmobile traffic ; the exposed matting presents a physical hazard .Site 8B , West Beach, Old Gambell Village SiteThis area is located just south of what is commonly referred to as Old Gambell Village .Miscellaneous metallic debris, including numerous 55-gallon drums and a Jeep, has been buriedat this site . The presence of buried and partially-exposed debris at this site poses a physicalhazard to villagers who actively excavate the area .Site 8C, Navy LandfillThis area is located northwest of the former Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) housingand south of the village landfill . The landfill was thought to have been constructed during Navyactivities in Gambell, when they utilized the former CAA housing . It was inspected during the2000 field visit and was suspected to contain some asbestos-containing materials (ACM) .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - FinalPage 6December 2000SITE 13, FORMER RADAR POWER STATIONThis area is located east of the unnamed pond just south of Troutman Lake . The radar powerstation consisted of two wooden Quonset huts, one long wooden building, and a number of 150foot towers that were reportedly demolished and buried on-site (E&E, 1993) . Geophysicalsurvey data collected in 1994 indicates the presence of buried debris (Golder, 1994 ; MW, 1995).SITE 15 , TROUTMAN LAKE DEBRIS BURIAL SITEThis area is located along the northern edge of Troutman Lake . Marsten matting, wire, 55-gallondrums, and other metallic debris can be seen from the shoreline of the lake on a calm day . In thespring of 2000, the USAED performed a geophysical survey over a 144-acre area of the northernedge of the lake, focusing specifically on unexploded ordnance . The presence of miscellaneousmetallic debris was confirmed . (USAED, 2000) . It is estimated that less than 1-ton of metallicdebris is present in Troutman Lake along its northern shore . The debris presents a physicalhazard to those who recreate on and in the lake during the summer months .SITE 16 , GAMBELL MUNICIPAL BUILDING SITEThis site consists of a 35- by 55-foot area of stained gravel, located immediately west of theMunicipal Building . The staining is most evident after a rainfall event . It is uncertain whetherthe staining is from military actions, village activities, or a combination of both . However,historical photographs of the area show this area to have been heavily used by the military .Surface and subsurface soils samples collected during the 1994 RI confirm the presence ofpetroleum contamination . The presence of the contaminated soils may hinder futuredevelopment of the area by the Village of Gambell .SITE 17 , AIR FORCE LANDFILLThis site is located immediately south of Site IA and immediately north of Site 6 . There are twolandfills in this area , which contain materials that were regularly burned and covered (E&E,1993 ). During the 1994 RI , a geophysical survey of the site indicated the presence of subsurfacemetallic debris and disturbed ground (Golder, 1994; MW, 1995). Due to its proximity to NorthBeach , this area is prone to severe weather events . The buried debris has the potential to becomeexposed and present a physical hazard to ATV and snowmobile traffic .SITE 18, FORMER MAIN CAMPThis area is adjacent to the northeast end of Troutman Lake and extends from the location of thecurrent Municipal Building east to the High School . There were reportedly ten 25,000-gallonfuel tanks located at the site during military activities . Geophysical survey information collectedduring the 1994 RI indicates the presence of buried metallic debris (Golder, 1994 ; MW, 1995) .Due to its proximity to Troutman Lake, the site is subject to extreme weather events and burieddebris has the potential to become exposed and present a physical hazard to ATV andsnowmobile traffic .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 7December 2000SITE 19 , DIATOMACEOUS EARTHThis area is located east of Site 18, adjacent to the northern edge of Troutman Lake .Diatomaceous earth was left buried in-place from the former military water treatment facility .The area is subject to erosion from storm events associated with Troutman Lake and ATV trafficalong a well-established trail that extends along the northern edge of the lake . As thediatomaceous earth becomes exposed, it becomes a physical hazard for ATV traffic due to itsphysical dissimilarity with the surrounding, gravelly soils .SITE 20 , SCHOOLYARDThis site is located just northeast of the former main camp . The schoolyard contains two rubblepiles that consist primarily of concrete rubble and rebar, plus one semi-exposed concrete slab .These present a physical hazard for the children attending school, as well as a physical hazard forATV and snowmobile traffic .SITE 21 , TOE OF SEVUOKUK MOUNTAINThe area located at the toe of Sevuokuk Mountain, just southwest of Site 5, it is thought thatmiscellaneous wire and metallic debris was buried in this area during military activitiesconsisting of the construction and subsequent decommissioning of the tramway that served theAir Force radar site at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain . The presence of buried debris at this siteposes a physical hazard to villagers who actively excavate the area .SITE 22 , FORMER CAA HOUSINGThe former CAA housing is located near the northeastern edge of what is commonly referred toas Old Gambell . The CAA housing consists of six homes and one lodge originally built as aweather data collection facility to help guide Russian pilots during World War II . The housingwas also used by the Navy and Army in the cold war era during their efforts to lay submarinedetection cable off Gambell . It is unclear when the CAA housing was transferred to the currentowners . The primary concern regarding the CAA housing is that of asbestos-containingmaterials commonly used in homes of this era .SITE 23 , DEBRIS FROM HIGH SCHOOL CONSTRUCTIONThis area is located due east of the Gambell landfill and consists of metallic debris unearthedduring the construction of the Gambell High School . The area is said to be 150-feet long, 70 feetwide, and 20-feet deep . The cost impact to the City of Gambell will result from the reduction ofspace available in the city landfill, now occupied by the military debris . Currently, this site doesnot present a physical hazard ; however, the potential for the debris to become exposed in thefuture and pose a physical collision hazard does exist .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 8December 2000SITE 24, SOUTH OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGThis area is located south of the Municipal Building along the northern shore of Troutman Lake .A geophysical survey of the area was conducted in the summer of 2000 (Grid J), and subsurfaceanomalies consistent with metallic debris were found . The area is subject to erosion from stormevents associated with Troutman Lake, and ATV traffic along a well-established trail thatextends along the northern edge of the lake . If exposed, the buried debris would pose a physicalhazard for ATV and snowmobile traffic .SITE 25 , VILLAGE OF GAMBELL, SOUTH HOUSING UNITSThis area is located between the three rows of the south housing units . During Village SafeWater (VSW) construction in 1997, oily soils were encountered at the permafrost interface .Historical aerial photographs identify areas of disturbed ground, a former trench and a former pitin the vicinity where the oily soils were encountered (Figure 3, Photo 7) . Site 25 has not beenformally investigated and the type and extent of contamination has not been quantified .However, the presence of contaminated soils at the permafrost interface poses a potential threatto the water supply of the houses in the affected area .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 9December 2000COSTSThe costs estimated (Appendix E) for the SPIP are in year 2000 dollars and are inclusive ofadministrative, engineering and construction costs . Unit cost rates presented in Table 1 are basedon a one-time mobilization effort, utilization of shared resources, and are inclusive of allproposed removal actions . Due to the remote location of the site, multiple mobilization effortswould increase the costs of remedial activities substantially . Each additional mobilization wouldcost roughly the same as a one-time mobilization for all proposed removal actions . Thus, tomaximize the effectiveness of the removal actions while minimizing overall project costs, a onetime field effort was used for estimating purposes .In general buried debris would be excavated and segregated into recyclable metallic debris, nonhazardous debris, hazardous debris, and asbestos containing material . All excavated debriswould be shipped off-site via barge for either recycling or disposal in an approved landfill .Petroleum contaminated soils would be treated on site and the excavation back-filled with localfill material.With proper training, most of the projects included in the SPIP could be performed by residentsof Gambell . It is estimated that up to 30 Gambell community members could be employed tosupport the remedial activities . Potential types of employment positions include :• Environmental Technicians• Equipment Operators / Construction Workers• Asbestos Abatement and Inspection• Solid Waste Handling• Hazardous Waste HandlingGambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - FinalPage10December 2000WESTRUNWAYSCALE IN FEET0asi. s~1200SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION BURIAL SITE10I8A8"~Zp ...BERING SEA~$p0000OLD GAMBELL -ap024_..i^m,OULAKEMUNICIPAL°p ,pWATER TREATMENT --_ .'-'---'a16p00000 0000' p0000 p°pap ppppNORThp pppp:C0 0aCc0 0000 LANDFILL NO 1HIGH SCHOOLARMY LANDFILL1994 SUMMER LAKEO U ~`~BOUNDARYNAYVAGHAOLAKEIUNNAMEDeNO.13I4 AREA\12Z "10:''d,'.-~~~~~•-i//3~F-y15,.pK'IOU~-/-!NHL\0-ARMYauoluc~!oraoae AREA20-- .J21IRAT ON GALLERYINO7 CURRENTLY UBEDI\~ 10II~11FORMERNEW NLLAGE/~11II~,iI'+-.I1.~~IIIIIIIIaD~B RWL $IIE`,/WNDING AREAl\\\~~.7A ,\ FORMER COMMUNICATIONS;FACNTY BURIAL AREAi:/Il~4.II2','`Y//~•\/.•_MIDTAAYli Housmc~~/II~_/I~ .\\\9uI/~-FORCE TRAILaJ}1FORMER AIR FORCE`~ IIII ~ ~ -r„`a, / R40M SITEY ~'-~•/i``.~11111111MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage , AlaskaAREAS OF CONCERN© GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED IN 2000GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED IN 199411C/,II'~V44LANDFILL.~~N0 .2 ~BURIEAMEA ANCHORA~O10 0000II.+i~,-at--------------NOFILLCRYCA0. HOUSING25S pp p0 o pBUILDINGppp p o o pJNLIAGE OF GAMBELL0UO0 VILLAGE WELL0p'0o ppp0'20pGEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATIONPERFORMED IN 1996GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALIESFIGURE 2U .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASTRATEGIC PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANAREAS OF CONCERN-JOB No. 1850566 .180101.N-60 Army landing area with bargea© Army landing area , off loading of drums, note marsten matting .©Tramway site (winter)og'-~I.r`"'`,r4" r ° t".err .•°~~~'0 Army camp . Closeup of potential ammunition storage adjacent to Troutman lake .~'; ' r. `' ,.. . .~ra~. ,,'a°. r+~•a v'„'{t`°t0 Army camp 1955L', *•'r~ K ' :.fi ,;.'''~ ;. ~'0 Areas of militarY presence .0 Areas of physical disturbance where there is potential for buried material (trenches,pits, depressions , mounds , and disturbed ground) and former military installationlocations . The areas of interest were com iled b the U.S. Arm To o ra hicEngineering Center from aerial photographic documentation taken in 1948,1955,1972, 1973, and 1980.FIGURE 3MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage , AlaskaU .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASTRATEGIC PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANHISTORIC SITE PHOTOGRAPHSTable 1Site or Location'Description18Former main camp8A2Eastern edge of runwayFormer militaryhousin o erations burial siteFormer military power facility(includes geophysical surveyarea L)Army landing area7,16 & 71A16 & 256 & 1781135133A15ICCleanup of Former Department of Defense FacilitiesGambell Municipal BuildingSite and Village of Gambell,South Housing UnitsMilitary landfill & army landfill(includes geophysical surveysH, K, & M)Small arms ammunition burialsiteNorth beach/ Air Force landingareaFormer tramway siteMilitary ImpactEstimated Cost forRemediationBuried metallic debris,potentially buried tanks .Exposed Marsten mattingBuried concrete slab .Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .Excavate concrete slab and dispose off site .$300,000$30,000Buried metallic debrisExcavate buried debris and recycle off site .$145,000Buried metallic debris andone half-buried crane.Petroleum contaminatedsoils, potential buried debris .Excavate buried debris, remove crane, andrecycle off site .Excavate buried debris, and treatcontaminated soil .$280,000Buried metallic debris andbarrels of human waste .Excavate buried debris and dispose/recycleoff site.$120,000Buried small arms munitions Excavate buried debris and dispose/recycleand associated metallicoff-site .debris .Buried metallic debris .Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .$10,000Buried debris and possibletransformers in closeproximity to village watersupplyFormer radar power stationBuried metallic debris .Former communication facility Buried wood and metallicburial areadebris, transformers, oils,fuels, batteries, and glasscarboys of sulfuric acid .Troutman Lake debris burial site Metallic debris in TroutmanLakeNorth BeachUnderwater metallic debris,(underwater debris)primarily Marsten mattin .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - FinalDesired Remediation$140,000$1,260,000$30,000Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .$37,000Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .$20,000$5,000 .Raise underwater metallic debris and recycleoff-site .Raise underwater metallic debris and recycleoff-site .$20,000$40,000Page 13December 2000Table 1 (continued ) Cleanup of Former Department of Defense FacilitiesSite or Location '4EDescription19Western face of SevuokukmountainDiatomaceous earth20Schoolyard21Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain22Former CAA housing23Debris from high schoolconstruction8BWest Beach Old GambellVillage - siteNavy landfillSouth of Municipal building8C24[ (geophysical survey area J)Itemized Project Cost'Mobilization Cost'Trainin 'Total CostMilitary ImpactDesired RemediationSurface cables running along Remove cable and recycle off site .mountainside.Diatomaceous earthExcavate diatomaceous earth and dispose offsite .Concrete rubble debris piles Remove mixed concrete debris and disposewith protruding rebar andoff-site .partially-buried concreteslab .Buried metallic debris andExcavate buried debris and recycle off site .cable .Potential asbestos-containing Inspect, sample and analyze, and abatematerial .asbestos-containing materialMetallic debris excavatedExcavate buried debris and recycle off site .during construction of theGambell High School andreburied east of the villagelandfill .Buried and/or partiallyExcavate buried debris and recycle off site .ex osed metallic debris/jeep,Buried landfill material .Excavate buried material and dispose off site.Buried metallic debris.Excavate buried debris and recycle off site .--------Estimated Cost forRemediation$50,000--$5,000$195,000$5,000$50,000$240,000$10,000$25,000$5,000$3,025,000$350,000--$250,000$3,625,000-Sites are listed in order of community priority .Costs are based on shared resources between sites, if performed on an individual basis the costs will be significantly higher' Costs are for off-site education/training for up to 30 Gambell community members-- Not applicableGambellStrategicProjectImplementationPlan-FinalPage 14December 2000REFERENCESEcology and Environment , Inc . (E&E). 1992 . Inventory Report Gambell Formerly UsedContract No. DACA85- 91-D-0003 .Defense Site St . Lawrence Island , Alaska .December .Ecology and Environment, Inc . (E&E) . 1993 . Chemical Data Acquisition Plan-Site Inventory "Update-Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska-Final-Contract No . DACA85-91-D0003 .February .Golder Associates (Golder) . 1994 . Final Report-Geophysical Survey InvestigationSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska, USA . November 3 .Golder Associates (Golder) . 2000 . Draft Geophysical Survey Investigation Native AmericanLands Environmental Mitigation Program Geophysical and Cooperative AgreementSupport Gambell, St . Lawrence Island, Alaska. August 25 .Montgomery Watson (MW) . 1995 . Final Remedial Investigation Gambell St . Lawrence Island,Alaska . Contract No . DACA85-93-D-001 1, Delivery Order No. 0003. January .Montgomery Watson (MW) . 1997 . Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St .Lawrence Island, Alaska .Montgomery Watson (MW) . 1999 . Final Phase II Remedial Investigation, Site 5, Gambell, St .Lawrence Island, Alaska .Oil Spill Consultants . 2000 . Remedial Action Report .URS Corporation (URS) . 1985a. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District .Defense Environmental Restoration Account . City of Gambell and Northeast Cape,St. Lawrence Island, Alaska Preliminary Reconnaissance : Surface and Subsurface WaterSampling, Gambell, Alaska, Contract No . DACA85-85-C-0036, Anchorage, Alaska .December .URS Corporation (URS). 1985b . United States Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District .Defense Environmental Restoration Account . City of Gambell and Northeast Cape,St. Lawrence Island, Alaska Volume 2 : Part 8 Final Environmental Assessment, ContractNo . DACA85-85-C-0036, Anchorage, Alaska . August .URS Corporation (URS) . 1986 . United States Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District .Defense Environmental Restoration Account . City of Gambell and Northeast Cape,St. Lawrence Island, Alaska Sampling Plan, Contract No . DACA85-85-C-0036,Anchorage, Alaska . March .United States Army Engineer Division , Hunstville (USAED) . 2000. Forthcoming .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 15December 2000United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center Topographic EngineeringCenter. 2000 . GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis, Gambell Sites, Gambell,Alaska, Final . September .Gambell Strategic Project Implementation Plan - Final Page 16December 2000APPENDIX ACommunity SurveysMONTGOMERY WATSONNATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELLP.O. Box 99 • Gambell, Alaska 99742 • (907) 985-5346 • FAX (907) 985-50148 March 2000MEMORANDUM for : Bonnie Mclean (MW) FAX # 907-248-8884FROM : Michael Apatiki NVG IRA Council/DoD CA ManagerSUBJECT : Priorities (SPIP) Survey at Gambell1 . The priorities of the Gambell SPIP survey in January and February are listedbelow . The priorities are based on the number of first and next sites combinedfrom question number six . The next site added to the first site, that is thenumber of next site list that are the same as the first site .2 . The top priority or the first priority of the survey questonaire is Area 18 . Thenext priority is Area 2 . These two are the overall priorities . The people surveyedmostly used the geophysical investigation numbers to pinpoint their priorities .The priorities are from top to bottom .Area 18 ----------------------------------27Area 2 ----------------------------------24All Military debris in Gambell -----------17Area 7----------------------------------16Area 17------------------------------- --15Area 8 Ordnance --------------------------15Area lA---------------------------------- 12Area 16 ----------------------------------11Area 6---------------------------------- 7Area lb ---------------------------------- 5Area 5---------------------------------- 5Area 13---------------------------------- 5Ammunition under lake -------------------- 5Area 4A & 4B----------------------------- 4Area 4B ---------------------------------- 4Oily soil in village area ---------------- 4Area 1 ---------------------------------- 2Area 3, tractors ------------------------- 2Drums under the lake---- ----------------- 2All north beach ---------------------- --- 2Area 4 -------------------------- 1Area 12 ------------------------- 1Cables at mountain -------------- 1Debris east of new housing ------1Tractors , weasels---------------1Transformers , fig 1, #2---------1Electrical equipment------------1Transformer A5------------------1Mountain top--------------------1White stuff , east of Area 18----1Debris under school playground--1New village water supply area---1Area near Area 16 --------------- 1Drums / wire at historical site---14M__1q1'f_41Michael ApatikiNVG, Gambell, Ak907-985-5474"Established in 1934, dedicated to serving the members and preserving the culture:"NATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELLP.O. Box 99 Gambell, Alaska 99742 • (907) 985-5346 • FAX (907) 985-501428 March 2000MEMORANDUM for : Bonnie McleanFROM : Michael ApatikiSUBJECT :(MW)Telephone # 907-985-5474, FAX # 907-985-5014Steelmats / debris along North Beach and Ocean1 . Enclosed is a ahort narrative of the Gambell North Beach and the submerged debris .2 . If you have questions call me at above number .Michael ApaGambell Project ManagerGambell, Alaska"Established in 1934, dedicated to serving the members and preserving the culture"~TEELMATS/DEBRIS ALONG NORTH BEACI AND OCEAN1 . The orange mark d area indicates where the subme ged steelmats are along the watetat the North be ch of Gambell . Some Military amrunition and ordnance might be unOrKittilngook bay and other debris like drums etc .2 . The steelmats a e scattered under the water froto sea . Some s eelmats are buried like all themovement of the waves . They surfaced then is bthe shoreline to about 200 feet utther debris that is buried by thied again .3 . The depth of th water along the shoreline fromittiingook bay to Northwest Cape . isvery uniform .o 20 feet from the shore is abo8 feet deep from Kittilngook ba toNorthwest Cape .40 feet offshore is 16 feet dee1) .T4,,,,, he steelmats aid other debris is 1 feet deep t about 40 feet deep from the shotVChours on the No th Beach ._ntcalm clear day . They could5 . The steelmats c uld be located by scanning by bbe retrieved by using hooks .The ones on the shore ine could be just picked up . heother militaryebris is not likely because of s ro g currents moving it around .:hwe Cape'Kittlingo ok Bay-Boatracks__P~`Gambell66Mis~ian At a 4- 7 2-Rock11L), 615Sevuokuk MtRE R i~ e ,r- of 5arveR% ; V % a u,a.kd e b rrsu.v &ce debM•• = &ri edaft . = Uh dtrwa4r d.L . = Parf ;ally sjebrI S. -Fari~ : Seep Survey-Par~' y pe. of d eb r /SnrrrrcrWooK gay•l•./ry1•I . ~J.~~I ;~HIAI W L .~~~L'~'~'•r. .~~.A' .Ap:Au lOp tt * .~I*R72dlgI :.1 ;'r .t. 'L!''/ ~'r~fF1'fr Y r,451AMA.~pmv-af rt~e. t mutt:03 40tY•e(Dve.l0"^Ltn feu,Laksr--fad +4,1,E 2,f !n3 - - /v"AILIf kya,9l'la. .j 5he- S fewto S a rpr+e v,k h rgrdWill_. .. . ` ..bu•''la,/41pa liiLaw- c-,&A:1~repoibu.~',rJ t rl21,0.i?0•:i,..rrtf~~•r .bA•[Sr y. 10'72.1.641-k u Mt i.h' .11aa~•t•,ilk• t-anLakefy1/y•` 1 ./OfSummary of Sites Identified for lnvestigatlon /Clean up at Gambeti, AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedK MSS/ADate ofSurveyPhoneNumberell.h $ Jan loseJl I If~ '/~ 11Ilh(lAti e eira" Qrvnr, f/a cfiCr ~$fBCI Jh41'sA It2/et eone,efe-/ Tan o0A rmy hu.+'SLKNOK- oe r /974th aoKOOZ4lalitn117 Q0Uio e~J l 11~t i el/ T erSoma /oa~' ~,'era idJ Sah 0 DCarl bell yicia. Srnla_Dfums~ kllres/rxe alsi resMilitar yar.NsPC GoefoKslOrdnanctsll/Tare 00rM0VA/PtC,Ah 0 Y-/easy $j (~49&,4 2_/h/)jovn /atin PrJrr/cLa//f--wC0. JO d yBd/7/CtZ:~ /~Ora Zme` YL(/t-c'j .~y rrafia2geaMitt..au-~/iRa,nt dc-S .}~ i QInside. S1ns ;dt18Si eOut*-tToj+ I Und erou nla~ o.nd ot 1-a atourour.fai ~",-are yreu. dCras{. on ATVren 1'/reaI rea, /I9Oh 'r1pr./A .lfervoConW4Hr1ZAKy aMV /z/ DEKSCoh tJ'en Vi ranre,,. tLdCer, cs«.a__err,C3ad S, a/~,cw (r%/tc. ~QFi,3 / Area gel(aLlid47V rovesretrea r ion/ ..rr/j /2D Tci lf/o/ 7-V/.e0 WA7tH/AJ1..1>?ieo A~ cNecltfj Vi ~'us5n~r <IVreti 4 -t7de t, ii in__l,Jilufa ___ous nnTvu•i s1'F,&JA(C.~ewcK~ AConlrwkea ,AA re o.F/Ua re h ous. ny. Shinq.i~wf4.r~NesvJinreafoniYCniti.. drlenr/t1C~nf9sj J 9.04. C vv,/farm~~ConninvJcer nc/ta.6efti/ .f.-.rl,L'SGSK:d t do sw..~rpe rres CGuse /,Lr0.Cl'/finlit vent, __hi __0,l~~r1~ +^ Y• ___~9Tr/,'rs~oMa .aCen-ta.w;A t4.6I24/RDILWit7dH/NbOVS~HeS~P/SHIN(.Ca,t m :~nk/Pnr e, ~nCr t,hovSi ..~L.pa ctJ reLor~ionufrti7F,rIFISH/N` SPov r 6e su+atcher, P ra ,s/a ~rcf7 /w/Yi./rrSoVYC C..-~rra 2~•a ar oi ~ rsCon crrrrn . .lt,rPCarr d/f/La (/9F/6m ou.• hri/nrea 1Impact of Debris Future Land Use ( 7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)rusty earl -K o; lrra a con n a.c,Ye,Ye {r efta fcl. .o(~/Cal P/~ W afclOft drs b tJtJ.t/JA/cMore rI' - otrca }ionN/kn n r• tJr<S wi..C reo, 7Bead,iI ryCe of rvia Len 'Nrats, en .J .nRf/10 _T". ooIi1~C{y~t roe A l fah 6ol DK Fl6e rf'- . . Ce e.r f- $edr. s u..e.5c)-oo aref/ Tractors,Sri„ asnear~~AdVsc-Jl /i0.--Oo1I lJSite Location ( 5)vf;ns se acre469 01,Stnves, runt,td I rtis Ms leak Mat,/r/Tan ooL \na Mo +~C+ .bra6 lea,, .eed of C taw Sc4de1AeSeJm'iic.At:bC(rer. L{yec3 i b\ a. Plants ~b :rdc Confgn,n .haGa~• bef l d- Sc:hov4/a y erSovnod- purq .,4ec+ /,~ 4aof Saft.!SaLiuY.ar i -/' e/erJS ~r ~igZar~d__rxic Ckcr,ita(0.rA- Corrl~rrsra%~sg-,"rcpwadccrc , q b,YtA I~yrC,@nviro,~rr t bee,Sank e aS waSOaLA&I drvf,S,pra~farPwrj~ .c,:ri iR.e, W,'res; Cemad ar..y +a.dfufo,i CoNS, moral8,%.2,+7,!,hra yQMiIi}ary -jeepSo 'cen a a :n2.2 3hrPrix,4eWtosefirae t! s,raw, f ovb n c etres- heaL4`hazarea tJ/ke.C.~.1~reM_ PLT? ;ra wa7cl+,hf-rC arvsfia- k a f 2wt-s ,irs f/ / Z A .µ „e rf L per e a- o,ni .BiracThrfContaw .n,c .oft W d a c erseo.v c~f bra Z. C / rsT of maltledff+rvs;~. Gtreela/~r"'v"' }`o'' atLafLt LAO-O['a l ~praHuk c,.tar,LeaA z a a-5641OrCon~u~+, .nstfdn SW IMMiNborro~T~,or,re AC re at+°AIK. .0.F.se .~SPo* 7Ii'4-a~~d ~y las' .~.'llN' area la-a ds "al~ l~A-Urr~Summary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell, AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedDate ofSurveyantes7 ?an 00e . SU Dohal1 aH ow vk Wil(isan 00l Jan 00~I/ wtCY 11 Earl 00aoosh~ Wa e r l4 an ao00 Al-(E 19 Tan 00h 6IOS~A SSM aStS11 Towl 0[lL~l)iah l9 In ooi fan aO~oGgSfin dAdcrsalan bU cDescription ofDebris (3)PhoneNumberMap Location ( 5)" a rnc,y-) wI4fl 4i ^rwVf etCChants/ wewt4,Arrn.ySite Location (5)iii 4 z/ r/.4j S f /(o6' /7 1t/.aere( G;ledTrtc/rr, wearejsSts C a 9/" Lw cek4 I1,t ' 'fee,(r,n,fi'1 raetCorlruns -^ow ,Merf,a'u i,«enCcnt~ X115Uncle anrepdeer e,Weftj~,/CGend o •Fa LaF' /E. . /: l Zr 1 #/7/a--d 11-iceare eo oc~ .,caW( eA#013/ 1 &Z/7Sr / 7G4'ta 8 • ;ht7. . d-wos f'l"i ~)3 # (0ru~•e,o:ruw~swslatf~rea .Zcoor,Con ictMineet .e1•of So ;[Contaw. ;n .tcournCon waost A- +eurtl,i an e,-hvs / Cor .os,aK/snPuh. n0.~ionCc rros .ewrf• v,i'Conf&w,/ tre+,Gon ~v . rns , eh ala a rdC Arah Qh h( Oh7A~'r;nG !0a49#3/. i 1YC reoAea!'SIZard- pJ,tha Y r/, ti!~J e- 6'h tF ft7CConr~--ASH/A/sPaTSsf6 t_nazo.e o e ,#SaReiahPC8dan9 Cr~arrlf,',h iiid a ers / 8 dah9er-vcrr ;ue~s5ycon men ~1`ed`want rrtC f,Rne(~181~ l ~/3 ~ to~~&r-,L1 ichm.lCo ." nr)nafienSoaL.Castt ns rrt,t„ fvrG `kuui, wCAhS r, .e/!ratrvlVy jl .4(oa w: ..a1 `Ga4or no.. rr LifC.J.c"fr0'1R0.ck~arYe~randrva y, oily,2.,e/ / x -/1/1~`, ~aAt796,;, e. {; I ##8~°&fenaaw Said- a GA,% /an0tyfNCRImpact of Debris Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)Rustn;., afranass: cLv ' n oca rodSc oo rrhauSln ~OCa~ /ahew d 5a rheal.S- Serf yPQh'l. ~AZar~,eO a.4.rebO CraeSkfe ~ll uvs /s~- c"9/tew+Iove/fh/G isJya re,..ree ,+r tc ,ti1JR1ti,t,,jr WaO~kerlrovrifVt*-¢Son}c ih~flu :/off%n t La7~ovsi/~ if, If 0SCh i ie rka-Le,he li-Aa~vlr~kec.(1-L/1A't.Arafrj ec, ~1~1i~fZR~Fea,/147aec.~Th AZgr~fleas/ el SA ty/lea/ `ld Zarr,e .o &V.C.y,arar%f^jhu~ n A1ea AQ h eal! ,4az~greeC ihuZar{hek(ftiJdSummary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell , AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedDate ofSurvey1WOO D VtrAdnrI/K~u~IIDnUn -i14Krothe' hih a oUYo ~lMrh •hKkSook~cEMPTY 8,RREIS ~`rrns$oda*'dee r Cans_iq at . oo '/ / #/lea.2SSTQn Ooi..a a FA(sf! 1-- e-17tact-o f. 4';u n/iw f F / 1r.-ofAMMO5aCaruiw, Cabie.)o nceS oh 00San ooan o0wirt Tun-~n,ns, s-etn,Qt,~o a~, inSula¢ion~s Sbes~t~~ ~~aAn an,e r0%t1~,~ ;bHan r.A a~11 i P/d~t l~MOs /JQ/t /GM~OCS00„ aon ao?ah o'I ~An 00M 4+-WewSe /c rs~r ur,o j or nwnTan OMrlrfe•ry Lard it sd- r1#/YIN yi / /fn-cc/g,i /#~rea 18 -> / / rek/7/#02hofS~h~~rFia/~~rwsold 11il.f °~`/ti ah¢eesf a eIto,rcG/a%t i l,rrkoustain z1r~/f(TAM,AR/~rev y~, / rC,e /~4/ #8rt0. 1B~eraeast rV.ov :esl3& e. eFun ,n71-1 o7F A(04io„Se/ C ; LQhas, o%! 'ieas~Con nr a tiaraCorruS ro%'reA to d- /7~,yro„nCon yConCe .~rrnio,nc .4 r e-&,Zt,'uruMovi ;lefta '. fne"o.,oat doc-KConfifM%nal(40 ,f r U^a. iXPLe•ew/es acanters relyon ~, nR onypw ~ro~,f aza~u re.evS , nyoac /eF4 rcousr~~obsfae/e~6l fe/[b.ra)M/AOhazardSetru; hK% n of1anceR M. (^ elaSa..o oarae a /~~i/iQZarSa{tfA~iee^ Sp/c /Nf ro< soft7Y X-Z/_hra~f~ f~~,re ffa~sih~k'I/rr vlihgC ,v, unaco ., ~,%nR¢%.nof a.,aF~ /~ vs/! ^/Ira/u y has inra,dank,2 Zk a^Oily) Cthc t-an§pytus , ^ s7~~cbwroan.LofFµg2~ 11n rend eSi /#1 eaeLi le w~sr wlh 5 . oohAraCtdr6LtrVc i "r 1, ; Arc ~h dffa?Jrru5Con a,n,na/hea,n,c / oh Hey/:.+ lcrail('On#S//ie--~Qi err7Q~srCOn ars,nafionr7Qh dd/ 4QdU eSever esImpact of Debris Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)tee-Wu-0. ~~OYE' ra r0d.Cranes, Weasels,rvarfh Bta c~ranX1-1Ii K~aonlainNU13 Frames111 Jan 00~,Aar West- CRC! Arractbrs, cranes~"Site Location (5)C -111dJah oUao o H ernonl~nin a ~vd S teveh,KoonMap Location ( 5)Or nonceTah oo' Jan 00 'Tan @SDescription ofDebris (3)24in •7//Seo/rricoo ~seh~ia/~e or~asPhoneNumbera-ear' Se od, l erberry~ K: » e4"TV'If :M sraheus~ nAre a2^JCrr1u/e 4ous,n.~~7rfe.rt/iovs.H,r WO ,nrrus p;c~~~/rear9 ,'errtir,,e'/_SQ L/WAY -1Z t,Sal e'qhea. !4e1~/Y1Sa t/Sti>~~ l ;a'zar .),(/ f. ,,a e c/st aza~_ Po v/,RZA~ea /t azare /5"r YtoA2wrsc1c ~. ~heca~~ 11u1a~~Q1 4e41114AZat~Summary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell , AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedDate ofSurveyoanati 3o/sn7.Tth oog"CU rah J'rDOonoodn0OAO6OnOO_dar7Tan d O %Gerr6t~ d0iem? Jan aoZe as1a~K ita ian 0aLfWIS ~i' 27TQA 00Oazeva,4/e~+c7i'OD7Ta* QO7Ta+ 067 n 050~1~1harre llfUh00gan 00 '~ooS}) C(infon$?ai aoh$Sa„ 00h/drrrAA(-OhPhoneNumberDescription ofDebris (3)old ~ a $ e s'din /1, oo '~rLOO5C rov.$ o(k AOae orangVAS rant oMkftracfasS wa' sCranes raci»/s,t4 arurrwit xnwti t leFS ee sa ihgo rni a onoca lerirac r1, toes,ant M ~~/N/~/runts~Me ecW Itrant rmerr,W112ectt9 ..Land Picrane, /.~asterTo FoiXSrt 7rta T fd-/S9:ssf I '/. ~. /AtYra/a otcaP// 4rta1B( / o'~ ;/~laZe-S ~-' /# A d SPo . aM elavnta~hi/e eeA S !least- e! /finunder It CWeenonfZ.e4- 17 r llsFi a- /Ad /,('ancele ('duOn d a krr A'e e fa..fereCnminghu5 e~sniZa ee enear 'JAJr4 !~6C.fa f`'~~aivdRe e ore.//01C/t' aCont~M~n~i o2Con 1u~.na rohur.swrecr ~c ~X ro~:~%I inS ~0°4 a»jrZdAr°c 'ItC/taw1. rat.n ~ STA0Sr7F 7a//A '!b4e~ 1r/ _~l ~__I/'a/f/7 srla Z arJeaAnp iS_ 55Sy~e~ s ta . p"heta ~lyi _aJree~r icC.~yeR ~~~~Gird _ etiiwR 7y'/1 ru/~/tepF%SHrNYse~ rCgAlC/eon 9jayt~TV frai Ir!//r , ,'rth4r iNrqo s c e.17w9rov~5C/iee~ SI(rcc.v l~/h9S ,okr / we/esfe,Q jayoneOble r,'8reLa /B YL'aj3aeretlf,. .Y Sn W5 to t8rvsCon ranafidrl/re/ # ZZj/ecre.t e~Cer, reaf%c~Fi 1 ftreaorruff4 r..al != /#/e-2rra T Cr nefs YHers3hiec-~ .; ~rabl e rt6a.•.belkG1.od! a-i / ` Zon.# lFi lImpact of Debris Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)O#%,/ /Jrra1finwo F~,4,er,~ of L .Juri a ac rSite Location (5)aar~ai< COa~/enea/ RYrd 1~ nearf}rta (~5eew ,M7e5ifs.ce .~ .., er ,en Nes Ne. Fi #18d te 't rrugs ZIP ofDe1-6/040-Map Location (5)TSa,Are,,rya; $;rJreC tan 9raChar SekeaFis~'~OVItsnIA &rrCq/rh ea //Xh/ea ldIx07 ard- SaR zarld(~tid~jrJ/1PR/jr dt lL/ieQ/7`n d haCanc___ ___~1CQ~1~~~~oss~ DSea)7Qn Cer Q Zaazatga azorctf p.0d~'fea/eConfltacalUN /% A4;1fra i fGZ aSa~ ~o ,%azaraZA aSummary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell , AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedKAfi i Tenn0.Date ofSurveyanjQ 003OO2cV 44ev LA&Uwh t9 0oDescription ofDebris (3)'. kW4 he iFi0c/1 rL 0 r~~/7e4/ 4ZQraza/dSummary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell , AlaskaPhoneNumberDescription of Map Location (5)Debris (3)t~aG r/Cralt2,__/N/A(ao+trrv aZ i /tiUa, c e fdebris m AltIM fief wFra4A~~It`/5 e /+ewnei14d Ca,e cn .sefe'h'/eltt~e! WasW 'i reSUnderAMMvn~flanS ^R S 1a t°b QC Ca e,AfIIO farSraC ,f2S7eeh,a7~.cjxVnate!S/Bt~ / 6Xee.~J s:eribtbi~aOVNTAI',71 ASCA 4I( f}reaour 1D8g/,E, -e5O U1~1)te5 0/, ~~eJL(olln~u,nTf7- f~'uc3io" e 2s6 /3~'LwSKc GGSi 3Stain Are 4Ccw eiA4?' SlAazaet/ aS'qn{tovf~}3eq/ea 3ig !~c ocdf oijus,~P,ahvta~76(p,clea-SoCoot7°oclean j e I1~~azAyeadance rou fs2aCleanrec,; 0new, A e.Lakv " Knre fSWrhf,in /ecreX/C l./i3S•Tt C e nw w,'na i°na lefr aofC L%rn 5e oa,df>yfc ca vltBerry Pe.I_ccv/ aun of fauxrN MAr irutf~o~, Pit lyf n1 1tf'h e'vr ea~Sa'f'e- M 7h1 r1oIdMl{-w~ Y~sSQ1eq~1ca /)4 4-J~?EQ f azaLie / azaA fG A d- SAa az -iea f~ Lt a Zat!tzarrCCa. W S4.aZarsQ~~i-Aye A`a reSea // a zexc6ijeQl QZCtrrle ac'02;e ll ane7o~}T cK) r.C/ern, arr+afionSt.,SSi e gC/~rh lda vinReS /° t i . 1 s9c taM sea eruesAWAY 1%eq" "'nttm•Un CrNC eah ea/~nsaenann enCon7u(Sewarash ek /lS; 7~- SSA WWiteaTf vt.+ .cn Tiau9ro .~nA MononovnfalnSl~/~ 2,o ; I V7S a°F,l4ZWIRE SPOOLSJdPvnp(t°vft~10i7~- l3W=0,0.4"f i1,11A st u.ieaI7u 1 f n j e2$arr~ 1 r.21WrielCImpact of Debris Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)wms ,atac~+`""'Q oks e~i',a J"frir :a /7Wease t/~l1{ I Ieas ooN,i/ ~etf64ISite Location (5)h eaSlazal(AZ1Rr~lIZGI/Q fe4~2ar`I _a_4- Q~'4 ~~ -S y I~~~'/~~Summary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell , AlaskaPhoneNumberI Description of I Map Location (5) I Site Location (5) I Impact of Debris ( Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)Debris(3)(6)Lefto ver~hk-gadQisI QSZ3-1,ZoArea 1Area (aS8o! Cal eurVn t 'ofS%J#Ace,UPd ownoUnderOJSc eo caie0.~1e0.7Asstl.oa(ah 9.r.rZC(fco. S'/fretG~rco . II Gtit¢,o.Zfi4o2-soh!,_50-cal baadi(eerfD Sa arl"Lrov~-alaf91d_ Iratrptr marlLa (C2_/GAC/Can a^NSron3rd Wi9TCHEW ' Beauceeon CMVrmnrrtncbs ¢aclcrusty ea'oaa'douCiaZur11 WAY$nV~rana; 5 jror. c 4~.rH'5i7`e71 clean sarr5 ~?v__(641Mina7!f (rah .W4I-aea/fA ~Saaeal54~Sa Za/5a)q--.fy AQ ?-aAn?lvg, 5,aatO~SR{tlw Rata/e 4/IA 'L 5ea/T,vcr+sa recrea~ianFQ11 MM in I re CrC io6stac%tea /¢/, d- Sa-f 1S~r74?`y Aa 2aQZ 00'/cFaVe(CrJ' ld;iiexp/os' o~ risa' j -SSibr0Con a rw~Srta ((r reaa'N f/AME Slim ric .reap2%.VIR.o Z¢ra~73osr M4j Oo .H• r aM e/ Cra0 Yatrre/s d•Crafe5u55 :*a rcr^ 1 8tin c fartica`lS'; /-c ZNQ e-r¢wr .na ~ a0e/laz,aa/d V, I/aye_50 v i-A o ftifcssyLanz6U/ ovErX 641dC;ae--l' P~' 1~'(uv~LfGtah ~O ooW:esal~)Dear C n0lt4A,Qtea- (aerafar fSNSpSb4ton a m'na aah;~ecreaf ; oNI c +8v, 4 i erW-aZarrJek lf~ atd Sa{~1Q Z.4/_junSa un +ea1SOto /,7to/ tSa,Za/rQ;42QOkQ zardSummary of Sites Identified for Investigation /Clean up at Gambell, AlaskaName of PersonSurveyedDate ofSurveyCO(oATJKI I~IotDEit~_PhoneNumberDescription ofDebris (3)!c S oefi ' 4&Mo1o~ POMap Location (5)r.edoily Sw+t, $oiln coRolf~ k;to eea ~oc eMcnsc{we( Sfe Fib zMph-~oa~ Z,hiSite Location ( 5)an!oMO Y MooLG 7~ /(off (Impact of Debris Future Land Use (7) Is Debris Hazardous ? (8)(6)O,yOvererw ..wmSh toncRo~lyl0"- i+es lea[oa ina.w sVi a eY rtiSee G eQn, ealt14ea.'1~il1ZarOl~ ,zaZGrdNATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELLP .O . Box 90 Gambell, Alaska 99742(907) 985-5346 FAX (907) 985-5014The Native Village of Gambell (IRA) entered into an agreement with the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare aStrategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) . This plan will form the basis for further discussions between thecommunity and DOD concerning remediation of remaining military debris in Gambell .The SPIP will identify military impacts, how these affect land use, the desired remediation, the estimated costs of theremediation actions, and a priority list for identified remediation .The completion of the SPIP will be a tool to express tribal members' ideas and concerns to DOD . It does not guaranteethat any money will be available to perform any removal action in Gambell .You are being asked today to contribute your knowledge of locations of any remaining military debris within Gambelland to discuss how military impacts affect land use .Name :Address : P.O .Phone : (907) 985BoxGambell,AK99742Would you like to be added to an information mailing list? Yes No1 . Do you have any concerns about remaining military debris in Gambell? Yes No (Thank you for your time)2 . What is your knowledge of any remaining military debris in Gambell? (Saw it being buried, have seen parts on thesurface, heard about it from someone who saw it)Surface(S)Buried3 . What kind of debris is it?1.(S) (B)(S) (B)3.(S) (B)FinalRev .1 12/23/99(B)4. Where is the debris located ? Please use the maps to mark the location .1.2.3.5 . What is the impact of this debris to you or the community?6 . Many buried sites were identified in 1994, please use the provided map and look over these sites .Add these sites to your list, which of these sites do you think should be removed :First?Next?8 . How is this debris hazardous or impact the following :FirstSiteNextSitea . Environmenta.Environmentb.Wildlifeb . Wildlifec.Peoplec . People9 . Are you willing to help locate the debris you have discussed, without cost to the IRA Counsel or DOD?Yes No10 . Remarks :Thank you for your time and information .If you have any additional information to provide or questions regarding this program, please contact :Native Village Of GambellMichael Apatiki , Project Manager985-5474WESTBEACHLEGEND10RUNWAYGEOPHYSICAL ANOMALY--- LIMIT OF GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES (1994)15SCALE IN FEET1000BERINGSEA0200 .00000000000000000O00 0 0 0 0000 °00. 00 0 ° 00 CITY0 000: 000..A---- .OLD GAMBELL-'1---------------0 OLD VILLAGE WELLSUSPECTED ORDNANCEBURIAL SITE0DSEE FIGURE 2FOR THIS AREA200VILLAGE OF GAMBELL0 00000000°TROUTMAN LAKE20 __UNICIPAL BUILDING -0 00000 0000WATER TREATMENTARMY LANDFILLI-1LANDFILL N0 .1-HIGH SCHOOLIIT2p ppOppp I rIFORMER MAIN CAMPIF1994 SUMMER LAKE•_---BOUNDARY1UNNAMEDPONDpppppp~ 0r6_LIsoul H AREA2A 1A-'r1I0LANDFILL NO.2BURIAL AREABURIAL AREANORTH AREANo"1-ARMILANDAREAI1L,fA1171.- --__-NAYVAGHAOLAKE~ .0NORTHBEACH00000BURIED FORMERTRAM ANCHORsFORMERINFILTRATION GALLERY/NOT CURRENTLY .USED)100BERINGSEANEW VILLAGEWATER SUPPLYSUSPE FED ORD 'ANCEBURIAL SITEFORMER MILITARY HOUSING'OPERATII NS BURIAL SITE"-,Cl A FOUiEPr.LANDING AREAAREA 4D000BAREA.1AIR FORCEER COMMUNICATIONSLITY BURIAL AREA1CABLE00100ARMYTRAIL106/SAREA 4BFORMER AIR FORCE .RADAR SITEN00NW0zMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaFIGURE 1U .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAPREVIOUS GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONAND ANOMALIESLi0LEGEND• GEOPHYSICAL ANOMALYr-]a o 08 a°----- LIMIT OF GEOPHYSICAL UDIESE1994#jMUNICIPAL BUILDINGWATER TREATMENTHIGH SCHOOL-,0 16I-L"EDFORMER MAIN CAMP------------0FORMER CABLE \\BURIAL AREA -ARMYLANDINGAREABERING SEABURIED FORMERTRAM ANCHORNEW VILLAGEWATER SUPPLYRDNANCEFORMER MIUTAJOPERATIONS BUAREA 1BAREA4D'IFORMFACILIFIGURE 2U .S . ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAPREVIOUS . GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONAND ANOMALIES00 0000000000 000 00 0 00 00 00000000DDFIGURE 3MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaNATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL, ALASKA (IRA)INTERVIEW HOUSINGLOCATION CHECK MAPAPPENDIX BGeophysical Report - July 2000MONTGOMERY WATSONGolder Associates Inc .1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200Anchorage, AK USA 99507-3443Telephone (907) 344-6001nFax (907) 344-601 1GoldenAssociatesREPORTGEOPHYSICAL SURVEY INVESTIGATIONNATIVE AMERICAN LANDSENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAMGEOPHYSICAL AND COOPERATIVEAGREEMENT SUPPORTGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAPrepared for:Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517Prepared by :Golder Associates Inc .Anchorage, AlaskaAugust 25, 2000Distribution: Montgomery Watson - 3 copiesD,/F: C:\00-3q\jobs\003-5435\Gambell Geo Survey Report.docOFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATESGolder Associates Inc .1750 Abbott Road, Suite 200Anchorage, AK USA 99507-3443Telephone (907) 344-6001Fax (907) 344-6011UFGolderAs sociatesAugust 25, 2000003-5435Montgomery Watson4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517-2901Attention : Bonnie McLean, Project ManagerRE: REPORT FOR GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY INVESTIGATIONGAMBELL, ALASKADear Bonnie :Please find attached three copies of our report for the Geophysical Survey Investigation atGambell, Alaska . This investigation was conducted for the Native American LandsEnvironmental Mitigation Program .Thank you very much for the opportunity to assist you with this interesting project . Pleasecall me if you have any questions or require additional information .Sincerely,GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC .Robert G. Dugan, C .P.G.Associate and Senior Engineering GeologistRGD/ljhD/F : C:\00-3q\jobs\003-5435\GamRptCvrltrl .docOFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATESAugust2000-i-003-5435TABLE OF CONTENTS1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .12 . SURVEY AND INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .22.1 Introduction . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 22 .1 .1 The Survey Grid . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ..22.1.2 Field Hardcopy and Presentation . . .... . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..22.2 Ground Conductivity Surveys . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ..22.2.1 Equipment and Software ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... .22.2.2 Principles .. . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . 32.2.3 Data Acquisition . ... . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ..... . . . . ... . . . . . .... . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . .. . . 32.2 .4 Interpretation of Electromagnetic Induction Data . . ... . . . . . ... . . . .... . . . ... . . . .... . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . .. . . 42.3 Magnetometry Surveys . . . . ... . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .... . . . ... . . . . ... . . . ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 42.3.1 Equipment and Software .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .42.3.2 Principles .. . .... . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 42.3.3 Data Acquisition . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . 52.3.4 Interpretation of Magnetic Data . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . 53 . SURVEYS AROUND THE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .63 .1 Introduction .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . 63.2 Site G : Army Landfill . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . ... . . . . . .. . . : . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . 63.3 Site H : North of New Housing Development . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . .. . ... . . . . .. .. . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 73 .4 Site 1 1 : East of School ... . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 83.5 Site 1 2: School Playground West of School .... . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ..93 .6 Site J : South of City Building, Along North Shore of Troutman Lake .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .103 .7 Site K : Snow Fence Area ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .103 .8 Site L : By Q Building .. . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .113 .9 Site M: North of Snow Fence . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . .. .. . . ... . . . .... . . . . . .. .. . . ... . . . ..12List of Figure s.Figure 1 - Vicinity Map and Location of the Survey SitesFigure 2 - Magnetometry survey, Site G (Total field, nT)Figure 3 - Magnetometry survey, Site G (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 4 - EM-61 survey, Site G (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 5 - EM-61 survey, Site G (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 6 - Magnetometry survey, Site H (Total field, nT)Figure 7 - Magnetometry survey, Site H (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 8 - EM-61 survey, Site H (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 9 - EM-61 survey, Site H (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 10 - Magnetometry survey, Site I 1 (Total field, nT)Figure 11 - Magnetometry survey, Site I 1 (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 12 - EM-61 survey, Site I 1 (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Golder AssociatesAugust2000-ii-003-5435TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)List of Figures (continued)Figure 13 - EM-61 survey, Site I 1 (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 14 - Magnetometry survey, Site 12 (Total field, nT)Figure 15 - Magnetometry survey, Site 1 2 (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 16 - EM-61 survey, Site 12 (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 17 - EM-61 survey, Site 12 (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 18 - Magnetometry survey, Site J (Total field, nT)Figure 19 - Magnetometry survey, Site J (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 20 - EM-61 survey, Site J (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 21 - EM-61 survey, Site J (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 22 - Magnetometry survey, Site K (Total field, nT)Figure 23 - Magnetometry survey, Site K (Vertical gradient, nT/ ft)Figure 24 - EM-61 survey, Site K (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 25 - EM-61 survey, Site K (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 26 - Magnetometry survey, Site L (Total field, nT)Figure 27 - Magnetometry survey, Site L (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 28 - EM-61 survey, Site L (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 29 - EM-61 survey, Site L (Differential Channel, mV)Figure 30 - Magnetometry survey, Site M (Total field, nT)Figure 31 - Magnetometry survey, Site M (Vertical gradient, nT/ft)Figure 32 - EM-61 survey, Site M (Top Channel, Bottom Channel, mV)Figure 33 - EM-61 survey, Site M (Differential Channel, mV)Golder AssociatesAugust2000-1-003-54351 . INTRODUCTIONGolder Associates Inc . (GAI) was requested by Montgomery Watson Alaska, to conduct ageophysical survey at Gambell, a village located on St. Lawrence Island off the west coast ofAlaska (Figure 1 ) . The geophysical investigation forms part of a larger survey undertakenby Montgomery Watson for the Native American Lands Environmental MitigationProgram administered by the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers . The project was carried outunder a subcontract agreement with Montgomery Watson .The purpose of the geophysical investigation was to delineate suspected buried metallicdebris resultingfrom military activity . The investigationused atime-domainelectromagnetic metal detector (Geonics EM- 61) and -a magnetometer .The location of the project area, in the vicinity of Gambell , is shown in Figure 1 , along withthe approximate locations of the individual survey sites .In this report the grids arediscussed in terms of their local coordinates because the surveyed coordinates were notavailable at the time of writing . The true spatial position of the grids can be found inMontgomery Watson 's report to the U .S . Army Corps of Engineers .The survey was conducted by Golder Associates between June 24th, 2000 and July 2nd, 2000using a Geonics Model EM-61 metal detector and data logger, and a Geometrics Model 858vertical gradiometer .Montgomery Watson personnel laid out the corners of the surveysites .This document describes , on a site-by -site basis, the geophysical techniques , the methods ofacquisition, the processing techniques and the results of the survey .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-2-003-54352 . SURVEY AND INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUES2.1 IntroductionAt each site, both geophysical survey techniques were used to describe the nature of thesubsurface materials and to locate the boundaries of structures . These two techniques weretime-domain electromagnetic induction and magnetometry .2.1.1 The Survey GridThe control grid at each site was set out by Montgomery Watson who placed labelledwooden stakes at each corner of the survey region . The grid lines were positioned so thatthe Y - axis was oriented approximately north to south and OE, ON was located at the southwest corner of the grid . The local magnetic declination was approximately 13° east of truenorth . At each site, data were collected along survey lines spaced 10 ft apart. Along eachsurvey line, readings were recorded continuously and the data marked at 25-ft intervals .During the surveys , a sketch map was made of the surface features such as metal debris orbuildings.2.1 .2 Field Hardcopy and PresentationA full- color field map of the gridded data was prepared following each survey . The mapwas produced using the Surfer contouring package, Version 7 .0 . Unless otherwise stated,the plot for each type of dataset was contoured using the same linear contouring interval .2 .2 Ground Conductivity Surveys2.2.1 Equipment and SoftwareThe presence of near surface electrically conductivity material was measured with theGeonics EM-61 time-domain electromagnetic metal detector . The response for both the topGolder AssociatesAugust2000-3-003-5435and bottom coil were recorded digitally on a Geonic data logger . The logger also recordedthe acquisition direction (north, east etc .), station spacing and line number . After thesurvey, all the data were downloaded to a portable computer using the Geonics program,DAT61W.EXE. Following a limited amount of data reduction , the data were output to anew file, which contained values of easting, northing , top coil response and bottom coilresponse for each measurement station . This file was transferred to the Surfer contouringpackage for presentation and analysis .2.2.2 PrinciplesElectromagnetic methods are based on the measurement of magnetic fields associated withalternating currents induced in subsurface conductors by primary magnetic fields . The EM6lcreates a pulsed primary magnetic field through a transmitter coil . The generation of thisprimary field then induces circular eddy current loops in conductive material in the earth .When the primary magnetic field is removed , the eddy current loops in the ground decay,which generates a magnetic field . The decay of this secondary magnetic field is recorded bymeasuring the induced voltage in two coils at the surface .The measured voltage isproportional to the speed of the decay of the magnetic field, which is proportional to theconductivity of the surface and subsurface material .2 .2 .3 Data AcquisitionThe EM -61 continuously transmits electromagnetic pulses and samples the associateddecaying magnetic field at 0 .25 second intervals . The decay curve is sampled at two pointsby two coils (top and bottom channels located at 36 in . and 18 in. above the ground surfacerespectively) . These coils are positioned so as to function as a spatial filter when the coilresponses are subtracted from each other . This processing helps to separate the effect ofsurface debris from that of buried debris .Data were recorded continuously along eachsurvey line and marked at 25-ft intervals . The position of the data between these markedlocations was interpolated assuming a constant surveying velocity .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-4-003-54352.2 .4 Interpretation of Electromagnetic Induction DataInterpretation of the EM data involves analysing the color contour plots for anomalies .Anomalies are defined as measurements that are above or below background values thatare not related to natural conditions or visible surface features .2 .3 Magnetometry Surveys2.3.1 Equipment and SoftwareThe total magnetic field and the vertical gradient were measured with the GeometricsModel 858 optically pumped cesium magnetometer/gradiometer . The equipment alsorecords the easting and northing of the measurement station in local grid coordinates . Afterthe survey the data are downloaded to a portable computer using the programMagMap2000 . After limited data reduction and checking, a file is sent, to the Surfercontouring package for presentation and analysis .2.3.2 PrinciplesThe cesium magnetometer measures the Earth's natural magnetic field and detectsvariations in this field caused by ferrous materials .Two types of measurements are recorded during a gradiometer survey: total field andvertical gradient . Strength or intensity of magnetic fields is measured in nanoteslas, where1 nT = 1 gamma (cgs unit) . The Earth's field is approximately 50,000 nT . The total fieldmeasurement is affected by regional changes in the magnetic field and anomalies caused byburied ferrous material . The vertical gradient data are primarily affected by near-surfacesources and provide better resolution of shallow buried objects . Vertical gradient data arenot affected by regional or diurnal variations in the magnetic field .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-5-003-54352 .3 .3 Data AcquisitionDuring the survey, the axes of each sensor were horizontal and oriented east-west . The twosensors were separated by 24 inches . Base station readings were recorded at the start andend of each site survey. No significant changes in the base station magnetic data wereobserved during the surveys, so no corrections were made for changes in the diurnal field .Measurement of vertical gradients, which are not affected by diurnal fluctuations, and totalfield measurements collected over a short period of time are sufficient for detecting anddelineating the extent of ferrous metallic objects .2.3.4 Interpretation of Magnetic DataThe shape of the distortion to the Earth's magnetic field caused by a ferrous object dependson the orientation of the object with respect to the magnetic field . Often, a characteristicsignature for magnetic anomalies caused by a ferromagnetic object is a "cross-over"anomaly . With this type of anomaly, magnetic measurements increase above background;decrease to zero or a negative value, and increase again to background values . In thenorthern hemisphere, the positive values are usually to the south of the object, the negativevalues to the north, and the zero crossing at the center of the object In areas with largeconcentrations of buried metal, such as a trench, the area behaves as a single largeferromagnetic object, with negative values near the northern edge of the buried material .The magnitude of the anomaly is dependent on the size, orientation, depth of burial, andmagnetic properties of the buried material .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-6-003-54353 . SURVEYS AROUND THE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL3 .1 IntroductionThe village of Gambell is located on the northwestern end of St . Lawrence . Gambell lies ona flat sand and gravel spit created by accreting beach ridges overlying a wave-cut bedrockplatform . The spit is composed of unconsolidated , well-rounded gravels and coarse sand ofQuaternary age derived from granitic rock .Maximum elevation is approximately 20 ftabove sea level . Most of the geology around Gambell is typified by Cretaceous graniterock. Sevuokuk Mountain is an eroded headland immediately east of Gambell that risesabruptly to a maximum elevation of 619 ft .The site has been used in the past by the United States Army, Air Force and Navy withmost impact occurring in the 1950s .3.2 Site G : Army LandfillThis site, located on the north-west shore of Nayvaghaq Lake ( Figure 1) is a suspectedformer army landfill. The area of investigation was 300 ft square and was surveyed on linesspaced at 10 it, oriented east -west. A Montgomery Watson monitoring well was locatedjust east of the survey region . The surface material was loose gravel with some patches ofvegetation.The results of the geophysical grid surveys are presented in the following figures :Figure 2 . Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 3 . Vertical Gradient Data (vertical gradient)Figure 4 . EM Data (top and bottom channels)Figure 5 . EM Data (differential channel)There is a very slight variation in the total magnetic field across the site . The south-eastside of the site has a total field value that is approximately 200 nT higher than the south-Golder AssociatesAugust2000-7-003-5435west corner of the site . The contour interval for Figure 2 was reduced from 500 nT to 25 nTto illustrate this variation . There are two locations where the top sensor recordedanomalously low readings (40E, 90N and 200E, 30N) . These values are interpreted to beerroneous readings since similar readings were not recorded by the bottom sensor . Thevertical gradient magnetic data (Figure 3) indicates no variations across the site as observedin the data from the top, bottom, and differential channels of the EM-61 .The results of the magnetometer and TDEM surveys (Figures 4 and 5) indicate that there isno buried metallic debris in the shallow subsurface .3.3 Site H : North of New Housing DevelopmentSite H is a rectangular grid (600 ft x 150 ft with the long axis oriented east-west) locatedapproximately 175 ft north of the new housing development . The EM and magnetometerdata were collected along east-west survey lines spaced 10 ft apart. The ground conditionsat the site consisted entirely of coarse gravel . There was no metallic debris on the surface atthis site .The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 6 . Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 7. Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 8 . EM Data (top and bottom channels)Figure 9 . EM Data (differential channel)The only region with anomalous magnetic data is located in the south-east corner of thegrid (Station 510E to 600E and ON to 80N) . This region is outlined in red in Figures 7 and 9 .The EM data also indicates that the south-east corner of the site contains conductivematerial . The anomalous region in the EM-61 differential dataset, however, is not as broadas that indicated by the magnetometry data and reveals several isolated anomalies . TwoEM anomalies, located at Stations 525E, 60N and 510E, 150N, are significantly reduced inthe differential channel . This suggests that these objects are buried immediately beneathGolder AssociatesAugust2000-8-003-5435the surface . The remainder of the region having magnetic anomalies , appears to beassociated with three buried objects located at Stations 545E, 30N ; 550E, ON; and 585E, ION .3.4 Site 1 1: East of SchoolThis site is located on the east side of the school immediately east of several above groundtanks . The survey area is 150 ft square and was surveyed along east-west lines spaced 10 ftapart . The surface material consisted primarily of gravel and contained no surface metal .The only noteworthy surface feature is a dirt mount located at Station OE, 60N .The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 10. Magnetometer (total magnetic field)Figure 11 Magnetometer (vertical gradient)Figure 12. EM Data ( top and bottom channels)Figure 13. EM Data (differential channel)There is a notable variation in the total magnetic field on the southwestern side of the site(Figure 10 ) that does not appear in the vertical gradient data ( Figure 11) . This is possiblydue to metallic objects, such as the above ground tanks, immediately east of the surveyarea . The magnetic field gradient indicated an anomalous area centered on Station 15E,70N . This is the approximate location of a dirt mound .The EM data revealed several more anomalous areas .A linear anomaly oriented north-south in the EM data was identified on the eastern side of the site at Station 140E .Anomalies of this shape are characteristic of underground utilities . At two locations alongthis linear anomaly (Stations 5N and 95N) there appear to be subsurface targets notassociated with the linear feature . These features did not appear as magnetic anomaliessuggesting that although they are electrically conductive they are non-ferrous .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-9-003-5435The EM single channel data indicated two additional anomalies located at Stations 50E, 70Nand 120E, 80N . These did not appear in the differential channel data and therefore indicatethat the object is near the surface .3.5 Site 1 2: School Playground West of SchoolThis site is located west of the school near the playground . The site dimensions are 200 ftwest to east and 180 ft south to north and data were collected along east -west survey linesspaced 10 ft apartThe results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 14 . Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 15 Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 16 . EM Data (Top and bottom channels)Figure 17 . EM Data (differential channel)There were many metallic features on the surface that influenced both the magnetic and EMdata . These features, annotated on Figures 15 and 17, included various playgroundstructures, an iron pipe, a concrete pad and a large metal gate . The only region within thesite where the magnetometer data did not correlate with surface debris is in the south-eastcorner between Stations185E and 200E and south of Station 80N . The extent of themagnetometer anomaly is outlined in red in Figures 15 and 17 .The differential channel data supports the magnetometer data and indicates that the debrisis located along the eastern site boundary between Stations 20N and 75N . The regions thatare negative in this data (plotted in black , Figure 17) correspond to locations of metallicobjects at the surface or extending slightly above the surface . The strong response in thedifferential channel data in the region of the concrete pad suggests that there is possibly alarge metal object located beneath the pad .Golder AssociatesAugust2000-10-003-54353.6 Site J : South of City Building, Along North Shore of Troutman LakeThis site consisted of two sections or regions . Region 1, located in the north-east corner ofthe site, and south of the city building, is 75 ft square . Region 2, located along the northshore of Troutman Lake is 640 ft by 100 ft . Data were collected in both regions along eastwest survey lines spaced 10 ft apart .The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 18 . Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 19 Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 20 . EM-61 Data (top and bottom channels)Figure 21 . EM-61 Data (differential channel)Region 1 did not contain any surface metallic debris, and did not have either magnetic orelectromagnetic anomalies . Region 2 contained frequent piles of surface metallic debris andother objects that affected the magnetometer and the EM-61 readings . These surfacefeatures are noted in Figures 19 and 21 .There were two magnetic anomalies that were not associated with surface features . One islocated at Station 50E, 40N and the other at Station 460E, ION . Both of these magneticanomalies are relatively weak and isolated to a small region . The E data also indicated ananomaly at the first of these locations (Station 50E, 40N) . The location of the secondmagnetic anomaly did not correlate to anomalies in the EM data . This could indicate anobject buried too deep for the EM-61 to detect .3.7 Site K : Snow Fence AreaThis site, located north of the school by the snow fence, is 325 ft by 350 ft . Data werecollected along east-west lines spaced 10 ft apart . Most of the site consisted of gravel,Golder AssociatesAugust2000-11-003-5435however the eastern region of the site still contained a snowdrift . The site extended northof the snow fence near the south-west corner of site M.The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 22. Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 23 Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 24. EM -61 Data (top and bottom channels)Figure 25 . EM -61 Data (differential channel)The magnetometer data indicated anomalies at the far north -east corner north of the snowfence and in a linear region along Lines 5ON and 60N east of Station 230E .The highgradient reading along Line 220N and 340N resulted from failure of the top sensor . Thiscan be seen in Figure 22, by comparing the top and bottom sensor readings . The top sensorhas readings that fluctuate by tens of thousands of nT while the bottom sensor is stable . Anobject could not affect the top sensor so drastically without influencing the bottom sensor .The region of anomalous magnetic readings is outlined in red in Figures 23 and 25 .The EM data further delineates the locations and boundaries of the magnetic anomalies .The EM data indicates several isolated objects in both of the regions north of the snow fenceand in the south-east corner of the site .3 .8 Site L : By Q BuildingThis site is 320 ft by 150 ft and is located in the area surrounding building Q and the nearbysea vans . Data were collected along north -south survey lines spaced 10 ft apart .The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 26. Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 27 Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 28 . EM-61 Data ( top and bottom channels)Figure 29. EM-61 Data (differential channel)Golder AssociatesAugust2000-12-003-5435The primary areas with high magnetic values are associated with the building and with thetwo sea vans to the east of the building . There are two weak anomalies, however, at Station320E, 50N and Station280E, ON . These regions are outlined in red in Figures 27 and 29 .Both of these locations had anomalous EM-61 values in differential mode and areinterpreted to be small, buried metallic objects .3.9 Site M : North of Snow FenceThis site is located north of the snow fence and is 300 ft by 320 ft . No surficial debris waspresent at the site . Data were collected along east-west survey lines spaced 10 ft apart.The results of the geophysical grid surveys are shown in the following figures :Figure 30. Magnetometer Data (total magnetic field)Figure 31 Magnetometer Data (vertical gradient)Figure 32. EM-61 Data (top and bottom channels)Figure 33. EM-61 Data (differential channel)The data from the top sensor contains some faulty readings along the Line 16ON betweenStations 160E and 240E . These reading are interpreted to be erroneous for the same reasonas described above . Magnetic field anomalies were found primarily in the south-east cornerof the site .In addition , there are anomalous readings at Station 30E, 160N and betweenStations 20E and 90E along the Line 310N . The magnetic field anomalies are outline in redin Figures 31 and 33 .The EM-61 confirmed the presence of a metallic object at this location and also indicated anobject at Station 160E, 170N, and in the area that is obscured in the magnetometry data bythe faulty readings .Golder AssociatesFIGURESGolder AssociatesLEGEND- LIMIT OF GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES (1994)2000 GEOPHYSICAL STUDY01200FEETbdarkjK:wrojects%2o00100354351000\93 9ta .dwgl8-24-o 1 st91x- Ii :-2400NOTE :This map was produced from data recieved from MontgomeryWatson .FIGURE1VICINITY MAP AND LOCATIONOF THE SURVEY SITEMW/GAMBELL BURIED DEBRIS/AKG o lder Associates3300-'i275-275-.25250-225-I2001115o125-I200-1751CD22I-,17sr-c15Fo1007550-50-25-25-255075100125 150 175 200225250275300002550Distance (ft)Top Sensor75100125 15 0 175Distant e (ft)200225250 275 300Bottom SensorSITE GMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELDN0OmOOft 25 ft 50ft 75ft 100ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000' oos .s.:a nskooo I Fig . 2300-1 -II11!1I10000 nT/ft275-400 nT/ft300 nT/ft250-200 n T/ftH 100 nT/ft2250 n T/ft200,-100 nT/ft-200 nT/ft175-j-300 nT/ft-400 nT/ftc 150CU-500 nT/ft0Vertical MagneticField Gradient125--1100J'0 ft 25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 ft75--50-®WellSITE GMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENT25JII00255075f~100125150175200Nayvaghaq LakeDistance (ft)!225250275300GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND . AKMONTGOMERY WATSONCOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1OOO 5435 t s 000Fig . 330030I27525091225-4I200200175mc 150-jm0125125-)100-Ii75 -,5025-C255075100125 150 175200225250Distance (ft)Top Channel2753000255075100125 150 175 200Distance (ft)225 250 275 300Bottom ChannelSITE GTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELS33000<<<<0003330000<<<<Oft25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 490 mVi80 mV70 mV- 60 mV50 mV40 mV30 mnV20 mV10 mVnVEM-61 responseSITE GTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELWell0255075100Nayvaghaq LakeGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 5125Top Sensor100c_N075J50250 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600Distance (ft)I150-,tIIIIII125-U,0Bottom Sensorh5025100 25A50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600Distance (ft)SITE HMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELD000m000000070 ft 25 ft 50 It 75 ft 100 ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 I003-SA35 Wk 000 1 Fig . 6150-125100c 75mzS05025-0-~0 2550 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475Aga401500 525 550 575 600Distance (ft)N00000N00W000000Oft25 ft 50 ft 75f1 100 ftSurface teatures/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE HMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENTGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL , ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 7WITop Channel255075100 125150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600Distance (ft)150125(-Bottom Channeli10mc 75m02550100 125 150 175 200 22575250 275 300 325 350 375 400425 450 475500 525550 575 600Distance (ft)SITE HTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELS330<0<w03003003CD (0000000<<<<00030 h 25tt 50ft 7511 100ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 . 20001 003 5435 fesk 0001Fig . 8150125100.rUU 75m50i250'-0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600Distance (ft)SITE HTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELmONWA33EEIn~333C-000808603m33338<Oft25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 ft- Surface features/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 , 2000I oosa r .Y, aoO I Fig . 9150140-1401130-130-120110-vc1 to-I100-100-go-90-88m0I120-rI-L7~Ir60-60-50-50-40-~-40-,,I30-if22010-10000-10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1500 10 2030 40 50 60Distance (ft)Top Sensormn-n(DCLcnN00O70 80Distance (tt)90 100 110 120 130 140 150Bottom Sensor-i0dv>Ut00cnc0 0o oO 00ft251SITE 11MAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELDGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL , ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 . 20001ooo-5435 vµ oooI Fig . 101 50140-130-Suspected Utility120-110-5010000 nT/ft450 nT/ft400 nT/ft350 nT/ft300 n T /ft250 nT/ft200 n T/ft150 n T/ft100 n T/ftnT/ft0 nT/ft10900-a)cIm0 70--50 n T/ft-100 nT/ft'` -150 nT/ft-200 nT/ft-250 nT/ft-300 nT/ft-350 nT/ft-400 nT/ft-450 nT/ft-500 nT/ft-10000 nT/ftVertical MagneticField Gradient60 -i4S urf ace f eatures/ sur f ice debris30-i20-i0-0102030405060/08090Distance (ft)100110120130140150EM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE 11MAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENTGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBE LL . ST . L AWRENCE IS L AND . AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000ow-„,s,,,,,o,1I Fig . 1 115~~150-_140130120'80UCCU~'~70~6II'rn"RF36050s7U, .e--I0403020+410 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150Distance(ft)DistanceTop Channel(ft)Bottom ChannelSITE 11TIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELSW0N0303O3O3o3L-L-IL_1_ I- T0303O3O3.__0~ft 25 ft 50OO3ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 10D3- 543 5 'sk000I Fig . 12Suspected Utility90 my120-r- 80 mV70 mV110760 m VI100-1iI9050 m V40mV30 mVrgig,m20mVUC10 mV0 700mVEM-61 response6050Oft40251150ftSurface features/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debris30iInSITE 11TIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELIGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENT01020I3040I5060I7080GAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AK90Distance (ft)100110120130140150MONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 . 2000Fig . 1318170-160-'tax151413120A1 i1a 1 O 0c90a6 8080-k7060-60~4:5040-13020-1000 10 20 30 40 5060 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Distance (ft)010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Distance (ft)Top SensorBottom SensorAO0O000O0HHH000 It 25 ftSITE 12MAGNETOMETRY SURVE YMag 858 TOTAL FIELDGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 . 2000 1DO3.54351sk00LI Fig . 141180-1IConcrete Pad170I10000 nT/fli .16015G143iHwSurface Pipe120-400 nT/fti200 nT/ft100 nT/ft0 nT/ft-100 nT/ft-200 nT/t1110-i100--300 nT/fli-400 nT/ftC 90mur-500 nT/f180-Vertical MagneticField GradientSurface Debris70-aPlayground Equipment1; tf c5300 nT/ftoft25ft50ftS u rf ace fea t ures /su rfice d ebr isEM or magnetic anomaly401 ,1Interpreted to be buried debris30SITE 12MAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENT2010-'I .0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Distance (ft)GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 , 2000 1o0.1-s .7s wk ooo I Fig . 1525i075100Distance (ft)125150175200Bottom ChannelTop ChannelSITE 12TIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELSOIVWALno)8 < o °o O° °0 0 °°3 < < < < < <°og3<3 °< 33<°00tt25ft50ttGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL , ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 16180-G~'17CiConcreteSPad1000 mV900 mVi13Surface Pi800 mV700 mV600 mV12500 m V400 mV100300mV200 mVc 90ma0F 0'100EmV0 mVEM-61 response60'i50- .Oft401if2o-,50ftSurface features /surfice debrisSITE 12TIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNEL10-0ftEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debris30-?0-25102030 4050 6070 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200Distance (ft)GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND , AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 , 20001Oo3 5435 lack ooo I Fig . 1 7Top Sensor5025i0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600625Distance (ft)175-Bottom Sensor150-M0 75-5025Onf0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625FDistance (ft)Ln L"8800S0l-f-l 1 TL7 CALnCOOcng-4tf:O ft 25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 10011SITE JMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELDGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL , ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND . AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAI_1SeaVana5025-I0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475IPipeNBarrelI.I500 525 550575 600 625Distance (ft)00H000OHHN00OHSITE JMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENTAOO000HHH00OHOft 25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 ft- Surface features/surfice debris- EM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND. AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1 00- 54351eskaooI Fig . 191175--~III150-,Top Channel125-+,v 10'Vl~0 'I01III1II1III25 50 75 100 12512'515015'017520017'5260225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650Distance (ft)I175-'1II1!II1IIIIC150125-Bottom ChannelLa> 1(Impl'`25~-25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650Distance (tt)0E°o000`-<<<<<<000ALLSITE JTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELSC000000<<<<<{0000O tt 25 It 5U It 75 ft 100 ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1003-5435 ~ 00DFig . 2001175-i150_SeaVan125IPipeBarrelN100UGRf„.__ , . . . . . .i-6 75y50'25i0<3250035000300375CjI003100 125150175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650Distance (ft)0 ft 25 ft003003o(00o 0 003 35C"75 ft 100 ftSurface features/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE JTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL. ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND . AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WA350TL~~0325-325-300-300-275250-_"275--I250-225s 2009!HS•225-I4$200-175-S a)U 175-I-(a` 4.150125--150-`125-too-Erroneous Readingstoo-75-..75-50-50-25-25a25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 3254e025 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325Distance (ft)Distance (ft)Bottom SensorTop Sensor0CwOCD-n(DCLLnCF)OOO40O0O0ft25ft50ftt100ftSITE KMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELDGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND. AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1003-s4351esk 000Fig . 2235+a-----!T- i X000 nT/ftR es id en300400 n T/ft3 0 0 n T/ft275-- 200 n T/ f tSnow Fence-~ 100 nT/ft2500 n T/ft---100 nT/ft225-1nT/fllip200--300 nT/ftc 175-1my IOI15$ .1125-500 nT/ftVertical MagneticField Gradient`0 ft 25 11 5011 75 ft 100 ftErroneous readings100--from top sensorS ur face feat u res/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debris75I50-SITE KMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMeg 858 GRADIENT25-0I 200-400 nT/ftm0255075100125150175Distance (ft)Fr200 225250-GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSON275300325GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 23_~-325-E325300-300275-$350l~k~ I'250225-z200-°~c175mNcvc175Na00150-150-125-125100-10075-t50755025~250-25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 3250r0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325Distance (ft)Distance (ft)Top ChannelBottom ChannelSITE KTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELSmBOV1m00<03No3<WUi-- I I I LWc 0C 003 < < < 3<VW<<c0o 0o oo 0o 003 3 3 3 3<<<Oft 25 ft50h75 f1 100 ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000Fig . 24350 .i-9010 mV800 m V27I`700 mV25600 mVI500 m VI225-200-400 mVIi300 mVI200 mV100 mVi0m 17510 mVOi150--r-EM-61 respo nseI125-III1o0-Oft 25 ft 50 ft75 ft 100 f tS u rf ace featur es/ su rfi ce debr i sEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debris75SITE KTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL. ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSON2525so75100125150 175Distance (ft)200225250275300325GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WA150-125Top100Sensor70000nT59000 nTi58000 nTX57000 nT50--56000 nT=55000 nT25-- 54000 nT0255075100125150175Distance (ft)20022525027553000 nT30052000 nT51000 nT1SG--f12514too-50000 nTi.Total Magnetic FieldiBottom Sensors=.0 ft 25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 ft050SITE LMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELD25-~0GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AK0255075100125150175Distance (ft)200225250275300MONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1003 .5431 teak Duo I Fig . 26150'.iII1II1II1IIIIi1I1140130120110100-90SeaVansN 70-Dd50-40-I30 ;.2o10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 3210Distance (ft)ymCDcn0lp(D0A0-I^-iW0-i0N0-i0NO-CJ0-O7Z.07Oft25 It50 It- Surface teal ures /surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE LMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENTGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND . AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WA10110 mV9017 mVop Channel800 mV700 mV600 mVs0500 mV50400 m V300 mV25200 mV100 mV0 -0?5500 mVn01-1 n0 mVDistance (ft)EM-61 response125.kBottom Channel17 ;Oft 25 ft 50 ft 75 ft 100 1150SITE LTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELS22Q._T_._ ._.. .__Distance (ft)..GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL , ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1ODi .5 leak 000 Fig . 28IM__M140-302010Oat90Im-801 .170~"J-6-5-4030-201000i_i,,7Ti1 iiiiii10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190--Distance (ft)OaN3<a3CJ383.(T(A3330 0 00-mCD333a aOftaO325 ft50ftSurface features /surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE LTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNELGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15. 2000Fig . 29M(D33001275-275-25D--250-225-225--20D-200-175-tilgoAllAD IA175-IUCCM4m 150-0 15@125r`~"wt.1254A100Erroneous Readingsi7j550-T75 100 125 1500--~175 200 225 250 275 300Sensor(ft)Bottom02550E0U'00LnUUcnO00000N-IL_]u,O75100125Distance150175(ft)200225250275300SensorSITE MMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 TOTAL FIELD<5mCD25~DistanceTopi;4ov0 25 500Ir425-Tmar'cn U' Cn Cn -4mOOO0O0O0O00O00U'-i0SOft 25 ft 50 f175 t1 100 ftGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1003-54351a5k000Fig . 30300-110000 nT/ft275 j400 nT/ft300 nT/ft250-200 nT/ft225-200-FmV100 nT/ftEr roneous leadingfrom top sensor0 nT/ft1 00 nT/ft:,-200 nT/ft-300 nT/tt175-400 nT/flC0-500 nT /ft50-i1,Vertical MagneticField Gradient4125-II10Oft25 ft 50 ft75 ft100 ftSurface features/surfice debris75EM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE MMAGNETOMETRY SURVEYMag 858 GRADIENT25-r040~2550i750:100125150175Distance (ft)200225250275300GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONGOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15, 2000 1003.5436 ta" 0001 Fig . 31ic24222-_ 1M10Vt 1`01l5'02550751001251501752002252502753000255075100Distance (ft)Top Channel125150175200Distance (h)225250275300Bottom ChannelSITE MTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 TOP AND BOTTOM CHANNELSGEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL . ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSONOh 2E tt 50h 15ft t00h03GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WA< < < < < < < < < <II,August 15, 2000W5 u 35- CR I Fig . 3230'.1000 mV2-`900 mVh~ 800 mV25 ;I I-.600 mV22~5 0 0 mV400 mV20i,300 mV200 mV100 mVmUCNmV0 150-EM-61 response121-1Oft 25 ft10050 ft 75 ft'100 ftSurface features/surfice debrisEM or magnetic anomalyInterpreted to be buried debrisSITE MTIME DOMAIN EMEM-61 DIFFERENTIAL CHANNEL25GEOPHYSICAL ASSESSMENTGAMBELL, ST . LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKMONTGOMERY WATSON255075100125150175Distance (ft)200225250275300GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC .REDMOND, WAAugust 15 . 2000Fig . 33APPENDIX CAsbestos Survey Field NotesMONTGOMERY WATSONMONTGOMERY WATSONCPByDateChkd . ByDescriptionCClientG. ,0344,Porn'v~J 2A• (la-o jw ;a`,~Cc-dd ocrOCAP.o L)MONTGOMERY WATSONBy%5Chkd . ByDate• 4_ wDescriptio~,c7Lft2- r,MONTGOMERY WATSONBy `'=Date 61Chkd . By DescriptionClientShee'n~-~~~~-Job NoofMONTGOMERY WATSON41droDate_Desc riotiClient-5 %J- QSheet of-SSA-CW2IBMe.A- \Job Noodtrw,.~flyu.6vr~4,go c?L."5,100DAJc s.t0 °a' >< t1 '\(MONTGOMERY WATSONBykVW~ .d'DateDescriptionChkd . ByU S~P ~' S h eetClient,-JobNo .UC0,!)j t:. .r.,,.Jt(c---trk t au3YLU\11VJ AL4'.-~- ~rK4ne,(~ V,,u-t^sP`~MONTGOMERY WATSONByDatef ° / -A`b 'ClientChkd . By DescriptionA -Sheet _In bNo .(9fW L ~. ~r,,m 4-r %-Q.0RECYCLABLE'Rite in the Rain' - A unique All-Weather Writing paper created to shed water and enhancethe written image . It is widely used throughout the world for recording critical field data nall kinds of weather.Available in a variety of standard and customprinted case -bound field books, loose leaf,spiral and stapled notebooks, mufti-copy setsand copier paper.'Rite in the Ran' - All-Weather writing papersare also available in a wide selection of rollsand sheets for printing and photocopying.a pMMxa ofJ. L DARLING CORPORATIONTacoma, WA 98424-1017 USA(253)922.5000 FAX (253) 922-5300www.riteintherain .coma22813L -o so Is'-Z.? -avsr-FNQ4303do''Sr3. &3 ES~+L st, lc~BL45-fA -7 --cca23tsa ' ~4ll--C-~tL,iSoC .c7vurennPte- ZS',7ooj , ' xx 7600'rr%rL q pA 9 341 X25 ' 1 x c"vpQSZ, OQ05 A )4 qa=E-hV•tow4m a)Q W13) cclS-L i sSL X -.TLRlts 2'L Cs i ~fcL 1cuws,S L x W2~~'Z'%XQS IilNa -zy~C24-n,~QjQyZ i gIR4*©c \\a G d ,dam~-Z1-W-SPpNCVrte. ryaG15Cv 2- ! --off0 ~.(-28 --aoW { P (. -,,sCPt) 421~-.4~4-- ~a l,t A Q A-((\ e.A,) Va'fYvN\ ~lax.a ~S `n tee. . rY, azz 51Ws-r- ` -Wari5v,,,,,sL,Ar-(II-.. 1 .q q vs-."mcy,( . w~A.e,, QV%4Ie4l, .T IDuc t-VI A- e,4k".,V\Wa-m'-771)-v-w-n 40.,lb,Ql) . -t ror.4 4(Is xy.~wlA1~oqnC-v~L-un).a--" (1, ) O~i q Tq-v-)~crZ x , + •x ,vLLZ`f-c f-Y14 `- 'r'Id44APPENDIX DFuture Construction Information9% MONTGOMERY WATSONNative Village ofGambellMemoTo: Bonnie McLeanFrom: Michael Apatiki, DoD/NVG CA ManagerCC:7v-Date: 2/22/00Re: Planned Projects in the Village of GambellThe following is a list of planned projects in Gambell :1 . City of Gambell : Fire Hall Construction near Qemgughvik Building , possibly thesummer of 2000 . (See map for location .)2 . City of Gambell : Water Feasibility Study-drilling north new Pump House .Coc4 nc ;( rne .nber Sai~ ar; Il~nc~ m jy!!jf- sfaif in Tune3. BIA/IRR: Roads inside the village . (See map) T,4,,-' ;„ f4e- P„'dr, ~r 1 ;5years ; r, Ne -c4. FAA: no plans5 . Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority : 8-10 more houses built east of theprior houses already built .6 . VSW: no plans .I)OFFICE'ax~rnd~ LaS~tioEl N '38 87(b) 'F Mil -E=APPENDIX ERemoval Cost EstimationsAft MONTGOMERY WATSONNative Village of GambellStrategic Project Implementation No.Cleanup of Former DOD FacilitiesCast Estimate BreakdownSite or LocationDescription18Former main camp8AEastern edge of runway2Former military housingloperationburial siteFormer military power facility7, 16, & 71A16 & 256 & 178 .includes geophysical survey area LArm LandfillsArmy landing areaGambell municipal building site,South Housing UnitsMilitary landfill & army landfillMilitary ImpactBuried metallic debris,potentially buried tanks .Exposed Marsten mattingBuried concrete slab .Buried metallic debrisBuried metallic debris and onehalf buried crane,North beach/ Air Force landing areaBuried metallic debris .Former tramway siteBuried Debris and possibletransformers in close proximity13Former radar power station3A4EFormer communication facility/ burialareaTroutman take ordnance and debrisburial siteNorth beachunderwater debrisWestern edge of Sevuokuk mountain19Diatomaceous earth east of site 1820Schoolyard212223888C24Excavate buried debris, removecrane and recycle off site .Excavate buried debris, andtreat contaminated soilExcavate buried debris and .includes geophysical surveys H, K, &recycle off site .Small arms ammunition burial siteBuried small arms munitionsExcavate buried debris andand associated metallic debris . dispose/recycle off-site51Csa >Tca100Petroleum contaminated soils,Potential buried debris .Buried metallic debris .1B15Desired RemediationExcavate buried debris andrecycle off site .Excavate buried debris andrec cle off site .Excavate concrete slab anddispose off site .Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site .gto village water supplyBuried metallic debris .Buried metallic debris .Debris in Troutman lake(separate from ordnanceUnderwater metallic debris,Primarily Marstenn matting .Surface cables running alongmountainside.Diatomaceous earthConcrete rubble debris pileswithh protruding rebar andpartially buried concrete slab .concrete slabconcrete pilerubble with rebarArchaeological site at toe of Sevuoku Buried metallic debris andmountaincable ._Former CAA housingPotential asbestos containingmaterial (PACM)Debris from high school construction, Metallic debris excavatedeast of the municipal landfill .during construction of theGambell high school andreburied east of the municipallandfill .West beach archaeological siteBuried and/or partially exposedNavy landfillSouth of city building, along northshore of Troutman Lake.metallic debris/iee .Buried landfill material.Buried Metallic debris.(geophysical survey area JCosts are based on shared resources over the different remedial activities .if performed on an individual basis , the costs will be significantly highercosts have been rounded up to the neearest $5,000 incremencosts were calculated for removal of effected soils and off-site thermal treatmentcosts include $32, 000 emergency response equipment for protection of water suppltv2aEva'"'200'"a30 .5oo .a,S' c$°' 310%g_g_mZ ~a.tonnageSharedEquipmentCosts•EstimatedLabor Costby RemovalAction *Estimated Cost rfor'" o o600030,00015.00$40,77794,390Retnedlation$140,000065,00032.50$88,337$204,512$300,000100%507,5003 .75$7,078$19,665$30,00010105050520%250012,5006 .25$16,988$39,329$145,000204015150 .55100%15060022,5003,00011 .251 .50$21,235$58994$9,439$280,00020%501005--10035035 %525026,25013.13$35,675$82,591$120,000101035 %15751 .00$2,718$6,293$10,000Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site .Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site.2550310%3751,8750 .94$2,548$5,899$30,0001010350%1507500 .38$1,019$2,360$37,000'Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site.Excavate buried debris and50503109/617503,7501 .88$5,096$11,799$20,0002000 .10$272$629$5,000$12,585$20,000$25,171$40,000$50,000recycle offff site.Raise underwater metallicdebris and recycle off-siteRaise underwater metallicdebris and recycle off-siteRemove cable and recycle offsite .Excavate diatomaceous earthand dispose off site .Remove mixed concrete debrisand dispose off-site,Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site.Inspection, sampling andanalysis, and abatement ofACM .Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site .-------$1 ,260 ,000'--2 .00--4 .00$5,436$10,87210,5005 .25$14,270$33,036000 .30$815$1,888--15.082 .034 .100 .25$40,975$5,504$11,130$94862$12743$25,7691$1,573$5,000-$14,060$32,550$50,00026.25$71,349$165,18$240,000---2100----------0.671 .53-100%100%30%-20127163 .830 .150----1050052,500-2 .0001 .00$2,718$6,293$10,0001072 .5-5,0632 .53.0 .50$6,880$1,359$15,92 8$25,000-251813--Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site .--1211470Excavate buried debris andrecycle off site.Excavate and dispose off site.-$4,077150452045--5%510%4,0508,1905001,000$680$5,000$195,000$3,146$5,000Subtotal$3,025,000Itemized Project Cost'Mobilization Cost*$3,025,000TrainingTotal Cost$350,000$250,000$3,625,000ift MONTGOMERY WATSONDate :4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska99517-2901December 15, 2000Tel : 907 248 8883Fax : 907 248 8884To: Richard JacksonFrom :Douglas QuistU.S . Army Engineer District, Alaska Re : Gambell SPIPThe following items are :I I RequestedEnclosedSent Separately viaReportSpecificationCost EstimateShop DrawingsTest ResultPrintsTest SampleOtherNo. ofCopiesDescription15Final Gambell SPIP (14 bound, 1 unbound)1Community Survey Forms1Review CommentsThis data is submitted :At your requestFor your actionFor your approvalFor your filesFor your review0 For your informationREVIEWCOMMENTSU .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSItemNo .Drawing Sheet # ,Specific Paragraph1General2General3Table 14General5Site 6, p . 5PROJECT : DO: 18 Task 1 - Geophysical/Coop Support - Gambell, AK - NALEMPDOCUMENT : SPIP Draft and Geophysical Survey Investigation, September 2000LOCATION : Gambell, AlaskaDATE : December 8, 2000Action taken on comment by :-Bonnie McLeanREVIEWER : Richard JacksonPHONE : 907-753-5606COMMENTSREVIEW CONFERENCEDESIGN OFFICEA - comment acceptedC - correction madeW - comment withdrawn( if not , explain)(if neither , eRecommend that the geophysical surveyA - See Appendix Dreport be included as an appendix .The whole report will becolumn bound .Recommend including the completedA - Summary table and mapsinterview forms, or a summary table of thewill be in Appendix A .information contained in the forms, as anappendix .Total costs are included, but no backup orA - See Appendix E .justification for these costs is found anywherein the SPIP . Recommend cost details beincluded as an appendix or as a supplementaltable .Topographic Information Center prepared aA - Referenced inhistorical photo analysis report which containsbibliography .much visual information relevant to this SPIP .Recommend that it be at least referenced inthe bibliography, or better to include some ofthe graphics it contains in the SPIP .Paragraph indicates that BSRHA proposes toA - See Appendix C,construct additional housing adjacent to site 6 . includes :Is there any documentation such as a master1 . Firehouseplan, site plans, utility layout plans, or2 . Roadcorrespondence regarding this? Information3 . New Homessuch as this could be included as an4 . IRA Office Buildingappendix, or could be referenced in thebibliography, to support recommendations forthis site .Backcheck by :(initials)REVIEWCOMMENTSU .S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSItemNo .Drawing Sheet #,Specific Paragraph6General7Site 16, p . 78Site 22, p . 89Site 8B, p . 610Site 21, p . 811Figure 212Figure 1 Geophysical SurveyReportPROJECT : DO : 18 Task 1 - Geophysical/Coop Support - Gambell, AK - NALEMPDOCUMENT : SPIP Draft and Geophysical Survey Investigation, September 2000LOCATION : Gambell, AlaskaDATE : December 8, 2000Action taken on comment by : Bonnie McLeanREVIEWER : Richard JacksonPHONE : 907-753-5606COMMENTSREVIEW CONFERENCEDESIGN OFFICEA - comment acceptedC - correction madeW - comment withdrawn( if not, explain)if neither , ePhotographs would be helpful in depictingAsome of the sites and their potential hazardsor possible interference with futureconstruction .This area was investigated during the 1994RI . Samples indicated contamination belowcleanup levels, and the area was notsubsequently included in the Phase IIinvestigation . Is there new information whichmight support going for another look at this?Was the area more recently excavated,perhaps during utility installations?Recommend that the field survey of theasbestos in the CAA housing be included inthe SPIP as an appendix .See markup provided by COE Archaeologist,Diane HansonSee markup provided by COE Archaeologist,Diane HansonSee markup provided by COE Archaeologist,Diane HansonRefer to comment (11) aboveReplace with Site 25 .Eleven surveys indicatedstained soils were observedduring VSW improvementsexcavation between thehomes located in the centralsouthern area . This area willbe referred to as Site 24 . TheSite 16 area includes the areaaround City Hall .A - See Appendix BAAAABackcheck by :( initials)REVIEWCOMMENTSNATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELLItemNo .Drawing Sheet #,Specific Paragraph1Table 1, page 112Table 1, page 113Page 6, draft SPIPPROJECT : DO : 18 Task 1 -. Geophysical/Coop Support - GambellDOCUMENT : SPIP Draft and Geophysical Survey InvestigationLOCATION : Gambell, AlaskaDATE : December 8, 2000Action taken on comment by :-Bonnie McLeanREVIEWER : Mike Apatiki, CA Manager NVGPHONE : 907-985-5346COMMENTSSite or location number 5 . Former TramwaySite . The comment on this was the costwhich is $5000 seems small for a site whichcould contain dangerous transformers .Site or location number 3A, FormerCommunication Burial Area . The commentwas the same as above . The $5000 seemssmall for a site which could contain dangeroustoxic transformers .One correction to be made is on page 6 of thedraft SPIPREVIEW CONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW - comment withdrawn(if neither, explain)W - Transformer location wasexcavated in 1997 .Reference to transformersdeleted from Site 5 .A - Will recalculate to includespill response .A - Corrected . Also the IRAnew office building wasadded .DESIGN OFFICEC - correction made( if not , explain)Backcheck by:( initials) -
ACAT FOIA Repository 10
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 10,
Date Received July 2023
Year: September 2001
Pages: 220
Document Title: Work Plan, 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation
Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The report documents the work plan for further study of some sites at Gambell. New information warranted the investigation. New information about sites at Gambell comes primarily from three sources. The first source of new information is a document entitled "GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis" (HTSA), completed in September 2000 by the U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center (TEC). The HTSA combined information from historical aerial photographs and other documents with current aerial maps of the Gambell area and identified previously unknown locations of past military equipment and operations. The second source of new information is the Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) prepared by Montgomery Watson in December 2000. The SPIP included a questionnaire completed by Gambell residents to identify potentially contaminated areas not identified in previous investigations; many such sites were identified and investigated via geophysical surveys in 1999. The third source of new information is a report of remedial actions performed by Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI,) during the summer of 1999. Samples collected to confirm that contaminated soils had been removed indicated that contamination may remain at several sites.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 10,
Date Received July 2023
Year: September 2001
Pages: 220
Document Title: Work Plan, 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation
Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Montgomery Watson
Document Summary:
The report documents the work plan for further study of some sites at Gambell. New information warranted the investigation. New information about sites at Gambell comes primarily from three sources. The first source of new information is a document entitled "GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis" (HTSA), completed in September 2000 by the U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center (TEC). The HTSA combined information from historical aerial photographs and other documents with current aerial maps of the Gambell area and identified previously unknown locations of past military equipment and operations. The second source of new information is the Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) prepared by Montgomery Watson in December 2000. The SPIP included a questionnaire completed by Gambell residents to identify potentially contaminated areas not identified in previous investigations; many such sites were identified and investigated via geophysical surveys in 1999. The third source of new information is a report of remedial actions performed by Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI,) during the summer of 1999. Samples collected to confirm that contaminated soils had been removed indicated that contamination may remain at several sites.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat10SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 10," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
WORK PLAN2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationGambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFINALContract No. GS-10F-0061KDelivery Order No. DACW85-01-F-0039MWH Job Number 1850805.010101September 2001Prepared for:Department of the ArmyUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 898Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898Prepared by:MWH4100 Spenard RoadAnchorage, Alaska 99517200-leF10AK069603 03.04 0004 aTABLE OF CONTENTS1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Purpose...1.2 Objectives1.3 Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements1.4 Document Organization1.5 Site History and Previous Investigations1.5.1Site Description1.5.2Investigation History1.6 Project Team Organization and Responsibilities1.6.1Project Manager1.6.2Safety and Health Manager1.6.3Field Team Leader1.6.4Site Health and Safety Officer1.6.5QA/QC Officer1.6.6Project Chemist1.6.7Environmental Sampler1-11-11-11-21-21-31-41-41-61-61-61-61-71-71-71-72.0 INVESTIGATION PLAN2.1 Site 4A - Quonset Huts Near Former USAF Radar Site2.2 Site 4B - Former USAF Radar Site2.3 Site 6 - Military Landfill2.4 Site 7 - Former Military Power Facility2.5 Site 8 - West Beach/Army Landfill2.6 Site 12 - Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site2.7 Site 16 - Gambell Municipal building site2.8 Site 25A - Village of Gambell South Housing Units2.9 Site 25B - Suspected Pits2.10 Site 26 - Debris Burial Feature - 19532.11 Site 27 - Drum Storage Area - 19552.12 Site 28 - Ground Disturbance - 19722.13 Discretionary Sampling Locations2-12-12-22-22-32-42-42-52-52-62-62-72-72-73.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN3.1 General Field Operations3.2 Field Activities3.2.1Site Reconnaissance3.2.2Well Point Installation3.2.3Environmental Sampling3-13-13-13-13-23-24.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN4.1 Analytical Data Quality Objectives4.2 Analytical Levels4.3 Quality Assurance Objectives for Measurement Data4-14-24-34-3• **••:Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2,,-,••........O Page iSeptember 2001i4.4 Sampling Procedures4.5 Field Instrumentation4.6 Sample Identification4.7 Sample Custody4.8 Analytical Methods4.9 Calibration Procedures and Frequency4.10 Preventive Maintenance4.11 Laboratory Internal QC Checks4.11.1 Preparatory Batch QC4.11.2 Analytical Batch QC4.12 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators4.12.1 Precision4.12.2 Accuracy4.12.3 Completeness4.12.4 Method Detection Limits4.13 Corrective Action4.13.1 Response4.13.2 Re-Establishment of Control4.13.3 QA Reports to Management4.14 Laboratory Data Reduction, Review, and Reporting4.14.1 Reduction4.14.2 Data Review4.15 Performance and System Audits4.15.1 Performance Audits4.15.2 System Audits4-54-54-54-64-84-84-94-104-104-114-114-114-124-124-124-134-134-134-144-144-144-164-194-194-205.0 GAMBELL HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ADDENDUM5.1 2001 Supplemental RI Project Activities5.2 Occupational Health Exposure Standards5.3 Project Organization5.4 Personal Acknowledgment5.5 Tailgate Safety Meetings5.6 Emergency Assistance Information5-15-15-15-15-25-25-26.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN6.1 Spent PetroFlag™ Components6.2 Decontamination Water6.3 Disposable Protective Clothing, Supplies and Sampling Equipment6-16-16-16-17.0 SPILL RESPONSE AND REPORTING PLAN7-18.0 REFERENCES8-1Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2Q Page iiSeptember 2001LIST OF TABLES2-12-24-14-24-35-1Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI SitesAnalytical Sampling SummaryArthur D. Little Laboratory Analytical Methods and Target ParametersQA Objectives for Measurement DataContainers, Preservation Techniques, and Holding TimesOccupational Health Exposure Standards2-12-94-214-224-285-3LIST OF FIGURES1-11-21-32-12-22-32-42-52-62-72-82-92-102-114-15-15-2Gambell, Alaska, Location MapGambell Vicinity MapProject Organization ChartGambell 2001 Supplemental RI Study SitesGambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 4AGambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 4BGambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 6Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Sites 7 and 27Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 8Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 12Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 16Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Sites 25A and 25BGambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 26Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI Site 28QA Sample Bottle Request FormMap to Gambell Health ClinicMap to Hospital in Nome, AlaskaGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.21-81-91-102-102-112-122-132-142-152-162-172-182-192-204-295-45-5£} Page HiSeptember 2001APPENDICESAppendix AFigures from OSCI ReportAppendix BStandard Operating ProceduresSOP-6Sample Management/PreservationSOP-7Soil SamplingSOP-10 SurveyingSOP-13 Operating and Calibration Procedures for Field EquipmentSOP-14 Field DocumentationSOP-15 Site LogbookSOP-28 HydroPunchSOP-30 Field Analytical ProceduresSOP-35 Investigation Derived Waste ManagementAppendix CField FormsTailgate Safety Meeting FormPersonal Acknowledgment FormUnited States Army Corps of Engineers Accident Investigation ReportPostersDischarge Notification and Reporting RequirementsReport All Oil and Hazardous Substance SpillsOSHA Job Safety & Health ProtectionOSHA 200 FormAppendix DGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2Q Page ivSeptember 2001ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAACA/EACGIHADECADLAKAlaska DistrictARARARIASTMATVbgsBTEXCCVSCDAPCDQRCERCLACFCoCCOCDERPDoDDQODROE&EEDFERFTLFUDSGC/MSGROHASPHTSAEDLHIDWLCSLCSDLIMSMDLmg/Kgmg/Lmicrograms per kilogrammicrograms per literAlaska Administrative Codearchitect/engineerAmerican Conference of Governmental Industrial HygienistsAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationArthur D. Little, Inc.Alaska MethodUnited States Army Engineer District, AlaskaApplicable and Relevant or Appropriate RequirementsAnalytical Resources, Inc.American Society for Testing and Materialsall-terrain vehiclebelow ground surfacebenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenescontinuing calibration verification standardChemical Data Acquisition PlanChemical Data Quality ReviewComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Actcalibration factorchain-of-custodycontaminants of concernDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramUnited States Department of Defensedata quality objectivesdiesel range organicsEcology & Environmentelectronic deliverable formatEngineering RegulationField Team LeaderFormerly Used Defense Sitesgas chromatography/mass spectroscopygasoline range organicsHealth and Safety PlanHistorical Time Sequence Analysisimmediately dangerous to life and healthinvestigative-derived wasteslaboratory control samplelaboratory control sample duplicateLaboratory Information Management Systemmethod detection limitmilligrams per kilogrammilligrams per literGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2O Page vSeptember 2001mLMSMSDMSDSMSLNIOSHOSCIOSHAPAHPARCCPCBPEPELPIDPLPOLPPEpptPQLQAQA/QCQAPQAPPQCQSMRCRARELRFRIRLRPDRRORSDSAPSARASHMSHSOSIMSOPSPIPSSHASPSWTALTECTLV-TWAUSCmillilitermatrix spikematrix spike duplicateMaterials Safety Data Sheetmean sea levelNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Occupational Safety and Health Administrationpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonprecision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparabilitypolychlorinated biphenylperformance evaluationpermissible exposure limitphotoionization detectorPublic Lawpetroleum, oil, or lubricantpersonal protective equipmentparts per trillionpractical quantitation limitquality assurancequality assurance/quality controlQuality Assurance PlanQuality Assurance Project Planquality controlQuality Services ManagerResource Conservation and Recovery Actrecommended exposure limitresponse factorRemedial Investigationreporting limitrelative percent differenceresidual range organicsrelative standard deviationSampling and Analysis PlanSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSafety and Health ManagerSite Health and Safety Officerselected ion monitoringstandard operating procedureStrategic Project Implementation PlanSite-Specific Health and Safety PlanSolid Waste MethodTarget Analyte ListTopographic Engineering Centerthreshold limit values-time weighted averagesUnited States CodeGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2U Page viSeptember 2001URSUS AEDUSAEHAUS AFUSEPAVOCURS CorporationUnited States Army Engineer DistrictUnited States Army Environmental Hygiene AgencyUnited States Air ForceUnited States Environmental Protection Agencyvolatile organic compoundsGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation1850805.010101/14.1.2O Page viiSeptember 20011.0INTRODUCTIONPursuant to Contract No. GS-10F-0061K, the United States Army Engineer District, Alaska(Alaska District), contracted with MWH, formerly Montgomery Watson, to address areas atGambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, where collecting data is necessary to resolve the extentof contamination resulting from Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) activities (Figure 1-1).This 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation (RI) Work Plan was prepared according tothe guidelines of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) of the UnitedStates Department of Defense (DoD).1.1PURPOSEFurther study of some sites at Gambell is necessary because new information that warrantsinvestigation has become available to the Alaska District. Previous information included theresults of Phase I and Phase II RIs performed in the Gambell area in 1994 and 1998,respectively. The objectives of the previous RIs were to gather sufficient chemical,geophysical, and hydrogeologic data to identify and characterize sites requiring remediation.Based on the findings of the 1998 RI, many individual sites were recommended for no furtheraction.New information about sites at Gambell comes primarily from three sources. The first sourceof new information is a document entitled "GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis"(HTSA), completed in September 2000 by the U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center(TEC). The HTSA combined information from historical aerial photographs and otherdocuments with current aerial maps of the Gambell area and identified previously unknownlocations of past military equipment and operations. The second source of new information isthe Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) prepared by Montgomery Watson inDecember 2000. The SPIP included a questionnaire completed by Gambell residents toidentify potentially contaminated areas not identified in previous investigations; many suchsites were identified and investigated via geophysical surveys in 1999. The third source ofnew information is a report of remedial actions performed by Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.(OSCI,) during summer 1999. Samples collected to confirm that contaminated soils had beenremoved indicated that contamination may remain at several sites.1.2OBJECTIVESThe focus of the 2001 fieldwork is to collect sufficient soil and groundwater samples atselected sites in the Gambell area to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Studysites are shown in Figure 1-2, and rationale for selecting these sites is discussed in Section 2.Specific study objectives include:Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalQ Page 1-1September 2001Soil••Determine the nature and extent of fuel-related contamination at Sites 6, 7, 16, 25A, and25B.Determine the source (military or other) of fuel-related contamination at Sites 7, 16, and25A. The DQO is qualitative evaluation of petroleum hydrocarbons.•Determine the nature and extent of solvent and metal contamination in soils at Sites 6 and7.•Confirm previous sampling results for fuel and metal contamination in soil at Sites 4A,4B, 6, 8, and 12.•Evaluate for the presence of fuel, solvent, and metal contamination in soils at areas notpreviously investigated at new Sites 25B, 26, 27, and 28.•Evaluate for the presence of PCB contamination in soils at Sites 7 and 27.Groundwater•1.3Determine the nature and extent of fuel-related contamination at Sites 6, 7, and 25A.APPLICABLE AND RELEVANT OR APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTSThis Supplemental RI for Gambell follows the CERCLA process (ComprehensiveEnvironmental Restoration Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Public Law [PL] 96510, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986,PL-99-499 [codified as 42 USC 9601-9675]). In accordance with CERCLA, the Alaska StateOil and Other Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Regulations (18 AAC 75) that governthe cleanup of contaminated sites in Alaska were identified as applicable and relevant orappropriate requirements (ARAR) for Gambell. The following regulations and standardsapply:•The 18 AAC 75 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Method 1matrix levels are used to support recommendations for no further actions wherecontaminant levels in soil fall below matrix levels. For sites where petroleum levelsexceed Method 1 matrix levels, Method 2, under 40-inch zone, migration to groundwatercriteria are used.•Groundwater cleanup criteria are identified in 18 AAC 75.345, Table C.1.4DOCUMENT ORGANIZATIONThis Work Plan includes eight sections and three appendices that describe all field operationsand objectives, appropriate methodology, quality assurance (QA) procedures, health andsafety actions, investigative-derived waste (IDW) handling activities, procedures for spillresponse and reporting, and waste management procedures that will be implemented duringthe 2001 Supplemental RI.••~~.. . . .. . ..........Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 1-2September 2001•Section 1 presents a project description, including project purpose and data objectives,ARAR, a brief history of operations and previous investigations at Gambell, projectorganization, and responsibilities of individual project personnel.•Section 2 contains the Investigation Plan, which provides a description of the tasks to beperformed during the 2001 RI and lists objectives for the sampling program.•Section 3 includes the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), which contains a description offield procedures to be used by the field team during the 2001 field program. The SAPreferences the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) included in Appendix B and detailsdepartures from the SOPs.Section 4 contains the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), which establishesrequirements for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) associated with sampling andanalysis work conducted during the 2001 RI.••Section 5 contains the Health and Safety Plan (HASP) Addendum, which establishes allhealth and safety guidelines that will be followed during field activities at St. LawrenceIsland during the 2001 RI.•Section 6 contains the Waste Management Plan, which details the handling, packaging,and final disposal of chemicals and investigative-derived waste (IDW), if any, to beremoved from site.Section 7 contains the Spill Response and Reporting Plan, which describes the proceduresthat will be performed if a spill should occur during field activities.••Section 8 lists the references used to develop this Work Plan.1.5SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONSThe site history and previous investigation information contained in this Work Plan have beensummarized from reports documenting previous investigation results from the Gambell area.More detailed site descriptions and background information, including results of fieldinvestigations, can be found in the documents listed below:•Final Remedial Action Report for Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Wasteand Toxic Waste Removal, Gambell, Alaska. Oil Spill Consultants, Inc., February 15,2001.•Strategic Project Implementation Plan, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Final.Montgomery Watson, December 2000.•GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis (Historical Photographic Analysis),Gambell Sites, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. United States Army Corps of EngineersEngineer Research and Development Center, TEC, September 2000.•Site 5 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Watson, 1999.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalMontgomeryO Page 1-3September 2001•Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Montgomery Watson, December, 1998•Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Final. Montgomery Watson, December 1997.•Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. Montgomery Watson, November 1995.•Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Montgomery Watson,January 1995.•Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. Ecology & Environment (E&E), February 1993.•Site Inventory Report, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.E&E, December 1992.1.5.1Final.Site DescriptionGambell is located off the coast of western Alaska on the northwest tip of St. LawrenceIsland, in the western portion of the Bering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwest ofNome, Alaska, and 39 air miles from the Siberian Chukotsk Peninsula (Figure 1-1). Thevillage of Gambell, at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL), issituated on a gravel spit that projects northward and westward from the island (Figure 1-2).St. Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., in Gambell, Alaska, andSavoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-Native land on St. Lawrence Islandis limited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell (MontgomeryWatson, 1995a).The village of Gambell is inhabited primarily by Native St. Lawrence Island Yupik peoplewho lead a subsistence-based lifestyle. The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety ofseabirds, waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area. The area surroundingthe top of Sevuokuk Mountain, above the Village of Gambell, supports a large bird rookery.The birds and bird eggs serve as a subsistence food source for local inhabitants. The oceansurrounding the Gambell area is used extensively for subsistence hunting of whales, walrus,seals, sea birds, and fish.1.5.2Investigation HistoryThe URS Corporation (URS) conducted a file search and preliminary reconnaissance of theGambell area in 1985. The site reconnaissance included an inventory of all materials left bythe military and collection of a limited number of soil and water samples. The samples wereanalyzed for physical, biological, and chemical characteristics. Soil samples were analyzedfor polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and none were detected.Surface water andgroundwater samples from six wells were analyzed for oil and grease, PCBs, volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), metals, and secondary water quality parameters. Oil and grease ingroundwater samples collected from the Communications Facility and the Radar Power•••Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - Final••*O Page 1-4September 2001Station exceeded groundwater standards; these contaminants were detected at concentrationsof 14 and 115 milligrams per liter (mg/L), respectively. Arsenic, barium, cadmium,chromium, and lead were also detected; however, the elevated concentrations of metalsreported by URS were not substantiated during subsequent investigations.In 1991 and 1992, E&E conducted site reconnaissance visits and interviewed individualsliving at Gambell during the period of DoD occupation. E&E then prepared a Chemical DataAcquisition Plan (CDAP) for further investigation of the areas of concern based oninformation gathered during the interviews and information reported in the URS document(E&E, 1993). Montgomery Watson implemented the CDAP in 1994 as part of a Phase IRI.The objectives of the 1994 RI were to gather sufficient chemical, geophysical, andhydrological data to identify and characterize sites requiring remediation, and to identifyremedial alternatives for those sites. During this RI, elevated concentrations of prioritypollutant metals, including lead concentrations of up to 3,249 milligrams per kilogram(mg/Kg), were detected in soil; the maximum allowable concentration of lead in soil atresidential areas is 400 mg/Kg. PCBs, dioxins, furans, and fuel-related contaminants werealso detected in soils throughout the investigated area. Fuel-related contaminants andsolvents were detected in groundwater. Recommendations were made for further evaluationat several sites (Montgomery Watson, 1995).In 1996, a geophysical survey was performed at Site 5 where transformers were reportedlyburied near the water supply at Gambell. The geophysical survey confirmed the presence ofmetallic debris. This area was investigated in 1997 to confirm if the anomaly was actually thereported transformers and whether any PCBs were associated with any transformers present.The investigation found that the geophysical anomaly was caused by non-hazardous metallicdebris; no transformers were found. The debris was removed from the island in 1997(Montgomery Watson, 1997).A Phase II RI was conducted in 1998 to fill data gaps from the Phase I RI. Soil andgroundwater samples were collected to delineate the extent of contamination at several sites.Results of the Phase II sampling program indicated no significant surface soil or groundwatercontamination at several of the investigated sites; however, cleanup and removal ofcontaminated media were recommended for other sites (Montgomery Watson, 1998).In 1999, OSCI performed remedial actions at several Gambell sites (OSCI, 2001). Followingremoval of contaminated soils, confirmation samples were collected to demonstrate thatcontaminated soils had been removed; however, confirmation samples showed that fuelrelated contamination and metals were still present at some sites. Additionally, low levels ofdioxins were detected in soils. Concentrations of many contaminants exceeded the levelspermitted by ADEC Method 2, under 40-inch zone, migration to groundwater regulations.Geophysical surveys were performed at several Gambell sites in 2000 to aid in developing theSPIP. These sites were identified during a community survey wherein local residentscompleted questionnaires regarding the whereabouts of remaining military debris. BasedGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 1-5September 2001upon the results of the geophysical surveys and questionnaires, several sites were targeted forfurther investigation (Montgomery Watson, 2000).Potentially impacted sites were also identified in the HTSA (TEC, 2000). The HTSAcombined data from historic aerial photographs with current maps of Gambell to identifyareas of possible former military use. Following review of the HTSA, four new sites weretargeted for investigation. These new sites are listed below, with aerial photograph dates,where applicable:••••Site 25B - Suspected Pits (located immediately west of Site 25A)Site 26 - Debris Burial Feature - 1953Site 27 - Drum Storage Area - 1955Site 28 - Disturbed Ground - 19721.6PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIESThe primary personnel involved in the field investigations are the Project Manager, Safetyand Health Manager (SHM), the Field Team Leader (FTL) who serves as Site Health andSafety Officer (SHSO), QA/QC Officer, the Project Chemist, and Environmental Samplers.The field team will perform the tasks described in this plan by following a managementapproach with clear project organization and well-defined authority and responsibilities for allkey personnel. A project organization chart is shown in Figure 1-3.1.6.1Project ManagerThe Project Manager will set and maintain the performance standards for execution of work,including technical project performance, internal QC, and adherence to schedule and budget.The Project Manager will consult with the Alaska District prior to any deviation from thisWork Plan.1.6.2Safety and Health ManagerThe SHM is responsible for developing, instituting, coordinating, and supervising the healthand safety program for the project. The SHM's responsibilities include ensuring that the sitespecific Health and Safety Plan (SSHASP) complies with all federal, state, and local healthrequirements and coordinating with the SHSO on all modifications to the SSHASP.1.6.3Field Team LeaderThe FTL will coordinate all field activities that occur during the project investigations andwill be the primary field contact. The responsibilities of the FTL will include coordinating allfield activities with the Project Manager and laboratory; maintaining a detailed fieldnotebook; establishing and maintaining a field records system; monitoring compliance of thesample custodian within the provisions of all project plans; and performing otherGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 1-6September 2001responsibilities as directed by the Project Manager. The FTL will communicate with theProject Manager for any necessary fieldwork clarification.1.6.4Site Health and Safety OfficerThe SHSO will direct all personnel with respect to site health and safety. It is theresponsibility of the SHSO to ensure that all requirements and protocols set forth in the HASPare followed by all field personnel.1.6.5QA/QC OfficerThe QA/QC Officer is responsible for overseeing project QA and ensuring that establishedproject QA/QC protocols are followed. The QA/QC Officer will provide an external, andthereby independent, QA function.1.6.6Project ChemistThe Project Chemist will ensure that project samples are analyzed in accordance with theQAPP and that the chain-of-custody (CoC) record is completed for each sample withappropriate Information. The Project Chemist will oversee sample handling and will ensurethat samples are preserved, packed, and shipped according to United States Army Corps ofEngineers Regulation No. 1110-1-263 (USAGE, 1990).1.6.7Environmental SamplerThe Environmental Sampler will work with the Project Chemist to ensure that the CoC recordis completed for each sample with appropriate information and travels with the samples at alltimes. The Environmental Sampler will perform preservation, packing, and shipping ofsamples in accordance with United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulation No. 1110-1263 (USAGE, 1990).Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 1-7September 2001JOB No.0000000.OTIME: I7-SEP-200I Ili45FILE: Ei\usace\gombell\200l\WP\flnal\fgl-l.dgnGambell,St, Lawrence IslandO £ T 0 JV--3 Lawence>Island/"""^J'!-n"/Li>ii^J V,;A.A"'i*! t^.-T,r/ "~ /,'MONTGOMERYWATSONAnchorage, AlaskaSOURCE: U.S. Geological SurveyReston, Virginia 22092,1976St. Lawrence, AlaskaN6265 - W16830 /60x210Surveyed 1948, Compiled 1957Minor Revisions 1974Scale 1:250,000 Contour Interval 100'FIGURE 1-1U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL, ALASKA, LOCATION MAPNORTHBEACH3HHMONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaAREAS OF CONCERN (2001)| GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED IN 1994GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED IN 1996GAMBELL VICINITY MAP| G | GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY LOCATION PERFORMED IN 2000|FIGURE 1-2U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKASTRATEGIC PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLANU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,ALASKAPROJECT MANAGERGary BusseQA OFFICERJane WhitsettPROJECT LABORATORYChemical Testing:Arthur D. Little, Inc.Columbia Analytical ServicesSAFETY & HEALTH MANAGERBeth DarnellFIELD TEAM LEADER /SITE HEALTH & SAFETYOFFICERBonnie McLeanPROJECT CHEMIST &ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLERSSUBCONTRACTORSSURVEYORMullikin SurveysDRILLERHughes DrillingFIGURE 1-3MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAPROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART2.0INVESTIGATION PLANSite descriptions, objectives for the 2001 RI fieldwork, and site activities at each arearequiring data collection are briefly described below. Sites that will be investigated during the2001 RI are listed in Table 2-1 and shown in Figure 2-1. A summary of the 2001 RI sitesampling activities is provided in Table 2-2. Approximate sampling locations are shown inFigures 2-2 through 2-11. Actual sample locations will be determined by the field team basedon field observations and using rationale outlined in this Work Plan.Table 2-1Gambell 2001 Supplemental RI SitesSite NumberSite 4ASite 4BSite6Site 7SiteSSite 12Site 16Site 25ASite 25BSite 26Site 27Site 28UnknownSite DescriptionQuonset Huts near Former USAF Radar SiteFormer USAF Radar SiteMilitary LandfillFormer Military Power FacilityWest Beach/Army LandfillNayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteMunicipal Building SiteVillage of Gambell South Housing UnitsSuspected PitsDebris Burial Feature - 1953Drum Storage Area - 1 955Disturbed Ground - 1972Discretionary SamplesKey:2.1USAF - United States Air ForceSITE 4A - QUONSET HUTS NEAR FORMER USAF RADAR SITESite 4A, located on Sevuokuk Mountain, formerly contained transformers and two Quonsethuts. During the 1994 RI, surface soil samples were collected from Site 4A and analyzed forfuel-related contaminants, PCBs, solvents, and dioxins; no contaminants were detected abovemethod detection limits (MDL). Confirmation samples collected by OSCI following the 1999removal action contained diesel range organics (DRO) in soil at concentrations of up to 1,310mg/Kg. OSCI's 1999 sample locations, including samples 99GAM014, -015 (field duplicate)-016SL (triplicate), -017, -018, and -019, were shown in OSCI's Figure 7 (see Appendix A ofthis Work Plan). The samples were collected from within and outside of the two Quonset hutfootprints, following removal of the frames.The objective for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 4A is to confirm 1999 sampling results.Thirty-six surface soil samples (nine each from four triangular grids) will be collected andscreened in the field using a photoionization detector (PID) and PetroFlag™ screening kits.The four triangular sampling grids will be established using the approximate locations of theGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - Finala Page 2-1September 20011999 samples as the grid centerpoints. Locations and orientations of the triangular grids willbe decided in the field based on site observations. The four soil samples (one from each ofthe four grids) with the highest field screening results will be submitted for laboratoryanalysis. Two soil samples will be collected from former confirmation sampling locations99GAM018SL and 99GAM019SL; these samples will be screened in the field for hexavalentchromium.Proposed sampling grid locations for Site 4A are shown in Figure 2-2. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.2SITE 4B - FORMER USAF RADAR SITESite 4B, the Former United States Air Force (USAF) Site, is located on Sevuokuk Mountainand covers an area approximately 375 feet by 500 feet. This site housed buildings that burnedand caused ordnance to explode and scatter debris. Analyses of soil samples collected duringthe Phase IIRI showed elevated levels of metals and dioxins. Soil and debris removal actionswere performed by OSCI in 1999. The OSCI Site 4B map (OSCI Figure 6, shown inAppendix A of this Work Plan) showed an area approximately 29 feet by 37 feet, portions ofwhich had heavy staining, oily substances, and large rocks. This area was excavated in 1999to a depth of approximately 24 inches; following excavation, confirmation soil samples werecollected, including samples 99GAM020, -021 (field duplicate), -022 (triplicate), -023, -024, 025. The excavation confirmation samples showed DRO and dioxin levels in soil of up to13,900 mg/Kg and 1,846 parts per trillion (ppt), respectively.The objective for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 4B is to confirm 1999 sampling results.Thirty-six surface soil samples (nine each from four triangular grids) will be collected andscreened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. The four triangularsampling grids will be established using the approximate locations of the 1999 samples as thegrid centerpoints. Locations and orientations of the triangular grids will be decided in thefield based on site observations and field notes from 1999. The four soil samples (one fromeach of the grids) with the highest field screening results will be submitted for laboratoryanalysis.Proposed sampling grid locations for Site 4B are shown in Figure 2-3. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.3SITE 6 - MILITARY LANDFILLSite 6 is located north of Gambell High School and east of the new housing area. This landfillwas used to dispose of building materials, vehicles, machinery, drums, and miscellaneousdebris. Exposed drums (7,897 pounds) and other metal debris (1,748 pounds) were removedin 1999 by OSCI. A confirmation soil sample (99GAM026SL) collected from theapproximate center of the removed drum stockpile (see OSCI Figure 8 in Appendix A of thisWork Plan) had low levels of residual range organics (RRO) and arsenic; no other fuel-relatedcontaminants, solvents, PCBs, or pesticides were detected.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 2-2September 2001The objectives for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 6 are to confirm 1999 sampling resultsand to determine the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination. To confirmthe 1999 sample results, nine surface soil samples from one triangular grid will be collectedand screened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. The triangular samplinggrid will be established using the approximate location of the 1999 sample as the centerpoint.The location will be approximated using site photographs, visual indicators such as staining,and input from local residents who worked on the site. The two soil samples with the highestfield screening results will be submitted for laboratory analysis.To determine the nature and extent of soil contamination, 3 soil borings will be advanced to12 feet below ground surface (bgs), or to permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12feet of the ground surface. Soil boring locations were determined, in part, by the locations ofdepressions identified from 1980 aerial photographs in the HTSA report. Soil samples will becollected for laboratory analysis at the surface and at the bottom of each borehole. Boreholeswill be continuously split-spoon sampled, and each sample will be field-screened using a PID.Two non-surface, non-bottom borehole soil samples at Site 6 with high PID screening levelswill be submitted for laboratory analysis.To determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, three well points will beinstalled and sampled; the locations of the well points will be determined in the field after thesoil borings have been completed.Proposed sampling grid and soil boring locations for Site 6 are shown in Figure 2-4. Sampleanalyses and laboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.4SITE 7 - FORMER MILITARY POWER FACILITYThe Former Military Power Facility was demolished and buried north of the present GambellMunicipal Building. The burial site of this former military facility comprises Site 7.Electrical transformers were reportedly disposed of at this site. Additionally, Gambellresidents have reported that the military may have dumped partially full barrels of oil or otherpetroleum products on the ground in the vicinity of this site. During previous investigations,DRO was detected in shallow soils in concentrations of up to 1,950 mg/Kg. Benzene andDRO were also detected in groundwater samples from Site 7.The objectives for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 7 are to determine the nature and extentof fuel and groundwater contamination and to determine the source of soil contamination. Todetermine the nature and extent of soil contamination, 3 soil borings will be advanced to 12feet bgs. or to permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface.Soil boring locations were determined, in part, by the locations of pits and buildings identifiedfrom 1955 a.erial photographs in the HTSA report. Soil samples will be collected forlaboratory analysis at the surface and at the bottom of each borehole. The boreholes will becontinuously split-spoon sampled, and each sample will be field-screened using a PID. Twonon-surface, non-bottom borehole soil samples at Site 7 with high PID screening levels willbe submitted for laboratory analysis.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 2-3September 2001To determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, three well points will beinstalled and sampled; locations of the well points will be determined in the field followingcompletion of the soil borings.To determine the source of soil contamination, two soil samples from locations with visibleevidence of fuel-related contamination will be collected and submitted for laboratory fuelfingerprinting analyses.Proposed soil boring locations for Site 7 are shown in Figure 2-5. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.5SITE 8 - WEST BEACH/ARMY LANDFILLThe Army Landfill at Site 8 is located near West Beach, which extends for approximately 3miles from the southwest end of North Beach to Nayvaghaq Lake. The Army Landfill is onthe northwest side of Nayvaghaq Lake. Surface debris removed by OSCI in 1999 includedscattered metal, small quantities of wood and concrete, drums containing tar, and an exposedlayer of metal landing mat approximately 30 feet wide and 4,500 feet long. A confirmationsoil sample collected at the tar drum area (99GAM012SL; see OSCI Figure 3 in Appendix Aof this Work Plan) showed DRO and RRO at concentrations below ADEC cleanup levels.The objective for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 8 is to confirm 1999 sampling results atthe former tar drum area. Nine surface soil samples from one triangular grid will be collectedand screened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. The triangular samplinggrid will be established using the approximate location of the 1999 sample as the gridcenterpoint. Location and orientation of the triangular grid will be decided in the field basedon site observations and interviews with Gambell residents who worked at the site and may beable to provide information on the exact location of the 1999 samples. The two soil sampleswith the highest field screening results will be submitted for laboratory analysis.Proposed sampling grid locations for Site 8 are shown in Figure 2-6. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.6SITE 12 - NAYVAGHAQ LAKE DISPOSAL SITESite 12 is located north of Nayvaghaq Lake on the southwest side of an all-terrain vehicle(ATV) trail. The site is divided into a north area and a south area, both of which wereaddressed during the OSCI 1999 fieldwork. The north area contained approximately 120drums, battery remnants, and household refuse. The south area contained approximately 50drums, 18 of which were full of garbage. Following the 1999 debris removal, confirmationsoil samples were collected. The OSCI map of Site 12 (shown in Appendix A of this WorkPlan) showed confirmation sample locations 99GAM009, -010, and -011SL, which hadconcentrations of DRO and lead of up to 463 mg/Kg and 562 mg/Kg, respectively.The objectives for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 12 are to confirm 1999 sampling resultsand to evaluatefor the :presence of: contaminationin the disturbed areas. To confirm the 1999:• ••• •• •- - :• •• ••Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalQ Page 2-4September 2001sampling results, 27 surface soil samples (9 each from 3 triangular grids) will be collected andscreened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. Because exact locations ofthe 1999 samples were not surveyed or permanently marked, the triangular sampling gridswill be established using the approximate locations of the 1999 samples as the gridcenterpoints. Locations and orientations of the triangular grids will be decided in the fieldbased on site observations. The four soil samples with the highest field screening results (thehighest from each grid plus the next highest) will be submitted for laboratory analysis.Proposed sampling grid locations for Site 12 are shown in Figure 2-7. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.7SITE 16 - GAMBELL MUNICIPAL BUILDING SITESite 16 consists of an area of stained gravel located immediately west of the GambellMunicipal Building. The stained area is approximately 35 feet wide and 55 feet long andconsists of a dark gray, oily coating on gravels from 0.5 feet to 2.5 feet bgs. The origin of thestain is unknown, but it may be related to former military use of the site or heavy ATV trafficin this area. During previous investigations of this area, DRO was found in the surface soilsin concentrations of up to 16 mg/Kg. Gambell residents believe that presence of thecontaminated soil may hinder further development of the area or pose a risk to local residents.The objectives for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 16 are to determine the nature and extentof fuel contamination in soil and to determine the source of soil contamination. To determinethe nature and extent of soil contamination, 4 soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs, orto permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Soil sampleswill be collected for laboratory analysis at the surface and at the bottom of each borehole.Boreholes will be continuously split-spoon sampled, and each sample will be field-screenedusing a PID. Three non-surface, non-bottom borehole soil samples at Site 16 with high PIDscreening levels will be submitted for laboratory analysis.To determine the source of soil contamination, two soil samples collected from locations withvisible evidence of fuel-related contamination and submitted for laboratory fuel fingerprintinganalyses.Proposed soil boring locations for Site 16 are shown in Figure 2-8. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.8SITE 25A - VILLAGE OF GAMBELL SOUTH HOUSING UNITSThe South Housing Units site was identified in the Gambell SPIP as an area that may becontaminated by fuel-related products of military origin. During construction workperformed in 1997 by Alaska Village Safe Water, oily soils were encountered at thepermafrost interface. Gambell residents reported encountering stove oil and an empty 55gallon drum during excavation for installation of a water main in the vicinity of Site 25A.Residents have also expressed concern that the military may have dumped barrels of oilGambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 2-5September 2001directly on the ground at this site. Areas where trenches, pits, or disturbed ground may havebeen located are apparent on historical aerial photographs of Site 25A.The objectives for supplemental RI fieldwork at Site 25A are to determine the nature andextent of soil and groundwater contamination and to determine the source of soilcontamination. To determine the nature and extent of soil contamination, 6 soil borings willbe advanced to 12 feet bgs, or to permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of theground surface. Soil boring locations were determined, in part, by the locations ofdepressions, trenches, and disturbed ground identified by Gambell residents and from aerialphotographs in the HTSA report. Soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis at thesurface and at the bottom of each borehole. The boreholes will be continuously split-spoonsampled, and each sample will be field screened using a PID. Three non-surface, non-bottomborehole soil samples at Site 25A with high PID screening levels will be submitted forlaboratory analysis.To determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, three well points will beinstalled and sampled; locations of the well points will be determined in the field after the soilborings have been completed.To determine the source of soil contamination, two soil samples collected from locations withvisible evidence of fuel-related contamination and submitted for laboratory fuel fingerprintinganalyses.Proposed soil boring and well point locations for Site 25A are shown in Figure 2-9. Sampleanalyses and laboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.9SITE 25B - SUSPECTED PITSSite 25B was identified in a 1973 aerial photograph as a series of pits (TEC, 2000). The siteis located immediately west of Site 25A. The purpose of the suspected pits is unknown.The objective for RI fieldwork at Site 25B is to evaluate for the presence of soilcontamination. To identify soil contamination, 2 soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs,or to permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Soilsamples will be collected for laboratory analysis at the surface and at the bottom of eachborehole.The proposed sampling location for Site 25B is shown in Figure 2-9. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.10SITE 26 - DEBRIS BURIAL FEATURE -1953Site 26 was identified in a 1953 aerial photograph as a possible debris burial site (TEC, 2000).The site is located east of Gambell High School near Site 18 (Former Main Camp). Residentsof Gambell report finding metal debris, machinery, oily debris, and transformers in the area.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 2-6September 2001The objective for RI fieldwork at Site 26 is to evaluate for the presence of soil contamination.To identify contamination, two soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs, or to permafrostif permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Soil samples will becollected at the surface and at the bottom of each borehole.Proposed sampling locations for Site 26 are shown in Figure 2-10. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.11SITE 27 - DRUM STORAGE AREA - 1955Site 27 was identified in a 1955 aerial photograph as a drum storage area (TEC, 2000). Thesite is located north of Site 7 (Former Military Power Facility). Drums that were stored at thissite have been removed.The objective for RI fieldwork at Site 27 is to evaluate for the presence of soil contamination.To identify contamination, 3 soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs, or to permafrost ifpermafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Soil samples will be collectedat the surface and at the bottom of each borehole.Proposed sampling locations for Site 27 are shown in Figure 2-5. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.12SITE 28 - GROUND DISTURBANCE - 1972Site 28 was identified in a 1972 aerial photograph as a ground disturbance (TEC, 2000). Thesite is located south of Troutman Lake and west of an unnamed lake. This area wasreportedly leased by the Army from January 1955 to May 1958; however, the Army's use ofthe land is unknown.The objective for RI fieldwork at Site 28 is to evaluate for the presence of soil contamination.To identify contamination, 2 soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs, or to permafrost ifpermafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Soil samples will be collectedat the surface and at the bottom of each borehole.Proposed sampling locations for Site 28 are shown in Figure 2-11. Sample analyses andlaboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.2.13DISCRETIONARY SAMPLING LOCATIONSIn addition to the site-specific sampling described in the preceding sections, soil samples willbe collected from five additional locations. These additional .sampling locations will beselected based on guidance from Gambell residents about areas of local concern, siteobservations of staining or other indications of contamination, and comparison of physicalfeatures observed in the field with features identified in the HTSA. The additional samplinglocations may be outside of the specific sites described in the preceding sections. Samplinglocations will be approved by the Alaska District prior to sample collection.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalU Page 2-7September 2001The objective for discretionary RI fieldwork is to evaluate for the presence of soilcontamination. To identify contamination, five soil borings will be advanced to 12 feet bgs,or to permafrost if permafrost is encountered within 12 feet of the ground surface. Boreholeswill be continuously split-spoon sampled, and each sample will be field-screened using a PID.Two samples from each borehole will be submitted for laboratory analysis: one sample withhigh PID screening levels and one sample selected at the discretion of the field investigativeteam based on characteristics such as staining, odor, Pro readings, and proximity to thegroundwater interface.Sample analyses and laboratory methods are listed in Table 2-2.Gambell 2001 Supplemental Remedial InvestigationWork Plan - FinalO Page 2-8September 2001Table 2-2 Analytical Sampling SummaryGROUNDWATERSOILSiteNumber4A4B678121625ASite DescriptionQuonset Huts Near Former Radar SiteFormer Radar SiteFormer Military LandfillNumber ol Number ofGridsBoreholes4410Former Military Power Facility130Army Landfill/West BeachNayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteQambell Municipal Building Site0South Housing Units0033004625BSuspected Pits0226Debris Burial Feature - 19530227Drum Storage Area - 1 9550328Ground Disturbance - 1 97202051330unknown Discretionary BoreholesTOTALSample LocationSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomGroundwaterBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintGroundwaterSurface SoilSurface SoilBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintGroundwaterBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole High PIDBorehole DiscretionaryGrid OnlyHeadspaceVolatilesGrid FuelProductsPID (field)PetroFlag™(field)3636932245T OTAL PRIMARY SAMPLESField Duplicates (QC)Trip BlanksMatrix SpikeMatrix Spike DuplicateTOTAL PRIMARY PLUS QC SAMPLESField Triplicates (QA)QA Trip BlanksQA Matrix SpikeQA Matrix Spike DuplicateTOTAL QA SAMPLESTOTAL SAMPLESRCRA Metals: As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ag, Se, BaTAL Metals: Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mg, Mn, Hg, Ni, K, Se, Ag, Na, Tl, V, ZnAK - Alaska MethodBTEX - benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenesDRO - diesel range organicsHexavalentChromiumHACHColorimetry(field)2BTEXDRO/RROGROAK102/103AK10144232344232332332323323VOCSW8260BSIM SW8260BPCBsSW8082RCRAMetalsTALMetalsFuelFingerprintDRO/RROGRO/BTEXSW6010B SW6010B/7000/7000(see notes) AK102/103AK101/SW8260B44232333332332323927516244342443463663622223322552222332255228698699552433223431324433426332638281171000|90551059290127127211110|2|116114 __,911112126GRO - gasoline range organicsPID - photoionization detectorQA - Quality AssuranceQC -Quality ControlRCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery ActFingerprinting will consist of the following tests:D PAH GC/MS/SIMn Gasoline range hydrocarbons GC/MSD Brief interpretive report discussing results of the analytical testing, discussion of relationships to various petroleum product types.D Saturated hydrocarbons (SHC) and select isoprenoids in the diesel range (n-C8 to n-C40) by gas chromatography/ flame ionization detection (GC/FID)D Isotopic Carbon Distribution223322554384655336251118702233225533142162465111821120233575114221142411764RRO - residual range organicsSIM - selected ion monitoringSW - Solid Waste MethodTAL - Target Analyte ListVOC - volatile organic compounds36606911112111315Sample LocationSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomGroundwaterBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintGroundwaterSurface SoilSurface SoilBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole High PIDBorehole BottomFuel FingerprintGroundwaterBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole Near-SurfaceBorehole BottomBorehole High PIDBorehole Discretionary91111131111417ISiteNumber4A4B678121625A25B262728unknown3A /SV, FORMER COMMUNICATIONSI FACILrTY BURIAL AREAAREAS OF CONCERN (2001)MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELU, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL RlSTUDY SITESSITE 4AREA 4AFORMERTRANSFORMERSSURVEYS FROM SPIP REPORT"CONTAMINATED WATER, METALWIRE. MACHINERY, ANDTRANSFORMERS"FORMER DRUMSLEGENDDRODiesel Range Organics,^^Former Stained Area|RROResidual Range Orgartics\ A\1994 Surface SoilSample Location/•£Triangular Sample Grid LocationNQfET. All sample locations are approximate as are thecorresponding triangular grid locations.SCALE IN FEET?—u^^a—10002. All results shown are in milligrams per kilogram.FIGURE 2-2MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL Rl SITE 4A-SLANTEDWOODEN POLEELEVATED CONCENTRATIONSOF DIOXINS IN SURFACE SOILS(1994)99GAM024SLSURVEYS IN SPIP REPORT"CONTAMINATED SOIL ANDWATER"99GAM025SL- WESTERN EDGE OFSEVUOKUK MTN. ANDVILLAGE OF GAMBELLLEGENDDRODiesel Range OrganicsNDNot DetectedRROResidLal Range OrganicsASoil SaVnple Location (1994)ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONSOF METALS IN SURFACE SOILS(1994)Stained AreaATriangu ar Sample Grid LocationNOTE1. All sample local >ns are approximate as arethe corresponding triangular grid locations.SCALE IN FEET2. Results shown ire in milligrams per kilogram.0FIGURE 2-3MONTGOMERY WATSONAnchorage, AlaskaU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAGAMBELL 2001 SUPPLEMENTALRl SITE 4B30JOB No. IBSOSOb,iTIME: I4-SEP-2001 13:33BERINGFILE: E!\usace\gambell\200l\WP\flnal\fg2-6.dgnSEA\0SITE 8LEGEND• FORMER LOCATION FORDRUMS CONTAINING TARDRODiesel Range OrganicsNDNot DetectedRROResidual Range Organics/\Triangular Sample Grid LocationNOTE1. All sample locations are approximate as arethe corresponding triangular grid locations.TROUTMAN LAKE2. Results, shown are in milligrams per kilogram.FIGURE 2-6MWHU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAGAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZAAnchorage, AlaskaGAMBELL 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL Rl SITE 899GAM009SL,MW1799GAM010SL-j150 DrumsLEGENDDRO Diesel Rafige Organics---"///^Direction of Groundwater Flow (1994)Former DrumLocationFormer Drum AreaMonitoring Well (1994) /99GAM011SLRRO Residual Range OrganicsIZk//Surface Water Sample Location-' (1994)Triangular Sample Grid Location//——••AK Revision 0August 2000•..•..-••-?..•.;..c--:;:...,.^.-...-. _ _ _ _ — : . • • ----- - -^-- :v—-!—•*--..^i——r—,-n-ia::::^:^:^^--f^ • • • ••::::,:::..;z::!-!-"v'"^r7^-- '•"• --"..--"....-..-:---• ••--•.-•:.•:-••-^^i:-'-i::-"••"••'•SOP-14Page 4 of 10•PID readings from inside of well, purged water, and breathing zone•Background PID readings•Well sampling-Number of samples collected and type of containers used-Date and time of sample collection-Type of analyses-QA/QC samples collected; names given to blind samples•Field observations•Problems encountered and corrective actions taken•Deviations from the sampling plan•Site visitors4.2TAILGATE SAFETY MEETINGSTailgate safety meetings are held at the beginning of each day before the initiation of work. Allpersonnel, subcontractors, and others who will be on the job site are required to attend. Themeetings are usually conducted by the FTL, on-site safety officer, or other qualified teammember. The topics discussed at the meeting should include the following:•••••••Protective clothing and equipmentChemical hazardsPhysical hazardsSpecial equipmentEmergency proceduresEmergency phone numbersDirections to the hospitalAll site personnel are required to sign the tailgate safety meeting form. The original form shouldbe kept on site, and a copy should be sent to the home office.4.3DAILY QUALITY CONTROL REPORTThe preparation of DQCRs is the responsibility of the field team leader. DQCRs are completedon a daily basis and should summarize the events of the day and supplement the information thatis already recorded in the field logbook. DQCRs should be completed regardless of the durationof the field effort. Depending on the client, copies of the report should be distributed to theMontgomery Watson Project Manager, Montgomery Watson Project Geologist, Client ProjectManager (depending on the project), field office file, and home office file. Information recordedin this report should include the following.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-14Page 5 of 10•Date and Weather Information.humidity.•Montgomery Watson Personnel and Time Spent on Site•Subcontractors and Time Spent on Site•Special Equipment on Site. PID, Smeal Water Sampling Rig, Hollow-Stem Auger Rig, pHmeter, conductivity meter, etc.•Work and Sampling Performed. Personnel performing specific site activities, a summary ofsamples collected, and a thorough explanation of the work completed.•Quality Control Activities. Activities such as decontamination procedures, QA/QC samplestaken, calibration of field equipment, etc.•Health and Safety Levels and Activities. Field parameter measurements, includingcalibration of equipment. Includes daily tailgate safety meetings, level of protection used,etc.•Problems Encountered/Corrective Actions Taken. Any technical difficulties, for exampleproblems encountered during drilling or equipment breakdowns. Any problems that couldpotentially affect the quality of the samples should be included.•Special Notes. Any information that does not fit under the categories listed above, but isimportant to record. Information that would be useful for future sampling such as basecontacts made, visitors on site, etc.•Next Day's Expectations•Signature of Individual Completing the Report.4.4Date, daily temperatures, wind speed and direction,BORING LOGSThe preparation of drill logs is the responsibility of the field team members assigned to the drillrig. A detailed description of well logging is provided in the SOP for that subject. Severalexamples of drilling logs are given in the attachments. The exact format is dependent upon thejob and the client; however, the following basic information should be recorded on the logregardless of the format.••Project and site name•Name of driller and drilling company•Well/soil boring ED and location (sketch)•Drilling and backfilling dates and times•Reference elevation for all depth measurements•Total depth of completed soil boring/well•Depth of grouting, sealing, and grout mixes•Signature of the logger.•AK Revision 0August 2000•••••• •- - • • •• • ••• •'- -•••-•• •"•••• - ^••.-..."-;....:.....^.^..........-•>•.• • • . , ; • ....SOP-14Page 9 of 10custody is accomplished through a chain-of-custody record that lists each sample and theindividuals responsible for sample collection, shipment, and receipt. A sample is considered incustody if it is:•In a person's possession.•In view after being in physical possession.•Locked or sealed so that no one can tamper with it after it has been in an individual's physicalcustody.•In a secured area, restricted to authorized personnel.A COC record is used to record the samples taken and the analyses requested. Informationrecorded includes time and date of sample collection, sample number, and the type of sample, thesampler's signature, the required analysis, and the type of containers and preservatives used. Acopy of the COC record should be retained by the sampler prior to release to a second or thirdparty. Shipping receipts should be signed and filed as evidence of custody transfer between fieldsampler(s), courier, and laboratory.The COC Record will be properly signed and the date of collection and shipment recorded, alongwith the sample site identifications and requested analyses for each sample.4.8.4 Sample RegisterThe sample register is a field record book with prenumbered pages. A full description of eachsample is recorded in the book. The information included in the sample register should includethe following:•••••••••••Sample number (identification)Duplicate and split sample numbers (identification)Location of sampleClientProject numberCollection methodNumber and size of bottles for each analysisDestination of the sampleType of analysisDate and time of collectionName of samplerOther observations may be included as the situation dictates for a thorough record that could beused to reconstruct the events concerning that sample. All information should be recorded inindelible ink.5.0REFERENCESNone.•^—T^—-—^FiH-----??'^ •-•-•-••-•-• -^ --•-.--;.-.-..;::::I:L^ V ••- ' •'" -•"••: i r :i™m'TlI;:;.::±^iziii^z_i^__-••;;-.••;•••••.;•• m-jfiri-MiaiMitL^AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-14Page 10 of 10SOP 15Site LogbookMVVHMONTGOMERY WATSON HAftZASTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESSOP-15: SITE LOGBOOK1.0INTRODUCTIONThis guideline describes the process for keeping a site logbook. The site logbook is a controlleddocument that records all major on-site activities during a Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy (RI/FS). At a minimum, the following activities/events should be recorded in the sitelogbook:••••••Arrival/departure of site visitorsArrival/departure of equipmentSample pickup (chain-of-custody form numbers, carrier, time)Sampling activities/sample logsheet numbersStart or completion of borehole/trench/monitoring well installation or sampling activitiesHealth and safety issuesThe site logbook is initiated at the start of the first on-site activity (e.g., initial reconnaissancesurvey). Entries are made for every day that on-site activities take place which involve RI/FScontractor personnel. One current site logbook is maintained per site.The site logbook becomes part of the permanent site file maintained in the RI contractor's office.Because information contained in the site logbook may be admitted as evidence in cost recoveryor other legal proceedings, it is critical that this document be properly maintained.2.0DEFINITIONSSite Logbook - The logbook is a bound notebook with consecutively numbered pages that cannotbe removed. Upon entry of data, the logbook requires signature by the responsible site leader.3.0RESPONSIBILITIESLog books are issued to the field team by the field team leader (FTL). It is the responsibility ofthis person (or designee) to keep the site logbook current while in his possession and to return itto the Project Manager or turn it over to another field team. Following the completion of allfieldwork, the site logbook is returned to the Project Manager for inclusion in the permanent sitefiles.4.0GUIDELINESThe cover of each site logbook contains the following information:••Project nameMontgomery Watson project numberProject manager's nameAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-15Page 1 of 2•••Sequential book numberStart dateEnd dateDaily entries into the logbook may contain a variety of information. At the beginning of eachday the following information must be recorded:• Date• Start time• Weather• All field personnel present• Any visitors presentDuring the day, a summary of all site activities and level of personal protection should berecorded in the logbook. The information need not duplicate that recorded in other fieldnotebooks (e.g., sample logbook, site geologist's notebook, health and safety officer's notebook,etc.), but should summarize the contents of these other notebooks and refer to the page locationsin these notebooks for detailed information.The sample logsheet for each sample collected should be referenced. If measurements are madeat any location, the measurements and equipment used must either be recorded in the sitelogbook or reference must be made to the notebook and page number(s) on which they arerecorded. All entries should be made in black pen. No erasures are permitted. If an incorrectentry is made, the data should be crossed out with a single strike mark, and initialed and dated.At the completion of entries by any individual, the logbook must be signed. It must also besigned by the FTL or responsible site leader at the end of each day.5.0REFERENCESNone.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-15Page 2 of 2SOP 28HydroPunchMWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZASTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESSOP-28: HYDROPUNCH1.0INTRODUCTIONThis SOP provides an overview of the methods and procedures to collect groundwater samplesusing a HydroPunch sampler. HydroPunch is a patented method for collecting groundwatersamples at precise depths from water-bearing zones in unconsolidated soils without the drilling,installation, and development of monitoring wells. HydroPunch sampling also can be used tocollect samples of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL). The HydroPunch sampler is hammeredor hydraulically advanced through the subsurface to the desired water bearing zone from whichthe sample is to be collected. The groundwater or NAPL sample is allowed to enter the samplerand the sample is retrieved. The installation and sampling procedures are discussed in Section4.0 of this SOP.Two types of HydroPunch samplers can be used. The HydroPunch I sampler is removed intactfrom the subsurface to retrieve the sample. HydroPunch n allows an unlimited sample volume tobe collected using a bailer; however, an expendable drive point must be left in the ground.Because the HydroPunch II can collect an unlimited sample volume, it is considered thepreferable sampling method. In the event that regulations do not permit sampling equipment tobe abandoned in the subsurface, the HydroPunch I should be considered.2.0DEFINITIONSBailer: A cylindrical tool designed to remove solid or liquid material from a well or borehole. Avalve at the bottom of the bailer retains the material. The three types of bailers include the flatvalve, the dart-valve, and the sand pump with rod plunger.Blow Count: The cumulative number of impacts of a 140-pound hammer dropped from a heightof 30 inches applied to a sample spoon that is being driven into subsurface soils or rock. Blowcounts are typically tallied for intervals of 6 inches.Borehole: The hole created by drilling or pushing an object through the subsurface.Cone Penetrorneter: An instrument that identifies underground conditions by measuring thedifferences in the resistance and other physical parameters of the strata. The cone penetrometerconsists of a conical point attached to a drive rod of smaller diameter which is advanced by adrill rig.Drive Point: The conical tip of the HydroPunch sampler that penetrates the subsurface as thesampler is advanced.Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL): Petroleum liquid that is immiscible with water and floatsatop the water column.AK Revision 0September 2001SOP-28Page 1 of 3Tremie Pipe: A device, usually a small-diameter pipe, that carries grouting materials to thebottom of the borehole and that allows pressure grouting from the bottom up withoutintroduction of appreciable air pockets.3.0RESPONSIBILITIESProject Manager: Selects site-specific HydroPunch installation, sampling, and analysis programwith input from the site hydrogeologist and field team leader. Oversees and preparessubcontracts.Site Hydrogeologist: Selects site-specific installation options, such as sampling depth. Helpsprepare technical provisions of drilling subcontracts.Field Team Leader: Implements HydroPunch installation and sampling program.Drilling Rig Geologist: Supervises and/or performs HydroPunch point installation and sampling.4.0HYDROPUNCH OPERATIONThis section describes the basic operation, installation and sample collection of HydroPunchsamplers, as well as borehole abandonment. The HydroPunch done is not intended to be used toassess the depth and extent of permeable zones; some knowledge of the site lithologies from soilsamples is necessary prior to HydroPunch sampling.4.1BASIC OPERATION OF HYDROPUNCH SAMPLERSThe HydroPunch II sampler consists of a cylindrical, stainless steel sample body with a length of5 feet and a diameter of 2 inches. A disposable, cylindrical filter screen, inlet valve, andexpendable conical drive point are fitted within the sample body so that these internal parts cantelescope from the sample body. The screen and internal parts are sealed from the exterior by anO-ring seal at the base of the drive point when the HydroPunch is in the closed position. Thesampler is driven to the desired sampling depth in the water bearing zone. The body of thesampler is pulled back approximately 4 feet. When the sample body is retracted, the drive pointand attached screen remain at the original depth and are exposed to the formation, allowing thewater to pass through the exposed screen and enter the sampler body. The screen, consisting ofeither stainless steel or polyethylene, filters soil particles from the sample. A bailer can belowered from the surface into the sampler body to collect the groundwater sample. TheHydroPunch I is slightly longer and narrower than the HydroPunch II. For HydroPunch I, thesampler is retracted 18 inches to expose the inlet screen. When the sample chamber has beenfilled, the entire sampling unit is removed from the subsurface. The groundwater sample is heldin the sample body by two Teflon check valve in the sample body.4.2INSTALLATION OF THE HYDROPUNCH SAMPLERPrior to installation, the internal and external parts of the HydroPunch are to be decontaminatedin accordance with SOP-31.••'';':-• •"••AK Revision 0September 2001:r:.±^^_^^_^^_r_ :- - ''. . . .••'- — •••'«SOP-28Page 2 of 3The HydroPunch sampler can be installed using either a cone penetrometer testing (CPT) rig or aconventional drill rig. Using a CPT rig, the HydroPunch sampler is attached to the CPT pushrods and driven from the surface to depth using the rig's hydraulic ram. CPT procedures arepresented in SOP-11. Using a drill rig, the HydroPunch sampler can be attached to standard soilsampling drill rods and either driven to depth using a standard 140-pound hammer orhydraulically driven through the bottom of a borehole drilled into the water bearing zone. As ageneral rule, without damaging the sampler, the HydroPunch sampler can be driven intoformations using the hammer method if blow counts do not exceed 30 per 6 inches. TheHydroPunch should be driven at least 5 feet below the top of the water bearing zone to allowsufficient pressure to fill the sample chamber, which is higher than the intake screen. Careshould be taken to not retract the sample body prior to reaching the desired sampling depth.When the desired depth is reached, the HydroPunch is retracted either 18 inches (HydroPunch I)or 4 feet (HydroPunch n) (as described in Section 4.1) to expose the inlet screen to the waterbearing zone.4.3SAMPLE COLLECTIONWith the HydroPunch II, a groundwater sample can be retrieved from the sample body in siteusing a 1-inch O.D. sample bailer. The sample bailer is to be decontaminated prior to use inaccordance with SOP 3. The sample volume that may be collected using HydroPunch II istheoretically unlimited, but practical experience indicates that the intake screen will tend to siltup over time and the diminishing productivity of the HydroPunch II point sometimes precludescollecting large sample volumes. NAPL sampling may be conducted with HydroPunch II by thesample method described above using the hydrocarbon bailer supplied by the HydroPunchvendor. The hydrocarbon bailer permits sampling of the NAPL layer with minimal disturbanceand mixing, and allows for a more accurate estimation of NAPL layer thickness. With theHydroPunch I, the groundwater sample is collected by removing the entire sampler from thesubsurface. The sample is retained in the sample chamber by two check valves. Upon retrieval,the upper check valve is replaced with a Teflon stop cock valve. The sampler is turned upsidedown, the stop cock is opened, and the sample is decanted into the sample container. TheHydroPunch I sampler will yield 500 ml of sample volume.4.4BOREHOLE ABANDONMENTFollowing sample collection and removal of the HydroPunch from the subsurface, the boreholeshould be backfilled to the surface in accordance with local regulations, which generally requiregrouting the entire length of the borehole to the surface. For HydroPunch points advanced fromthe ground surface, the small diameter of the borehole will likely require using a tremie pipeduring backfilling to prevent bridging of the backfill material.5.0REFERENCESQED Groundwater Specialists. Groundwater Express Equipment Catalog. 1992.AK Revision 0September 2001SOP-28Page 3 of 3SOP 30Field Analytical Procedures (pH,Conductivity, Temperature, OrganicVapor, Water Levels, and TurbidityMVi/HMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZASTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESOP-30: FIELD ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES (pH, CONDUCTIVITY,TEMPERATURE, ORGANIC VAPOR, WATER LEVELS, AND TURBIDITY)1.0INTRODUCTIONThis guideline is a general reference for the proper equipment and techniques for groundwatersampling. The purpose of these procedures is to enable the user to collect representative anddefensible groundwater samples and to facilitate planning of the field sampling effort. Thesetechniques should be followed whenever applicable, although site-specific conditions or projectspecific plans may require adjustments in methodology. SOP-1 presents information regardingdevelopment and sampling equipment decontamination for soil drilling operations. SOP-5contains information regarding groundwater sampling and field measurements.To be valid, a groundwater sample must be representative of the particular zone of the waterbeing sampled. The physical, chemical, and bacteriological integrity of the sample must bemaintained from the time of collection to the time of analysis in order to minimize changes inwater quality parameters. Acceptable equipment for withdrawing samples from completed wellsinclude bailers and various types of pumps. The primary considerations in obtaining arepresentative sample of the groundwater are to avoid collecting stagnant (standing) water in thewell, to avoid physically or chemically altering the water due to improper sampling techniques,sample handling, or transport, and to document that proper sampling procedures have beenfollowed.This guideline describes suggested well evacuation methods, sample collection and handling,field measurement, decontamination, and documentation procedures. Examples of sampling andchain-of-custody (COC) forms are attached.2.0DEFINITIONSAnnular Space: The space between casing or well screen and the wall of the drilled hole, orbetween drill pipe and casing, or between two separate strings of casing. Also called annulus.Aquifer: A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable ofyielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring.Bailer: A long narrow tubular device with an open top and a check valve at the bottom that isused to remove water from a well during purging or sampling. Bailers may be made of Teflon,polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or stainless steel. Disposable bailers are available and are made ofpolycarbonate.Bladder Pump: A pump consisting of flexible bladder usually made of Teflon contained within arigid cylindrical body (commonly made of PVC). The lower end of the bladder is connectedthrough a check valve to the intake port, while the upper end is connected to a sampling line thatleads to the ground surface. A second line, the gas line, leads from the ground surface to theAK Revision!May 2001SOP-30Page 1 of 6annular space between the bladder and the outer body of the pump. After filling, underhydrostatic pressure, application of gas pressure causes the bladder to collapse, closing the checkvalve and forcing the sample to ground surface through the sample line. Gas pressure is oftenprovided by a compressed air tank, and commercial models generally include a control box thatautomatically switches the gas pressure off and on at appropriate intervals.Centrifugal Pump: A pump that moves a liquid by accelerating it radially outward in an impellerto a surrounding spiral-shaped casing.Chain of Custody: Method for documenting the history and possession of a sample from the timeof its collection through its analysis and data reporting to its final disposition.Check Valve: Ball and spring valves on core barrels, bailers, and sampling devices that are usedto allow water to flow in one direction only.Conductivity (electrical): A measure of the quantity of electricity transferred across a unit area,per unit potential gradient, per unit time. It is the reciprocal of resistivity.Datum: An arbitrary surface (or plane) used in the measurement of heads (i.e., National GeodeticVertical Datum [NGVD], commonly referred to as mean sea level [msl]).Decontamination: A variety of processes used to clean equipment that contacted formationmaterial or groundwater that is known to be or suspected of being contaminated.Downgradient: In the direction of decreasing hydrostatic head.Drawdown: The lowering of the potentiometric or piezometric surface in a well and aquifer dueto the discharge of water from the well.Electric Submersible Pump: A pump that consists of a rotor contained within a chamber anddriven by an electric motor. The entire device is lowered into the well with the electrical cableand discharge tubing attached. A portable power source and control box remain at the surface.Electrical submersible pumps used for groundwater sampling are constructed of inert materialssuch as stainless steel, and are well sealed to prevent sample contamination by lubricants.Filter Pack: Sand or gravel that is generally uniform, clean, and well rounded that is placed in theannulus of the well between the borehole wall and the well screen to prevent formation materialfrom entering through the well screen and to stabilize the adjacent formation.Headspace: The empty volume in a sample container between the water level and the cap.HydroPunch: An in situ groundwater sampling system in which a hollow steel rod is driven intothe saturated zone and a groundwater sample is collected.In Situ: In the natural or original position; in place.AK Revision 1May 2001SOP-30Page 2 of 6Monitoring Well: A well that is constructed by one of a variety of techniques for the purpose ofextracting groundwater for physical, chemical, or biological testing, or for measuring waterlevels.Packer: A transient or dedicated device placed in a well or borehole that isolates or seals aportion of the well, well annulus, or borehole at a specific level.Peristaltic Pump: A low-volume suction pump. The compression of a flexible tube by a rotorresults in the development of suction.pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, numerically equal to 7 for neutralsolutions, increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing with increasing acidity. (Originaldesignation for potential of hydrogen.)Piezometer: An instrument used to measure head at a point in the subsurface; a nonpumpingwell, generally of small diameter, that is used to measure the elevation of the water table orpotentiometric surface.Preservative: An additive (usually an acid or a base) used to protect a sample against decay orspoilage, or to extend the holding time for a sample.Static Water Level: The elevation of the top of a column of water in a monitoring well orpiezometer that is not influenced by pumping or conditions related to well installation,hydrologic testing, or nearby pumpage.Turbidity: Cloudiness in water due to suspended and colloidal organic and inorganic material.Upgradient: In the direction of increasing static head.3.0RESPONSIBILITIESProject Manager: Selects site-specific water sampling methods, locations for monitoring wellinstallations, monitoring wells to be sampled and analytes to be analyzed with input from thefield team leader (FTL) or Superintendent and project geologist. Responsible for project qualitycontrol and field audits.Field Team Leader or Superintendent: Implements water sampling program. Supervises projectgeologist/hydrogeologist and sampling technician. Insures that proper chain-of-custodyprocedures are observed and that samples are sampled, transported, packaged, and shipped in acorrect and timely manner.Project Geologist/Hydrogeologist: Insures proper collection, documentation, and storage ofgroundwater samples prior to shipment to the laboratory. Assists in packaging and shipment ofsamples.AK Revision 1May 2001SOP-30Page 3 of 6Field Sampling Technician: Assists the project geologist/hydrogeologist in the completion oftasks and is responsible for the proper use, decontamination, and maintenance of groundwatersampling equipment.4.0FIELD ANALYTICAL PROCEDURESDuring the well development process, the pH, specific conductance, water temperature, andturbidity (in accordance with American Society for Testing Materials [ASTM] D-1889) will beperiodically measured and recorded on a log sheet. The following sections briefly outline theprocedures for measuring these parameters. This SOP is not intended to be all inclusive, but isintended to provide general guidance regarding these procedures. Specific SOPs have applicablemeasurements for the type of field activity and SAPs will contain any deviations or amendmentsto these procedures. All field instruments shall be calibrated according to manufacturer'sinstructions. All field instruments will be calibrated prior to use. Calibration information shallbe recorded in the field logbook. Detailed information regarding maintenance and servicing isavailable in the operation manual for each meter used. Servicing and maintenance informationwill be recorded in the field logbook. SOP 16 contains specific procedures for fieldmeasurements and guidelines on sampling equipment procedures for field measurements.4.1pHPurge the well until pH, temperature, and specific conductance are at equilibrium. Equilibriumis established as follows: pH variation is less than 0.2 pH units, temperature variation is less than0.5 degrees Celsius, and less than 10 percent variation in specific conductance. Equilibrium willbe established by three consecutive readings, where on casing volume is pumped between eachreading.4.2CONDUCTIVITYPurge the well until pH, temperature, and specific conductance are at equilibrium. Equilibriumis established as follows: pH variation is less than 0.2 pH units, temperature variation is less than0.5 degrees Celsius, and less than 10 percent variation in specific conductance. Equilibrium willbe established by three consecutive readings, where on casing volume is pumped between eachreading.4.3TEMPERATUREPurge the well until pH, temperature, and specific conductance are at equilibrium. Equilibriumis established as follows: pH variation is less than 0.2 pH units, temperature variation is less than0.5 degrees Celsius, and less than 10 percent variation in specific conductance. Equilibrium willbe established by three consecutive readings, where on casing volume is pumped between eachreading.AK Revision!May 2001SOP-30Page 4 of 64.4ORGANIC VAPORAn organic vapor analyzer (photoionization detector [PID] or flame ionization detector [FID])will be used to field-screen soil to determine if VOCs are present. Field screening will beperformed by placing the detector within an inch of recently excavated or exposed in-place soil.The highest concentration detected will be recorded on the field notebook. Additional soil will beexcavated if the concentration detected by an OVA is above background. Confirmation sampleswill be collected if the concentration is at background or below detection. Soil conditions, tankand line conditions, and the presence of petroleum odors and stained soils, as well as fieldscreening results, will be used as additional information for decision-making.OVAs will be used only as field screening tools, since they have the following limitations:•OVAs measure the concentration of total organic vapors and serve as a general indicator ofthe level of contamination in soil.•OVAs are not compound-specific and can detect the presence of a wide range of volatileorganic compounds, many of which are not regulated under the IEPA UST regulations (e.g.,the PID detects ammonia compounds and the FID detects methane).•Moisture and cold temperatures can cause inaccurate meter readings during field screening.If more accurate field-screening data are required, a headspace sample can be collected byplacing soil material (in-place or recently excavated soil) into a sample jar or "ziplock"-typeplastic bag. The container is partially filled (50 to 75 percent), leaving an excess space or"headspace" above the soil. The bag is sealed or the top of the sample jar is covered withaluminum foil and sealed with the lid. The sample is heated by placing it in the sun or near aheat source. The seal is broken or the foil is pierced with the detector probe to determine theconcentration of the organic compounds which have volatilized from the soil and into thecontainer headspace. The highest concentration detected is recorded on the field log.4.5WATER LEVELSWater level measurement procedures are described in detail in SOP 6-Monitoring Well Design,Construction, aind Installation.4.6TURBIDITYThe well will be considered adequately developed when the measured parameters are stablized,the necessary quantity of water removed, and the water is visibly clear of sand and sediments.During well development, a turbidity of 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) will be the goalfor water clarity. In the event that the 5 NTU goal cannot be reached in 4 hours in thedevelopment process, variation in specific capacity values will be used to determine if welldevelopment is adequate. Four consecutive specific capacity readings with 10 percent of eachother will indicate adequate well development. If the specific capacity and the measuredparameters listed above are stablized (no more than 10 percent variance between three•:•-AK Revision 1May 2001•'•'-'•••;,••.:•.•.•....;:•.•- - . - . :---. - • : • • -.....:,..,-. -SOP-30Page 5 of 6.consecutive readings) and the proper amount of water is withdrawn, but the turbidity exceeds 5NTUs, then an additional amount of water equal to two standing water volumes will be removed,at which point the well will be considered fully developed.5.0REFERENCESAller, L., Bennett, T.W., Hackett, G., Petty, R.J., Lehr, J.H., Sedoris, H., and Nielsen, D.M.,1989. Handbook of suggested practices for the design and installation of groundwatermonitoring wells, National Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, 397 pp.Driscoll, F.G., 1987. Groundwater and Wells, Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1089 pp.Nielsen, D. ed., 1991. Ground-water Monitoring, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 717 pp.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1987. A Compendium of Superfund FieldOperations Methods, EPA/540/p-87/001USEPA, 1986 SW846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition USAGE, 1994.EM-200-1-3, Requirements for the Preparation of Sampling and Analysis PlansAK Revision 1May 2001SOP-30Page 6 of 6SOP 35Investigation Derived WasteManagementMWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZASTANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURESSOP-35: INVESTIGATION DERIVED WASTE MANAGEMENT1.0INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to describe the policy, organization,functional activities, and investigation-derived waste (E)W) management control to beimplemented for field investigation activities. The plan should be used as a guideline for futurewaste management. More detailed, site-specific information should be presented in theSampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) prepared for individual investigations conducted at eachsite. The objective of the plan is to describe the procedures required to manage IDW. Inaddition, the SOP establishes the sampling and analytical procedures to be followed to managethe IDW as required by CERCLA, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) guidance. Detailed informationpresented in this SOP addresses the following:•Typical types of IDW that will be generated and managed during investigation activities atthe three OUs•Typical specific activities expected to be conducted that may generate IDW.•Specific waste parameters or characteristics that need to be quantified to ensure safe andeffective management of IDWMethods of obtaining necessary data to assess IDW, such as sampling and analysisprocedures••Options for disposal of IDW•Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to be considered during theimplementation of the SOP1.1PLAN ORGANIZATIONThe organization of the SOP is designed to facilitate the decision-making process, presenting alogical approach to be used in determining the proper handling and treatment or disposal ofIDW. Section 2.0 presents information on the types, typical volumes, and containment of wastesgenerated during field investigations as well as the field activities that are expected to generateIDW at the three OUs. Section 3.0 outlines the intermediate handling and management of wastesoils, liquid wastes, personal protective equipment, and disposable equipment. Record-keepingpractices, containerization, storage, characterization, and sampling and analysis protocols for theIDW also included in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 details the disposal options available for the IDW.Section 5.0 discusses ARARs to be considered for implementation of the SOP during the fieldinvestigations.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 1 of 202.0GENERATION OF INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTESDuring field programs, a variety of potentially contaminated EDWs will be generated. Potentialfield activities include drilling, trenching or test pits, groundwater sampling, surface watersampling, aquifer testing, soil-gas surveys, geophysical surveys, and location surveys. TheNational Contingency Plan (NCP), codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300,requires that the handling of IDW attains all the ARARs to the extent practicable considering theurgency of the situation.2.1TYPES OF IDWEDW generated during field activities may include the following media and waste types:• Soil• Drilling mud• Groundwater• Decontamination fluids• Personal protective equipment (PPE)• Disposable equipmentThe above wastes may or may not be considered hazardous for the purposes of handling anddisposal. Section 3.6 details how the wastes will be characterized prior to determining theappropriate disposal option. In addition to the IDW listed above, refuse may be generated duringfield activities. This could include, for example, packaging materials and broken or cut-off wellscreening and casing. Typically, this refuse can be treated as nonhazardous material anddisposed of as appropriate, such as in an on-base industrial dumpster.2.2IDW GENERATION ACTIVITIESThe various activities conducted during field investigations will result in the generation of IDW.Field activities may include soil-gas and geophysical surveys; drilling of soil borings; trenchingor test pits; monitoring well installation and development; aquifer testing; collection of soilsurface water and groundwater samples; and location surveys. The IDW generated during theseactivities could potentially be contaminated with various hazardous substances. Estimatedvolumes of IDW generated from various field activities are presented in the sections that follow.As part of the preplanning procedures prior to the initiation of any field effort, the individualcontractors should perform site-specific calculations of the total volumes of IDW expected to begenerated based on the anticipated activities as part of their project planning.An effort should be made to reduce the amount of IDW generated during field activities becausethe quantity of IDW will affect the overall cost of the remedial action and potentially increaseliability or exposure. IDW can be minimized through proper planning of all activities thatgenerate IDW. The sampling equipment and method of decontamination should be selected withconsideration to the volume of IDW that will be generated. Whenever possible, the number ofactivities conducted at a site should be reduced.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 2 of 202.2.1Soil-Gas and Geophysical SurveysSoil-gas and geophysical surveys are conducted to identify and locate anomalies, potential "hotspots," and source areas.These activities potentially generate a small volume ofdecontamination fluid and PPE.2.2.2DrillingTwo drilling techniques are typically used for soil boring or monitoring well installation at thehollow-stem auger (HSA) or mud rotary. The preferred method is HSA drilling; however,problems have been encountered using this drilling method for installation of deeper monitoringwells or large diameter extraction wells. To collect shallow soil samples using HSA, a boreholewill typically be drilled using an 8.25-inch outside-diameter (OD) auger to collect soil samples.A minimum of 0.37 cubic feet (cu. ft.) (2.8 gallons) of soil cuttings per linear foot of boreholewill be generated. A 25-foot soil boring would therefore generate a minimum of 9.3 cu. ft. (70gallons) of soil cuttings (filling approximately one and one-half 55-gallon drums). Additionalquantities of soil should be expected when using the HSA due to reworking of the soil duringremoval from the borehole, known as the "fluff factor, and due to slough created during drilling,especially if poorly consolidated materials are encountered. An estimated 30 percent increase insoil-cutting volumes will be generated due to the "fluff factor. Table 2-1 shows the relationshipbetween the diameter of borehole and the potential volume of soil cuttings generated fromdrilling using HSA. The installation of larger diameter soil borings will generate proportionallylarger quantities of soil.The volume of drilling mud generated from the mud rotary drilling method is difficult toestimate because many variables are involved. Mud rotary drilling includes the addition of adrilling fluid, water, to remove the pieces of formation that were broken by the drill bit. Thewater and soil are together referred to as drilling mud. Typically, the drilling mud is separated toremove sand and gravel, and the liquid mud is recycled through the system. The solids (sand andgravel) are deposited in a bin or drum. When the borehole is completed, the mud is flushed outof the borehole and deposited in a tank. The volume of drilling mud generated depends on thestratigraphy encountered, fluid loses during drilling, and solids added to the mud.Drilling by both HSA and mud rotary could also potentially generate large volumes of PPE anddecontamination fluid. These volumes are difficult to estimate because they depend on manysite-specific factors.2.2.3Hand Augering, Surface Soil Sampling ActivitiesTypically, hand augering is conducted using a 3.25-inch inside-diameter (ID) auger. Surface soilsampling is usually completed using hand-held sampling tools. Due to small diameter andlimited drilling depth, a small volume of soil cuttings is estimated to be generated during theseactivities, and a small volume of PPE would also be generated.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 3 of 202.2.4Trenches or Test PitsTrenches or test pits may be excavated at sites. Following the soil sampling and visualobservations of the pit, the excavated soil will generally be placed back into the test pit.Depending on specific site conditions, the need may arise to remove the excavated soil from thearea of contamination (AOC). This could potentially generate large volumes of soil to be treatedand/or disposed. Decontamination of the excavation and sampling equipment could potentiallygenerate large volumes of decontamination fluid. PPE will also be generated.2.2.5Location SurveysFollowing the completion of sampling activities, the coordinates and elevations of all samplingpoints, including soil borings, monitoring wells, soil-gas points, and geophysical survey grids,will be surveyed. Small volumes of PPE could potentially be generated.2.2.6Monitoring Well Development, Groundwater Sampling, and AquiferTestingThe volume of groundwater generated through monitoring well development, groundwatersampling, and aquifer testing is dependent upon a number of variables, including well diameter,length of the screened interval, saturated thickness of the well, porosity of the material used asfilter packing, duration and rate of pumping. PPE and decontamination fluid would also begenerated as a result of these activities, but the volume is dependent on the type and duration ofthe activity.Complete well development requires the removal of at least three times the amount of sourcewater used during drilling and construction of the well plus a minimum of three times the volumeof standing groundwater within the well. For example, during the development of a 4-inch-IDwell with 30 feet of standing water, a minimum of 58 gallons of groundwater plus three times theamount of the source water used during drilling and construction of the well would be generated.An additional 58 gallons of groundwater would be generated while purging the well prior togroundwater sampling.Aquifer pump testing will generate much larger volumes of groundwater than well purging.Typical volumes cannot be estimated because they depend on the well construction and theduration of the test.In general, purge water should be segregated by well and containerized in Department ofTransportation (DOT)-approved, 55-gallon drums. If the on-installation treatment system isapproved as a disposal mechanism, an option is to cut costs by consolidating purge water in oninstallation Baker tanks for temporary storage prior to discharge to the treatment system.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 4 of 202.2.7Surface Water SamplingSurface water sampling may be conducted to determine the constituents of the surface water atthe site. This activity could potentially generate a small volume of decontamination fluid andPPE.2.2.8Decontamination FluidThe volume of IDW generated as decontamination fluid will be dependent upon a number ofsite-specific factors, and therefore, will vary in quantity. Site-specific factors include the numberand type of field activities per site and the total number of sites being investigated.Decontamination fluid can vary from a few gallons a day for decontamination of instruments toseveral hundred gallons a day for decontamination of large field equipment such as drill rigs.2.2.9PPE and Disposable EquipmentThe volume of IDW generated as PPE and disposable equipment will be dependent upon anumber of site-specific factors and therefore, will vary in quantity. Site-specific factors includethe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) health and safety work level (Level Dversus Levels C or B), number and type of field activities per site, number of people working onsite, total number of sites being investigated, and the amount of disposable equipment that isrequired. PPE waste volumes generated per day will typically account for one-half of a 55gallon drum for a crew of four.2.3IDW CONTAINMENTIDW generated during field activities will be contained at the site of generation or at a designatedcentral location. DOT-approved, 55-gallon drums for the handling of hazardous waste (DOT,USEPA-approved DOT-17-H) should be used for the containment of some of the IDW includingPPE, and disposable sampling equipment. Roll-off boxes and Baker tanks may be used tocontain soil and liquid wastes, respectively. However, DOT-approved, 55-gallon drums may beused to containerize soil and liquid wastes if preferred. The number of each type of containerrequired at each site should be estimated before field work commences.Soil cuttings and/or drilling mud will either be contained in DOT-approved, 55-gallon drums orplaced in roll-off boxes located in the general area of sites being investigated. If soil cuttings aredetermined to be potentially hazardous while in the field (i.e., HNU readings above designatedlevels or visible staining), soil cuttings should be segregated by site or boring, containerized inDOT-approved 55-gallbn drums lined with polyethylene, and immediately secured with lids.Each drum or roll-off box will be labeled as discussed in Section 3.4. Drums or roll-off boxeswill be stored at the site of generation or transported from the AOC following drilling and storedat a central location as instructed by the base environmental coordinator. Drums or roll-offboxes will be held until adequate characterization of the site or the contained soil or drilling mudis completed (Section 3.6.1).AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 5 of 20Liquid wastes will either be stored within the AOC or transported to a central location. Liquidwastes generated during field investigation activities include fluids generated during wellinstallation, development, purging and sampling, aquifer testing, surface water sampling, anddecontamination of equipment. The base may consolidate liquid wastes in on-installation Bakertanks if the liquids are generated from wells located in areas where previous investigations haveshown no contamination or contaminants at levels that would not adversely affect the existingon-installation groundwater treatment facility. If liquid wastes are determined to be potentiallyhazardous while in the field (i.e., HNU readings above designated levels) or if previousinvestigations have indicated contamination at that location, DOT-approved, 55-gallon drumslined with polyethylene will be used for containment until the liquid can be characterized (seeSection 3.6). Liquid wastes may also be stored in 55-gallon drums if drums are more convenientthan Baker Tanks. Each drum will be labeled as discussed in Section 3.4. Drums will be storedat the site of generation or transported from the AOC and stored at a central location asinstructed by the base environmental coordinator. Liquid wastes will be stored pending IDWcharacterization (Section 3.6).Depending upon the suspected contaminants present, decontamination fluid generated at eachsite may be segregated by site and containerized in DOT-approved, 55-gallon drums or storedwith other liquid wastes generated at the same site. The decontamination fluid will be storedwithin the AOC or a designated central location as instructed by the base environmentalcoordinator. Decontamination fluid will be held until adequate characterization is complete(Section 3.6.2). However, if the on-installation treatment system is approved as a disposalmechanism, decontamination fluid may be transported to Baker tanks for temporary storage andeventual disposal into the system.PPE and disposable equipment produced through field activities will be segregated by site,double-bagged in plastic bags, secured and labeled using a wire tag. The bags will then beplaced in DOT-approved, 55-gallon drums and labeled as discussed in Section 3.4. Partiallyfilled drums will be secured with lids at the completion of field activities or at the end of thework day. PPE and disposable equipment will be held at the site of generation or a designatedcentral location as instructed by the base environmental coordinator. PPE and disposableequipment will be held until adequate characterization of the site or of the containerized PPE anddisposable equipment is completed (Section 3.6).3.0IDW HANDLING AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONSThis section discusses the proper IDW management procedures to be followed in record-keepingpractices, requirements for compliance with storage time limitations, and characterization ofIDW. The protocols established for sampling and analysis of contaminated IDW, if required, arealso presented in this section.Following the field activities, including proper labeling and temporary storage of IDW asappropriate, the first task will be to characterize the IDW generated. Proper characterization isrequired to determine if disposal is necessary and, if so, the appropriate disposal options. Theseoptions include both on-installation and off-installation disposal or treatment and are discussed indetail in Section 4.0. Initially, the IDW will be characterized based on a review of analyticalAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 6 of 20data generated from environmental samples collected during field activities. This data will becompared to the background data collected during the OU 3 remedial investigation. Based onthis comparison, the characteristics of the IDW will be inferred. In some cases, testingcontainerized IDW may be required to further define disposal options. The management ofinvestigation-derived wastes including containerization and required analyses are presented inSections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 for soil, liquids wastes, and PPE, respectively. The methods foraccurately characterizing IDW are presented in Section 3.6.Initially, soil and liquid IDW will be characterized based on the background data. To identifypotential contamination, analytical results should be compared to the 95% Upper ToleranceLevel for the background samples.Proper IDW management requires that the following steps be completed:•Characterize the waste generated•Determine the quantity of waste that is hazardous•Evaluate available on-installation and off-installation disposal/treatment methods•Identify ARARs of concern•Select a disposal option•If off-installation disposal or treatment is required or selected, schedule testing and transportof wastesThe investigation team members will conduct the field activities that generate the IDW (Section2.2), place the IDW in appropriate containers (Section 2.3), and complete record-keepingresponsibilities (Section 3.4). Once the waste has been adequately characterized, theinvestigation team will also arrange for the appropriate treatment or disposal of the IDW.Analytical results of environmental samples and recommended disposal options for EDW will besummarized in a technical memorandum submitted to the Remedial Project Managers (RPMs)and the USAGE by the investigation team. The RPM and USAGE approval will be requiredprior to proceeding with the recommended disposal options. The technical memorandum willdocument the status of containerized IDW with the following information:••••••••A complete list of containers stored at each site of generation or at the central areaUnique identification of each containerContents of each containerAnalytical results of the environmental samplesVolume of potentially contaminated materialPotential contaminant(s) of concernSite maps showing the location of each container at the siteRecommended treatment and/or disposal options for each containerIf off-installation treatment and disposal of containerized IDW is required, the investigation teamwould be responsible for sampling containerized IDW, if required, for further characterization ordisposal. The investigation team should provide documentation to the USAGE. Handling and•"••• :":AK Revision 0August 2000"•; - * • • " : " - ' : * ::-;: ;" :-••;f ;' --'•••'•••;- •••• • • :'•:-:"•• ••••*SOP-35Page 7 of 20managing the off-installation treatment and disposal of IDW after the containers have beencharacterized for off-installation removal would also be required. Additional tasks that would beperformed include, but may not be limited to, preparing manifests, tracking containers, tracking90-day storage limits, arranging the transport of containers, and arranging the ultimate disposalto a RCRA-permitted off-installation treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF).3.1CHARACTERIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATION DERIVED SOILSAND DRILLING MUDThe containerization of, and proposed analyses for, investigation-derived soils and/or drillingmud generated during field investigations are described in the following sections. Figure 3-1presents the step by step process that will be followed for characterization of the soils anddrilling mud.3.1.1ContainerizationInvestigation-derived soils and/or drilling mud generated during field activities will becontainerized on-site within individual AOCs. Details for containerization of investigationderived soils and/or drilling mud are presented in Section 2.3 of this document, but in general theIDW soils will be contained in either bins or 55-gallon drums. Possible exceptions to leavingIDW soil and/or drilling mud at the AOC would include areas with a high degree of publicaccess or sites where leaving the IDW on site would result in increased risks to human healthand/or the environment. In such cases, the IDW may be moved to a secured central location.The base environmental coordinator will instruct the field team where to store contained IDW.3.1.2AnalysesAny available information from previous investigations should be reviewed along withbackground samples and analytical results of environmental soil samples collected on site withinthe AOC to determine the potential contaminants of concern and probable characteristics ofcontainerized IDW. If environmental samples are determined to be nonhazardous (see Figure 31), investigation-derived soil and/or drilling mud will be disposed as described for nonhazardoussoils in Section 4.0.If the IDW is characterized as nonhazardous at any level of the characterization process, it willbe disposed as described for nonhazardous soils (Section 4.0). If analyses show contaminantconcentrations of the soil samples collected within the AOC to be above backgroundconcentrations (Table 3-1), results will be compared to Total Threshold Limit Concentrations(TTLC), 10 times the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), and 20 times the ToxicCharacteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limits. At this point, if soil samples aredetermined to be hazardous (under RCRA or California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 26),the collection of composite samples from IDW containers for analysis may be necessary.Specific sampling and analysis methods are described in detail in Section 3.7. The samples willbe analyzed by STLC or TCLP procedures to determine if the IDW is hazardous, and to evaluateAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 8 of 20potential land disposal restrictions (LDRs). If the containerized composite samples are againdetermined to be hazardous, options for disposal need to be considered (Section 4.0).If no environmental samples were taken during the waste generation, composite samples shouldbe collected from IDW containers. The samples will be analyzed by STLC or TCLP procedures.If the containerized composite samples are determined to be hazardous, disposal options need tobe considered (Section 4.0). Additional sampling and testing of IDW may be initiated asappropriate based on the intended method of disposal (Section 4.0) and standards determined byindividual TDU or TSDF locations.3.2CHARACTERIZATIONLIQUID WASTESANDMANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATION DERIVEDThe containerization of, and proposed analyses for, investigation-derived liquid wastes generatedduring field investigations at the site are described in the following sections. Figure 3-2 presentsthe step by step process that will be followed for characterization of the liquid IDW.3.2.1ContainerizationLiquid wastes generated during field activities may include fluids generated during wellinstallation, well purging and sampling, aquifer testing, and the decontamination of drilling andsampling equipment. These investigation-derived liquid wastes will be containerized and maybe segregated by source or by site, dependent upon the anticipated contamination and volume ofliquids generated. The segregated liquids will remain within the AOC or will be transported to acentral location, pending determination of IDW status with respect to RCRA and other pertinentARARs as well as the disposal methodologies available. Details for containerization ofinvestigation-derived liquid wastes are presented in Section 2.3 of this document, but in general,liquid waste will be contained in either Baker Tanks or 55-gallon drums. Possible exceptions toleaving IDW liquid wastes at the AOC will include public access considerations or if leaving theIDW on site will create increased risks to human health and/or the environment. In such cases,the IDW may be moved to a secured central location. The base environmental coordinator willinstruct field team members where to store contained IDW.3.2.2AnalysesInformation from previous studies, background data, and analytical results of environmentalsamples collected at each site will be reviewed to determine contaminants of concern and thecharacteristics of the containerized IDW (Figure 3-2). If aqueous samples are determined to benonhazardous (analytical concentrations are below the 95% Upper Tolerance Level forbackground samples), the liquid wastes will be disposed as described for nonhazardous liquids inSection 4.0.If contaminant concentrations in the aqueous samples collected within a given AOC are abovebackground concentrations, results will then be compared to STLC and TCLP regulatory limits.At this point, if the samples are determined to be hazardous (under RCRA and/or CCR Title 22),•: • • • ::::'-: —-:^-.------^ —L......UAK Revision 0August 2000' ^—,._.,,,:.....,,~^_^'uv.. ..':-•— u r . : , ^ ^-^ ., —- ........-... :...: ^^,. ..r—,.-::n--T:_.... . ---—-I--..-—-..__._.:..:.....-..-.—_•-—>SOP-35Page 9 of 20the containerized IDW liquid should be sampled according to the procedures described inSection 3.7, and the analytical results should be compared to the STLC and TCLP regulatorylimits. If analytical results of the containerized IDW liquid determine the liquid to benonhazardous (Figure 3-2), the liquid will be disposed of as nonhazardous liquid IDW.However, if samples of the containerized waste are determined to be hazardous, the options fordisposal may be considered as discussed in Section 4.0.If no environmental samples were taken during waste generation, composite samples should becollected from EDW containers. The sample results should be compared to the STLC and TCLPregulatory limits to determine if the waste should be disposed as hazardous or nonhazardousliquid IDW.If the activities that generated the liquid wastes were associated with one of the OUs with atreatment system that is able to handle the types and concentrations of compounds detected, theliquid waste may be discharged to the system for treatment and eventual discharge to thegroundwater recharge basin. If the treatment system is unable to handle the IDW, or if an oninstallation treatment system is not available, required sampling and testing of IDW should beinitiated as appropriate for the intended method of disposal and standards determined byindividual off-installation TDU, TSDF, or POTW locations.3.3CHARACTERIZATION ANDDISPOSABLE EQUIPMENTMANAGEMENTOFDISPOSABLEPPE ANDThe following sections present various options that are available for the management ofinvestigation-derived disposable PPE and disposable equipment. These options are intended tobe considered following a review of all available information concerning the environmentalsamples collected within the AOC where the PPE and/or disposable equipment was generated.3.3.1Decontaminated EquipmentIf disposable PPE and disposable equipment are decontaminated following use and are thereforedesignated as nonhazardous waste, the IDW will be placed in plastic bags and disposed of in anon-installation industrial dumpster. A second option is to remove the IDW to an off-installationSubtitle D landfill. Further details for disposal options of decontaminated disposable PPE anddisposable equipment are presented in Section 4.0.3.3.2Potentially Contaminated EquipmentIf disposable PPE and disposable equipment are not decontaminated following use, they mayrepresent potentially hazardous waste. Disposable PPE and disposable equipment will becontainerized and segregated by individual site (e.g., by boring or site number) and stored withinthe AOC, pending determination of RCRA status and disposal. Possible exceptions to leavingthe row at the AOC include public access considerations or the potential for increased risks tohuman health and the environment.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page Iff of 20Following a review of pertinent information concerning the site of generation, includinganalytical results and regulatory provisions, the disposal options for the PPE and disposableequipment will be assessed. If the results of environmental samples collected during fieldsampling activities are determined to be nonhazardous, the disposable PPE and disposableequipment will be disposed as nonhazardous IDW. Further details for disposal options ofnonhazardous disposable PPE and disposable equipment are presented in Section 4.0.If the results of environmental samples from the AOC are determined to be hazardous, thecontainers will be disposed of as hazardous IDW. Disposal options for hazardous IDW arepresented in Section 4.0.3.4CONTAINER LABELING AND RECORD KEEPINGContainer labeling and record-keeping requirements include: (1) proper labeling of containers aswaste pending receipt of analytical test results (proper labeling includes information such assource site number, boring or well number, and permissible storage period); and (2) date(s) ofwaste generation and type of IDW stored in the container. Drum labels will be placed on theside of the drum, not on the lid, to reduce breakdown of the label by environmental conditionsand to prevent the possibility of interchanging labels if lids are reused. Plastic bags used tocontain disposable PPE and disposable equipment will be identified with a drum label wrappedaround a piece of wire to produce a wire tag that will be used to seal the bag. An example of acontainer label to be used for identifying containerized IDW is shown on Figure 3-3.IDW containers should be tracked using a form similar to that shown on Figure 3-4. The formshould be completed once each container is filled. Information recorded should include sitename, location identification, storage location, contents, source, dates of operation, and capacityof container. The quantity (volume) of material in each container should be measured andrecorded on the IDW container data sheet prior to sealing the container.In addition to complying with the above requirements, as appropriate, the contractor will notifythe engineer-in-charge (EIC) and provide the USAGE with an inventory of wastes generated,including source, media, storage location, analytical results, and final treatment or disposal.Storage locations for containerized wastes will be designated by the base environmentalcoordinator. Hazardous waste manifests and material safety data sheets will be completed byMontgomery Watson or the generator as appropriate. All manifests will be signed by thegenerator (Installation).Entries will be made by the EIC in a field log book during the waste management activities. Thequantities of wastes generated at each site, visual observations of the wastes, odor characteristics,and HNu readings should be included in the field log book.3.5STORAGE TIME LIMITSSeveral storage and disposal requirements are subject to time limits that begin when the IDW isgenerated. These include: (1) removal of waste from the site (unless wastes will be stored on siteAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 11 of 20within the AOC); (2) notification of the USAGE by the contractor following initialcharacterization of the IDW; and (3) final treatment or disposal of the K>W.Within 60 days of waste generation, the investigation team should provide a memorandum to theUSAGE documenting the initial characterization of the IDW. Sixty days is required to receiveanalytical results from the laboratory, review the data, interpret the data, and prepare thememorandum. The memorandum will assist the USAGE in RI/FS planning and compliance withenvironmental regulations. Documentation should contain information on quantity of waste,type (soil, water, etc.), site, source (borehole, monitoring well, etc.), contaminants detected, andconcentrations. This information will be used to make an initial classification of waste(potentially hazardous, designated, or nonhazardous). The memorandum should includeproposed actions to be taken concerning additional sampling and disposal.As discussed in Section 3.6, if IDW is characterized to be potentially hazardous, additionalsampling of IDW containers will be required to determine if the IDW is hazardous. If thematerial is defined as RCRA hazardous waste, RCRA regulations (40 CFR 262.34) requires thewaste to be transported off site in 90 days. In addition, RCRA regulations (40 CFR 262.34)require that, unless IDW will be stored within the AOC, IDW will be transported to thedesignated storage area within 3 days. If additional sampling is performed, it is likely that the90-day limit on RCRA waste will be exceeded. CERCLA-derived wastes may be stored at anarea longer than 90 days as long as the storage area complies with RCRA substantive storagerequirements (the administrative process for obtaining a permit is not required). The intent of thewaste management program will be to dispose of IDW as soon as is practicable. Factors thatmay influence the length of time of storage include laboratory turnaround time, duration ofinvestigations at the site, storage area volume limitations, time requirements to arrange for offsite disposal, and the degree of risk that the IDW poses to human health and the environment. IfIDW is generated that is deemed by the USAGE, regulatory agencies, or the contractor to presenta high degree of risk by storing the IDW, arrangements will be made for immediate transfer ordisposal.3.6IDW CONTAINER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODSAnalytical samples collected during field activities will be analyzed and the results compared tobackground and regulatory limits before IDW container sampling occurs. Data collection effortscompleted during the field investigation should be sufficient for determining whether IDW ispotentially hazardous. The basic objective of IDW sampling is to produce a set of samplesrepresentative of the contained IDW media under investigation and suitable for subsequentanalysis, if required. Containerized soil and liquid wastes can be returned to the source at anytime during the investigation, contingent upon compliance with ARARs. ARARs are discussedin Section 5.0. PPE and disposable equipment found to be potentially hazardous will bedisposed as hazardous materials. The methods, techniques, and analyses used for testinghazardous field-generated wastes that will be disposed of off-installation to a RCRA-permittedfacility or Class I disposal facility are presented in the following sections.The sampling technique chosen for sampling activities will, in part, be dependent upon thephysical state of the IDW media to be sampled. The physical state of the IDW will affect most•••••••••••'•• •-•••• - -•-•--—••; ••• •• -•• •••AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 12 of 20aspects of the sampling effort. The sampling technique will vary according to whether thesample is liquid, solid, or multiphasic. The generation of decontamination fluids through IDWsampling should be minimized and should be a factor considered in the final choice of samplingtechnique. The decontamination fluids will be minimized through selection of appropriatetechnique to sample the media in question and ease of cleaning. Care should be exercised toavoid the use of sampling devices plated with chrome or other materials that might contaminatethe sample.If IDW is characterized to be potentially hazardous after review of analytical data generatedduring field activities, IDW container sampling will be conducted. Testing is required prior toon- or off-installation treatment, storage, or disposal of contaminated material. However, IDWcontainer testing is not required if the IDW is determined to be nonhazardous. Criteria fortesting protocol are presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.3. The description of samplingtechniques for containerized media is divided into two sections, which address soil and drillingmud, and containerized liquids.3.6.1Containerized Soil and Drilling Mud SamplingAvailable options for sampling devices suitable for soil and drilling mud sampling includescoops, thin-walled tube samplers, hand augers, core samplers, and sampling triers. Thepresence of rocks, debris, or other sampling-specific considerations will dictate the most suitablesampling method. The sampling technique will also vary according to whether the solid is hardor soft, powdery or clay-like (USEPA, 1986).If the soil or drilling mud is stored in bins, one composite sample should be collected from eachbin. If the IDW is stored in drums, one composite sample should be collected from the cuttingsfrom each boring or from each site.3.6.2Containerized Liquid Waste SamplingBeakers, glass tubes, extended bottle samplers, and Composite Liquid Waste Samplers(COLIWASA) are devices that may potentially be used to sample containerized liquid media.Site-specific conditions may necessitate a variety of sampling options. Site-specific conditionswill include the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the liquid to be sampled and stratification andthe physical nature of the liquid such as viscosity. Sampling techniques will be chosen based onproperties of the liquid medium and ease of decontamination of sampling equipment. Surfacewater samples from drums can also be readily collected by merely submerging a sample bottle.If the liquid waste is stored in Baker Tanks, one composite sample should be collected from eachBaker Tank. If the liquid waste is stored in drums, one composite sample should be collectedfrom the drums for each sampling event.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 13 of 204.0DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR IDWDisposal alternatives for IDW include: (1) on-installation land disposal, (2) off-installation landdisposal, (3) on-installation treatment, (4) off-installation treatment, and (5) on-installationstorage and disposal within the AOC. Choosing one of these alternatives is dependent upon thetype of IDW; concentrations of contaminants as determined by sampling and analysis (seeSection 3.7); and federal, state, or local regulations and ARARs (discussed in Section 5.0). Thedisposal option should be determined prior to site investigation activities to assess the siteinvestigation costs and minimize on-site waste storage. Specific IDW disposal options arepresented in the following sections and are shown in Table 4-1 and on Figures 4-1 through 4-3.Ultimately, the PPE and disposable equipment will be transported to dumpsters for disposal ateither a sanitary landfill, a TDU, or a RCRA-permitted TSDF as discussed in this section.4.1ON-INSTALLATION LAND DISPOSAL FOR NONHAZARDOUS WASTESA significant amount of the solid waste generated during any field program will be considerednonhazardous. There are no RCRA ARARs concerning the disposal of nonhazardous solidwastes; therefore, nonhazardous solid wastes (as determined by environmental samples) may bedisposed at an appropriate location on base. PPE and disposable equipment will be stored indumpsters but will not be disposed on the base.A significant fraction of solid waste generated during field investigations will be investigationderived soil and drilling mud. Disposal options for soils found to be nonhazardous may includespreading around the source areas (such as spreading around borings), or transporting to adesignated area on base. Soil disposal around the boring or source area within the AOC may notbe feasible due to public access considerations, the location of the AOC (such as borings in oradjacent to roads or other developed areas), or more stringent, non-RCRA ARARs. If it is notfeasible to spread the soil around the source area, the soil must be sent to a designated locationon the site selected by the USAGE, or sent to a suitable Subtitle D landfill or an off-installationTDU or TSDF.Investigation-derived liquids that are determined to be nonhazardous would have the same oninstallation disposal options as soils. However, disposal of liquids by pouring them around thesource area may not be prudent due to the potential to mobilize contaminants by infiltration ofwater or due to public access considerations. Nonhazardous liquid wastes may also be disposedby surface discharge to a groundwater recharge basin. If it is determined that the environmentalsamples are nonhazardous but treatment and disposal is controlled by more stringent, non-RCRAARARs, alternate methods of disposal would be required.Nonhazardous trash and decontaminated PPE and disposable equipment generated during fieldactivities can be disposed in an on-installation industrial dumpster for disposal aftercharacterization.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 14 of 20On-site disposal can significantly decrease the volumes of wastes that must be transported and/ortreated, thus decreasing costs of the field program. Any on-base disposal should be coordinatedwith the appropriate base agencies.4.2OFF-INSTALLATION LAND DISPOSALOne potential alternative for IDW disposal is at an off-installation TDU or TSDF municipallandfill. The waste that is disposed at off-installation facilities may include soil, drilling mud,liquid wastes, PPE, or disposable equipment. Once waste is characterized, as discussed inSection 3.6, the appropriate "Class" of disposal unit (as defined in Title 26 of the CCR) must beselected. Class I facilities may accept hazardous, designated, and nonhazardous wastes; Class IIfacilities may accept designated wastes; and Class in facilities accept nonhazardous solid wastes.Selection of a particular disposal unit (hazardous or nonhazardous) is dependent on the wastetype, contaminant concentration, facility acceptance criteria, geographic location, and cost.The disposal facility should be selected prior to the instigation of the site activities. The disposalfacility must be contacted prior to arriving at the TSD facility with waste to ensure acceptance ofthe waste by the landfill operator and to check that the facility's requirements have not changed.The contractor should obtain verification that the disposal facility is in compliance with alloperational permits prior to receiving wastes from the site. Additional sampling and testing ofthe IDW required by the disposal facility should be initiated prior to disposal. The generatormust either obtain an EPA identification number and manifest form for IDW, or prepare a bill oflading for RCRA nonhazardous IDW prior to transporting.4.3ON-INSTALLATION TREATMENTOn-installation treatment will be considered, as appropriate, to minimize the volume of liquidand solid waste to be sent to off-installation facilities and to reduce costs. Liquid wastesincluding surface water, groundwater, and decontamination fluids may be transported to an oninstallation groundwater treatment system for treatment as appropriate. The treated liquidswould then be discharged along with treated groundwater from the treatment system. Currently,treated water from the treatment system is discharged into the arroyo. Future dischargealternatives may include discharge to the former sewage treatment plant percolation ponds orreinjection to groundwater. Care must be taken that contaminated liquids sent to the existingtreatment system do not contain contaminants that the system is not capable of removing or thatwill disrupt the operation of the system. On-installation treatment of contaminated solid wouldentail establishing centralized treatment units in compliance with applicable regulatoryrequirements.4.4OFF-INSTALLATION TREATMENTTreatment of IDW (including soil, liquid wastes, PPE, and disposable equipment) may berequired for hazardous waste that does not meet the requirements for land disposal facilities.Landfills may specify treatment to certain levels prior to acceptance of wastes. In some cases,off-installation treatment may be more cost-effective than off-installation land disposal or oninstallation treatment.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 15 of 204.5DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES WITHIN THE AOCIn some cases, IDW may be left on site within the AOC even if waste is considered hazardous.The decision to implement this option depends on the waste characteristics, media type, anddegree of threat posed by the waste to human health and the environment. If IDW consists ofhazardous soils that pose no immediate threat to human health and the environment, it may beleft on site within the delineated AOC unit if approved by the site RPMs. Generally, the returnof soil cuttings and/or drilling mud to the location from which they were taken will comply withARARs based on the implication that the site will be further evaluated and treated duringsubsequent activities at the site. If this option is selected, the following actions must be taken:•Delineate the AOC using markers such as flagging or fencing.•Determine locations close to the soil source, such as a boring or test pit, in the AOC for wasteburial or spreading.•Place the hazardous IDW soil in pits and cover the pits with surficial soil to preventdispersion.Following waste disposal at the site, the containers used to contain the soil will bedecontaminated and reconditioned for further use. IDW should not be disposed within the AOCif the following conditions apply:•IDW is hazardous water or other aqueous liquid.•IDW is hazardous soil that may pose a substantial risk to human health and the environmentif left on site.•IDW is PPE or disposable equipment.5.0COMPLIANCE WITH ARARSThe NCP requires that handling of IDW meet all ARARs to the extent practicable consideringthe urgency of the situation. Applicable requirements are standards or criteria promulgatedunder federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant containment,remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a project site (USEPA, 1988a). Relevant andappropriate requirements are standards or criteria promulgated under federal or state laws thatare suited to a particular site because they address site scenarios sufficiently similar to those onwhich the regulations are based. Identification of ARARs first dictates the determination ofwhether a given requirement is applicable; then, if it is not applicable, a determination ofwhether it is both relevant and appropriate. This evaluation compares a number of site-specificfactors with those addressed in the statutory or regulatory requirements. Factors consideredinclude the hazardous substance present at the site, physical site features, or the type of remedialaction.A given requirement might be relevant, but not appropriate, for the project site; therefore, such arequirement would not be an ARAR for the site. When a requirement is deemed both relevantAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 16 of 20and appropriate in a given case, this requirement must be complied with to the same degree as ifit were applicable.To-be-considered (TBC) criteria are nonpromulgated advisories or guidance issued by federal orstate government that are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential ARARs. Inmany circumstances, TBC criteria will be reviewed along with ARARs in determining an IDWlevel that is sufficiently protective of human health and the environment.There are several different types of ARARs, including chemical-specific, action-specific, andlocation-specific ARARs. Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-based numericalvalues or methodologies applied to site-specific conditions. These values establish theacceptance concentration of a chemical substance that may be found in or discharged to theambient environment. Action-specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements orlimitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances. Location-specific ARARs arerestrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of activitiessolely because they occur in special locations.Environmental laws and regulations that are potential ARARs for IDW at CERCLA sites includeRCRA, including LDRs, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Clean Water Act(CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), and existing state ARARs.5.1RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACTRCRA was passed by Congress in 1976 to meet three goals: (1) The protection of human healthand the environment; (2) the reduction of waste and the conservation of energy and naturalresources; and (3) the reduction or elimination of the generation of hazardous waste asexpeditiously as possible. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984significantly expanded the scope of RCRA by adding new corrective action requirements, landdisposal restrictions, and technical requirements (USEPA, 1988b).RCRA is the most important federal ARAR for IDW generation and management, because itspecifically regulates all aspects of transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardouswastes. The determination of whether a waste is or is not hazardous may be made on the basis ofknowledge of the IDW and associated suspected or known contamination, rather than by directtesting (USEPA, 1991). RCRA has ten discrete sections (subtitles) that address specific wastemanagement activities. Two of these subtitles and their implementing regulations may beARARs for IDW handling: Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste Management) and Subtitle D (SolidWaste Management).Under RCRA Subtitle C, wastes are defined as hazardous on the basis of their source or methodof generation ("listed" wastes) or their chemical constituents or characteristics ("characteristic"wastes). For example, xylene is a listed waste, and based on the "contained-in-interpretation"(USEPA, 1986) soil or groundwater contaminated with this waste would also be consideredhazardous. Characteristic hazardous wastes include those wastes that have (1) extremely high orlow pH, (2) high reactivity, (3) ignitability, or (4) toxicity as measured by a leaching proceduresuch as TCLP, or other criteria, as listed in 40 CFR 261.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 17 of 20One of the most significant provisions of RCRA, with respect to the disposal of IDW, is theprovision for LDRs, which are defined by RCRA Section 3004. LDRs limit the types of wastesthat may be disposed to land (such as landfills and surface impoundments). An importantconsideration in evaluating the applicability or relevance and appropriateness of LDRs iswhether land disposal of RCRA-hazardous IDW has occurred. The AOC can be used todetermine whether or not LDRs are applicable; however, the AOC concept applies only tocontaminated soil or sediments from the site. Contaminated PPE, disposable equipment, ordecontamination fluid that may be generated by investigation activities at the site are notincluded in the LDR approach to AOCs. Based on the delineation of an AOC, LDRs do notoccur when hazardous IDW is:••••••Stored in a container within the AOC and then returned to its sourceMoved within the AOC unit, as defined for a specific siteCapped in placeTreated "in situ"Processed within the AOC to improve structural stabilityLeft in place, moved, or stored within a single AOC unitHowever, LDRs do occur when hazardous IDW is:•Composed of wastes from different AOCs which have been consolidated into one AOC•Moved outside of an AOC for treatment and storage and returned to the same or a differentAOC•Excavated from an AOC, removed to a separate unit such as a tank, surface impoundment, orincinerator that is within the AOC, and then redeposited into the AOCLDRs prohibit the storage of hazardous waste beyond specified time limits, unless the purpose ofstorage is to accumulate sufficient quantities of waste to promote proper disposal, treatment, orrecovery. However, storage of IDW until a final disposal option is selected in a record ofdecision (ROD) may be considered allowable storage under the LDR storage prohibition.Conditions under which such storage occurs should comply with substantive regulationspertaining to storage of hazardous waste in containers (such as the provision of secondarycontainment for drums containing liquid wastes). The USEPA does not require thatadministrative requirements such as permits of ARARs be met, as long as substantive issues areaddressed (USEPA, 1988b).All LDRs must be followed to the extent practicable if hazardous IDW cannot be held within thedelineated AOC. For example, if leaving hazardous IDW within the AOC would significantlyincrease risks to human health and the environment through fire, explosion, or toxicity, or otherhazard, the IDW should be disposed of at an off-installation RCRA Subtitle C TSDF.Hazardous decontamination fluids, PPE, and disposable equipment will be containerized andultimately disposed off installation, unless a properly permitted TSDF is available on theinstallation for such disposal. IDW storage practices are described in Section 2.3, IDWAK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 18 of 20management options are discussed in Section 3.0, and disposal options are discussed in Section4.0. Once hazardous wastes are taken outside the AOC, such wastes are subject to both thesubstantive and administrative requirements of RCRA.Nonhazardous PPE or disposable equipment will be disposed of in facilities such as municipallandfills (RCRA Subtitle D). Nonhazardous IDW, such as soil cuttings, drilling mud, orsediment will be disposed of within the AOC if all other ARARs are met.5.2TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACTThe TSCA was passed by Congress in 1976. This act establishes new requirements andauthorities for identifying and controlling toxic chemical hazards to human health and theenvironment. Regulations associated with this act affect the handling and disposal of wastescontaining polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos. The potential impacts of theseregulations on IDWs are noted below:•Nonhazardous IDW containing PCBs or asbestos at concentrations greater than specifiedlimits must be disposed of at facilities regulated under the TSCA (see 40 CFR 761.60).Options include incineration or disposal at TSCA chemical waste facilities.•PCB-contaminated material such as IDW, with concentrations less than 50 parts per million(ppm), is not generally regulated under TSCA and may be disposed of in acceptable SubtitleD landfills. However, the PCB action level for the State of California is 5 ppm.5.3CLEAN WATER ACTThe CWA of 1977 addresses site-specific pollutant discharge limitations and performancestandards for specific industries to protect surface water quality. The CWA also regulatescriteria for selecting POTWs and sets Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). During fieldinvestigations, the most likely situation where the CWA will be applicable involves the indirectdischarge of IDW water, regulated under CWA, to a POTW for treatment and disposal (USEPA,1991). Prior to discharge of IDW waters to POTWs, the contractor will ensure thatPOTW/CWA standards are met.5.4STATE REQUIREMENTSOther states have specific regulations for waste management. These regulations for wastemanagement. These regulations will be addressed in site specific SAPs.California regulations are provided here as an example. California Hazardous WasteRegulations - Title 26 (Toxics) of the CCR may contain ARARs for IDW managementdecisions. Title 26 regulations promulgate TTLCs and STLCs as potential ARARs for thehandling and disposal of IDW. Hazardous wastes (characteristic or listed) defined in Title 26would be treated in the same manner as RCRA hazardous wastes.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 19 of 20The State Water Resources Control Board regulates and promulgates applicable water qualityobjectives that are potential ARARs for IDW soil and water handling. ARAR waivers may beavailable for state requirements specifically aimed at CERCLA sites or for state ARARs that areinconsistently applied (CERCLA section 121[d][4][E] and 40 CFR 300.430[f][l][ii][C][5]).Nonhazardous IDW which contain trace levels of contaminants will not be disposed of on site ina manner which may impact groundwater quality. Disposal of California restricted,nonhazardous wastes will be performed in accordance with Title 26.6.0REFERENCESU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1984. Waste Analysis Plans. Prepared by theOffice of Solid Waste, October 1984.USEPA, 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Third Edition SW-846. Prepared bythe Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, November 1986.USEPA, 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility StudiesUnder CERCLA, Interim Final. Prepared by the Office of Emergency and RemedialResponse, October 1988.USEPA, 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Draft Guidance. Prepared bythe Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, August 1988.USEPA, 1990. CERCLA Compliance with the RCRA Toxicitv Characteristics (TO Rule: PartII. Prepared by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, October 1990.USEPA, 1991. Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes During Site Inspections. Preparedby the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication 9345.3-02FS, May1991.AK Revision 0August 2000SOP-35Page 20 of 20APPENDIX CField FormsMWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZATAILGATE SAFETYMEETING FORMMWHMONTGOMERY WATSON HARZADate:Client:Time:Project Number:1850805.010102Job Number:United States Army Engineer District - Alaska Site-Specific Location:Gambell, AlaskaSafety Topics PresentedProtective Clothing/Equipment:Chemical Hazards:Physical Hazards:Special Equipment:Other:Emergency Procedure:Hospital:Norton Sound Regional Hospital, NomeProvidence Hospital, AnchorageHospital AddressAnd Route'Phone:(907) 443-3311 (or 3353)(907)562-2221Air service from Gambell to hospital for serious injuries- Lifeguard Alaska 800-478-5433911/MedevacATTENDEESNAME PRINTEDSIGNATUREMeeting Conducted By:Project SafetyOfficer:Name PrintedBonnie McLeanProject Manager:SignatureGary BussefflS) MWH^IfrMONTGOIUtinYWATSONPERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORMHARZ 1Project: Gambell 2001 Supplemental RIProjectJ Number:1 850805. 010102Client: USAEDProject Manager: Gary BusseAs a component of the Safety and Health Plan (HASP) designed to provide personnel safety during thisRI, you are required to read and understand the HASP. When you have fulfilled this requirement, pleasesign and date this personal acknowledgement.NAME (PRINTED)SIGNATUREDATEUSACOEACCIDENT REPORTINGImportant Things to Remember• All incidents are reportable (mishap that caused or could havecaused injury or damage)• Incidents classified as accidents are recordable (incidents thatresult in medical treatment, lost time, or >$2K damage)• Ensure casualty treated• IMMEDIATELY notify SAAO. If AE/DAE/RE/OE is not availablethen you will contact Chief, CONORS (753-2768)• After notification IMMEDIATELY prepare and submit 265-R toSAAO Safety Officer (all incidents) within 24 hours. If SafetyOfficer is not available then FAX the former to District SafetyOffice on Fort Richardson (753-2591)• Prepare and submit ENG FORM 3394 to SAAO within 48 hours(only if incident = accident)• Use as much detail as possible when describing incident• Submit ORIGINAL copy of ENG FORM 3394 to SAAO SafetyOfficer• If you are not sure, ask the Safety OfficerCEPOO-SOPOD AMDIMMEDIATE REPORT OFACCIDENTTO:SQHP USE OKI.YDate Reed'Tinc Rccd,FROM:DATE:(COE OFFICE)l.Name of Person Reporting:Phone No.:_(Print)2.Location of Accident:.'-3.Date and Time of Accident:•If this accident is being reported late, (24*-hrs) Why?4.Name of Injured (If any) :5.Nature of Injury:6.Occupation (Injured Person):7.Age (Injured Person):8.Estimated Lost Time (Days):Was, return to light duty emphasized to the doctor?9.Estimated Property Damage:lO.Contrator & Contract No.:".Board of Investigation Required?Yes1.Fatal?No ________ 2. Three or more admitted to a hospital?3. Property damage of $200,000 or more?If yes, was immediate phone notifications to the Commander, Directorate and safety made?12.Description of Accident: (continue on back if needed) Provide a narrative (Where, what,why. How it Happened) so the Commander can get a understanding of the situtation.Who Investigated This Accident (Name) :Signature of Person Making Report:Title of Person Making Report:Location of Person Making Report:POD Form 265-R (REV)1 Jun 98Print Name:Phone No. to Reach:EDITION OF 1 MAR 95 IS OBSOLETEftrREPORTHO.T|f«"UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS"ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTHJURY/ttiNESS/MTALPERSONAL CLASSIFICATIONCONTROL SYMBOLCEEC-S-MR2)MOTOR VEHICLE NVQLVED«OP0m DAMAGE[DIVMGGOVERNMENT"3 CIVILIAND MILITARYQ CONTRACTORD PUBLICn FATALOTHB1nD SVOI.VED^DD JfmvEDD «™D OTHERDaDD^7X17ZI— ----••""^"^"•"•-----l-—.2k-AGEi. Him tat Ait MPQ MALE[]]FEMALEg. DUTY STATUS AT TIME OF ACCIDENTf. JOB SERIESmTLE[|]ON DUTYQ3.i. DATE OF ACCIDENTImmtMnty"'!•.GRADEi. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERc-SEX[]] TOYOFF DUTYfe^^^^^W^^KBWPJB5l|^^^^^^^^^^-^*^Si::^^^TO^^:^tSS^>?SGEHERAL IHFORMATIOKc. EXACT LOCATION OF ACCIDENTk. TIME OF ACCIDENTMttrytaatlt. CONTRACTOR'S NAME11) PIRIME:hrsnDCIVIL WORKSDOTHER lUpKifrJg. HAZARDOUSrTOXIC WASTEACTOITYf. TYPE OF CONTRACT•.CONTRACT NUMBERDMIUTARYCONSTRUCTIONQ SERVICEDAJEDDREDGEQOTHER Sfmafrl_ ._ .._,COHSTRUCTIOII ACTIVITIES DULY /»/» Si»iHlc4.i. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY|CODE)QSUPERFUNDQ»PQI2*5UBCONTRACTOR:Q DERPOTHER GpKfYlma»*lH>tc«l,mm*ritto*ir,mfn-Br*toiimQSIDESWIPEQHE AD OND~"UBROADSIDEQROLLOVERQ]REAR ENDICODE)1DUSEDNwNOT USEDNOT AVAILABLE(11 FRONT SEAT0 REAR SEATOTHER ffA»WPROPERTY/MATERIAL HVOLVED8.a. NAME OF ITEMB. OWNERSHIPC.*AM DUNT OF DAMAGE(1)001VESSEL/FLOATMG PLANT ACCIDENT IFim tin tad amteanhxt tub nomttrin tar fnmitt-sn Mo mailICODE)k. TYPE OF COLLISION/MISHAP9.l. TYPE OF VESSEIffLOATHG PLANTIfICODE)1*1ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION Ha uHHiual MB*. HttnainlSee attached page.ENG FORM 3394, MAR 93Version 2EDITION OF SEP 88 B OBSftFIEttSOl11.CAUSAL FACTONS) f***ttnctimWn tn+ti+>CHEMCALAND PHYSICAL AGENT FACTORS: HopunH1|~~1DESIGN: Hu do** •HraKr.wwfcitoaM•uionwil • fictor^1''1'—OFFCE FACTORS: DM itfa »rtM •dlM.ittimtfci^iletartj'1'j~~1'—SUPPORT FACTORS: Wnm^nprittttMUniNreMOPERATMG PROCEDURES: Wm fMittBi pnadrai litlir?\'1I -I1 "—JPERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Did tWmpraMriMctiM.m tc •«•!»•••» it ftnfttl fnttemt n»i»iiiilJOB PRACTICES: W«»Miyj»b«.fif»ftMltli»r«elie«.«itf»lo»rt,'• -
ACAT FOIA Repository 11
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 11, Date Received July 2023
Year: November 2001
Pages: 816
Document Title: Final Remedial Action Report for Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and Toxic Waste Removal
Agency/Organization: Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.
Document Summary:
On June 30, 1998, the U .S . Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAEDA) contracted Oil Spill Consultants, Inc . (OSCI) to remove and dispose of metal debris, containerized hazardous and toxic waste ( HTW), and contaminated soil located at Gambell, Alaska. The report details the 45 days of work (completed mostly by local citizens). The work completed included HTW Removal (Approximately 26.8 tons of HTW (battery, parts, dried paint, drums, and transformer carcasses) were collected from five locations at the project site; Metal Debris. Based on field weights, 142,234 pounds of metal debris consisting of runway matting, cable, fuel tanks, and equipment parts were removed from sites identified by USAEDA; Contaminated Soil. Workers using picks and shovels excavated 52 tons of contaminated soil from Sevuokuk Mountain; Stained Soil. A total of 20 tons of petroleum-stained soil were excavated from several sites at Gambell.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 11, Date Received July 2023
Year: November 2001
Pages: 816
Document Title: Final Remedial Action Report for Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and Toxic Waste Removal
Agency/Organization: Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.
Document Summary:
On June 30, 1998, the U .S . Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAEDA) contracted Oil Spill Consultants, Inc . (OSCI) to remove and dispose of metal debris, containerized hazardous and toxic waste ( HTW), and contaminated soil located at Gambell, Alaska. The report details the 45 days of work (completed mostly by local citizens). The work completed included HTW Removal (Approximately 26.8 tons of HTW (battery, parts, dried paint, drums, and transformer carcasses) were collected from five locations at the project site; Metal Debris. Based on field weights, 142,234 pounds of metal debris consisting of runway matting, cable, fuel tanks, and equipment parts were removed from sites identified by USAEDA; Contaminated Soil. Workers using picks and shovels excavated 52 tons of contaminated soil from Sevuokuk Mountain; Stained Soil. A total of 20 tons of petroleum-stained soil were excavated from several sites at Gambell.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat11SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 11," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION REPORTforDebris Removal and ContainerizedHazardous Waste and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell , AlaskaDelivery Order No . 0004Contract . No . DACA85-97-D-0010November 5, 2001Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .209 East 51st AvenueAnchorage, Alaska 99503Telephone : (907) 562-7169Fax : (907) 562-7225NPDL WO# 99-092200-1fF10AK069601 _07 .08000 1_p"Oil Spill Consultants - A Commitment to Environmental Excellence"Final Remedial Action ReportforDebris Removal and ContainerizedHazardous Waste and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, AlaskaTABLE OF CONTENTSPage1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 Site Location and Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Project Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4 Project Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5 Land Access Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.6 Applicable Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.7 Delivery Order Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 .0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .1 Population and Lifestyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .2 Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .3 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .4 Community Benefits from Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 .5 Meetings Between Community Leaders and Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . 114.0 WORK DESCRIPTION AND EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 .1 Weather Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 .2 Physical Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.3 Findings at Project Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.4 Project Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.5 Clearing and Grubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.6 Metal Debris Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.7 Hazardous and Toxic Waste (HTW) Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.8 Stained Soil Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.9 Contaminated Soil Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.10 Weights and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.11 Waste Shipment and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.12 Site Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.13 Daily Quality Control Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.14 Safety and Health Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND LABORATORY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.1 Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.2 Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305.3 Samples for Waste Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 .4 Confirmation Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.5 Procedures for Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475.6 Personnel Collecting Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 .7 Sample Shipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.8 Chemical Data Quality Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48iFinal Remedial Action ReportforDebris Removal and ContainerizedHazardous Waste and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, AlaskaTABLE OF CONTENTSPage6 .0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 .1 Waste Shipped and Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 .2 Contaminant Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526 .3 Work Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536 .4 Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1 :Project Location - Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste . . . . . . 4Figure 2 :Terrain Features - Northwest Cape , Saint Lawrence Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Figure 3 :Site 8 - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Figure 4 :Site 12 - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 5 : Site 2 - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Site 4/Area 4B - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 6 :Figure 7 :Site 4/Area 4A - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 8 :Site 6 - Sample Collection Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40LIST OF TABLESSummary of Metal Debris Quantities Removed from Gambell, Alaska . . . . . 17Table 1 :Table 2: Summary of HTW Quantities Removed from Gambell , Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 3 : Manifest Tracking Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Table 4 :Summary of Contractor Quality Control Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Table 5 :Waste Identification Sample Results for Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Table 6 : Waste Identification Sample Results for TCLP Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Table 7 : Waste Identification Sample Results for Dioxin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Table 8 : Confirmation Sample Results Summary for Organics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Table 9 : Confirmation Sample Results for Total Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Table 10 : Metal Results for Site 4/Area 4B Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Table 11 : Confirmation Sample Results for Dioxin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Table 12 : Site4/Area 4B Pre-Excavation and Post Dioxin Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A : Photo Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1Appendix B : Scale Tickets Showing Debris, HTW and Soil Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1Appendix C : Waste Manifests and Certificates of Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1Appendix D : Daily Quality Control Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1Appendix E : Laboratory Data Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1Appendix F : Chain of Custody and Laboratory Data Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1Appendix G : Data Deliverables for Project Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1Appendix H : Safety and Health Phase-Out Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1Appendix I : Chemical Data Quality Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1iiLIST OF ACRONYMSAAC Alaska Administrative CodeADEC Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsATVs All-Terrain VehiclesCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCOC Chain of CustodyCQC Contractor Quality ControlC. T. & E . Environmental ServicesC. T . & E .CWMN Chemical Waste Management of the NorthwestDOT Department of Transportation (U .S.)DOT&PF Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (State of Alaska)DQCR Daily Quality Control ReportsDQO Data Quality ObjectivesDRO Diesel Range OrganicsEPA Environmental Protection AgencyFAA Federal Aviation AdministrationGRO Gasoline Range OrganicsHAZMAT Hazardous MaterialsHDPE High-Density PolyethyleneHTW Hazardous and Toxic Wastemg/kg Milligrams per Kilogrammg/L Milligrams per Literml MilliliterMS Matrix SpikeMSD Matrix Spike DuplicateNAO Northern Area OfficeOSCI Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .OSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPCB Polychlorinated BiphenylPES Philip Environmental ServicesPPE Personal Protective Equipmentppt Parts Per TrillionPQL Practical Quantitation LimitPWD Public Works DepartmentQAR Quality Assurance RepresentativeRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRRO Residual Range OrganicsSL Sample Matrix for SoilSVOA Semi-Volatile Organic AnalysisSVOC Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsTCDD TetrachlordibenzodioxinTCLP Toxic Characteristic Leaching ProcedureTSCA Toxic Substance Control ActU UndetectedUSAEDA U .S . Army Engineer District, AlaskaVOA Volatile Organic AnalysesVOC Volatile Organic CompoundsIII1 .0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOn June 30 , 1998, the U .S . Army Engineer District , Alaska (USAEDA) contracted Oil SpillConsultants , Inc . (OSCI) to remove and dispose of metal debris , containerized hazardous andtoxic waste ( HTW) and contaminated soil located at Gambell , Alaska .In accordance with contract requirements, the following items were removed from the projectsite and shipped to the Lower-48 states for disposal :•HTW Removal . Approximately, 26 .8 tons of HTW (battery, parts, dried paint, drums andtransformer carcasses) were collected from five locations at the project site .•Metal Debris . Based on field weights, 142,234 pounds of metal debris consisting ofrunway matting , cable , fuel tanks and equipment parts were removed from sitesidentified by USAEDA .•Contaminated Soil . Workers using picks and shovels excavated 52 tons ofcontaminated soil from Sevuokuk Mountain .•Stained Soil . A total of 20 tons of petroleum-stained soil were excavated from severalsites at Gambell .Twenty-seven connex containers and one 20-foot flat loaded with project waste departedGambell, Alaska, on August 26, 1999, and arrived at the designated disposal facilities duringmid-November 1999 . Metal items (including empty drums) and petroleum contaminated soilwere shipped to Rabanco Recycling in Seattle, Washington . Contaminated soil and HTW wereshipped to Chemical Waste Management in Arlington, Oregon, and Burlington Environmental,Inc . in Seattle, Washington, respectively .Fifty-two tons of contaminated soil were removed from Site 4/Area 4B . Samples from theexcavated area revealed that the residual diesel range organics (DRO) level ranged from 24 .8to 13,900 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) . By comparison, the State of Alaska cleanup levelfor DRO under Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Method 2 is 250mg/kg for the project site . Other analytes detected in the samples from Site 4/Area 4B werebelow regulatory thresholds established by the State of Alaska and the U .S . EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) . Residual dioxin levels in the excavation at this site ranged fromnon-detect to 1,250 parts per trillion .Several soil stains were removed from Site 4/Area 4A and Site 12 . Confirmation samples showthat the residual DRO levels in these areas are 1,310 mg/kg and 463 mg/kg, respectively . Theresidual total chromium level for Site 4/Area 4A was 422 mg/kg . Residual total lead for Site12 was 562 mg/kg . ADEC Method 2 cleanup levels for chromium and lead are 26 mg/kg and400 mg/kg, respectively .From start to finish, 45 days were required to complete all site work . Despite difficultenvironmental conditions (wet tundra, large boulders restricting access to work sites onSevuokuk Mountain, and reduced visibility due to fog and low ceilings), there were noaccidents or spills . This is particularly noteworthy since most of the project labor was provided1by local residents . (Prior to project startup, local Gambell residents experienced three seriousaccidents . However, daily safety meetings and adherence to established safety protocolprevented problems while work was in progress .)A photo summary of project activities is provided in Appendix A . Scale tickets showing debrisand soil weights are provided in Appendix B . Waste manifests and certificates of disposal arein Appendix C . Daily quality control reports are provided in Appendix D . Laboratory data forproject samples is summarized in Appendix E . Chain of custody forms for project samples andlaboratory data reports are in Appendix F . Data deliverables for project samples are inAppendix G . The Safety and Health Phase-Out Report for this report is in Appendix H . Achemical data quality review is provided in Appendix I .22 .0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION2 .1 Site Location and OwnershipAs shown in Figure 1 , Gambell , Alaska , is located on the northwest cape of St . LawrenceIsland , 200 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska at 63 ° 47' N Latitude, 171 ° 45' W Longitude(Section 03,TO20S,R067W, Kateel River Meridian) .St. Lawrence Island has two villages, Gambell and Savoonga . Under the 1971 Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act, Gambell residents established Sivuqaq Incorporated . Residents inSavoonga established Savoonga Incorporated . Following this, the federal governmentawarded a joint title to all land on St . Lawrence Island to these corporations .Points of contact for this project are :USAEDANAOUSAEDA(Alaska DistrictNamePaul SchneiderSusan BeachampPatricia OwenJob KoonookaPatty MillerTitleResidentEngineerProject ManagerNorthern RegionProject ManagerPresidentHead ofAviation DesignAddressU .S . ArmyEngineer District,Northern AlaskaArea OfficeP .O . Box 355066Ft . Wainwright,Alaska 99703-0066U .S . ArmyEngineer DistrictP .O . Box 898Anchorage, Alaska99506-0898222 W . 7`hAvenue, #14Anchorage,Alaska 99513Sivuqaq Inc .P .O . Box 101Gambell,Alaska99742State of AlaskaDOT & PF2301 PegerRoadFairbanks,Alaska 99709PhoneNumber(907) 353-7850(907) 451-2275(907) 271-5445(907) 985-5826(907) 451-2275Point ofContactFederal AviationAdministrationState of AlaskaDepartment ofTransportation& PublicFacilitiesDOT&PFSivu a Inc .2.2 Site HistoryFrom 1948 through the late 1950s, the U . S . Air Force, Army and Navy conducted limitedmilitary activities sites in Gambell, Alaska . Based on previous investigations performed for thegovernment by Ecology and Environment under Contract No. DACA85-91-D-003, the militaryestablished the following sites at Gambell :•Site 2 - Former Housing and Operations Center . A military housing and operationscenter was located at this site . It included 12 Quonset huts, a dining hall, a utilitybuilding and a small power plant . These structures were demolished by the militaryprior to demobilizing from Gambell . The ground at this site contains about 1,600pounds of metal debris ( weasel tracks, metal boxes and wire), one drum and severalsoil stains that resulted from previous military activities .3Figure 1 : Project Location4•Site 3 - Former Communications Facility . A 75 ft. by 45 ft . communications facility waslocated at this site . It included an electrical power plant, fuel storage tanks and twoJamesway huts for equipment and personnel shelter . Surface debris at this site includea fuel storage tank, weasel tracks, aircraft landing mat and drums . The weight for thisdebris is estimated at 1,800 pounds .•Site 4 - Former Air Force Radar Station . This site is located on the top of SevuokukMountain (600 ft . above sea level) . It contained a 375 ft . by 500 ft. radar station whichwas used to monitor Russian ships in the Bering Sea . Site 4 also had two Quonset hutsfor personnel shelter and several transformers which were part of the system thatdelivered electrical power from other locations to the radar station . A tram at Site 5and a trail through Site 10 were used to access to Site 4 . (Overland access to Site 4is limited by large boulders on Sevuokuk Mountain and wet tundra in Site 10 .)Site 4 contains about 7,300 pounds of metal debris which consists of siding and framesfrom Quonset huts, drums and wire . It also contains 4,370 pounds of HTW (drums,transformers, engine blocks and generators) . Along with this, Site 4 has a surfacestain that may contain up to 52 tons of contaminated soil .•Site 5 - Former Tramway Site . Site 5 is on the northwest face of Sevuokuk Mountainand served as the location for a tram which transported personnel and equipment toSite 4 . This site also served as the corridor for sonar and electrical cables . It containsapproximately 370 pounds of scattered metal debris .•Site 6 - Former Military Landfill . A 275 ft . by 135 ft . landfill was constructed at this site .Along with metal drums filled with human waste, materials from a power plant andcommunications facility may be buried in the landfill . (The landfill is covered withgravel .) Surface debris from previous government activities at this site is limited to 350pounds of metal (drum remnants, landing mat, wire and weasel tracks) .•Site 7 - Former Military Power Facility . Based on previous investigations, a militarypower plant was located at this site . The ground at this site contains about 150 poundsof miscellaneous metal debris .•Site 8 - West Beach . This 3-mile long area is located on the west site of TroutmanLake . It begins near the northwest end of Gambell and extends southward toNayvaghaq Lake . The military placed metal landing mats in this area to support aircraftoperation . At several locations in Site 8, storms have removed the gravel and exposedthe landing matting . It is estimated that this site contains at least 115,000 pounds oflanding mat and several drums filled with asphalt .Site 8 also contains a 4,500 ft . paved runway . Energized electrical cables for therunway lights are buried in the gravel next to the runway .•Site 10 - Sevuokuk Mountain Trail System . As shown in Figure 1, these trails start nearthe south end of Troutman Lake and provide access to a former radar station locatedat Site 4 on the top of Sevuokuk Mountain . Military personnel placed over 150 metaldrums at 200 ft . intervals to mark the trails . Site 10 also has about 1,300 pounds ofweasel tracks . (Due to the presence of wet tundra in Site 10, track-mounted vehiclesshould be considered for using the trail system during the summer months .)5•Site 12 - Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Area . This site is located between Nayvaghaq Lakeand Troutman Lake . Along with several stains, it has 66 drums and 10 lead-acidbatteries on the ground .•Site 13 - Former Radar Power Station . This site is located near the south end ofTroutman Lake and previously contained three wooden buildings and several 150-ft .towers . About 300 pounds of metal pipe and wire from the radar power station remainon the ground at Site 13 .Prior to demobilizing, the military demolished most of the buildings that were constructed tosupport its operations in Gambell, Alaska. Reports prepared by Ecology and Environment andMontgomery Watson for the USAEDA Contract Numbers DACA85-91 -D-0003 and DACA8593-D-001 1 state that the demolition debris and most of the military equipment were buried onsite .2.3 Project Scope of WorkUnder Delivery Order No. 0004 for Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0 issued on June 30, 1998,USAEDA requested OSCI to remove the following items from Gambell, Alaska :•Hazardous and Toxic Waste (HTW) . A total of 8 .5 tons of hazardous and toxic wastewere identified for shipment to government-approved disposal facilities in the Lower-48states . This waste included lead-acid batteries, transformers, asphalt, generators,engine blocks, storage tanks, empty drums, and stained soil in locations containingHTW .•Metal Debris. The delivery order required removal and disposal of 64 tons of metaldebris from various sites at Gambell, Alaska . This debris consisted of metal runwaymatting near the Gambell airport landing strip, abandoned communication cable andcable spools, sheet metal, metal frames, pipes and parts from track-mounted vehicles .•Contaminated Soil . Area 4/4B on Sevuokuk Mountain had a soil stain which resultedfrom a previous spill . The scope of work required the contractor to remove and ship52 tons of soil from the stained area to government-approved disposal facilities in theLower-48 states .•Stained Soil . Several sites identified in the project scope of work contained petroleumstained soil . The delivery order required the contractor to remove and provide offsitedisposal for 20 tons of stained soil from these sites .Work at the project site began on July 5, 1999, and was completed on August 18, 1999 .2.4 Project PlanningThe following project plans were prepared by OSCI and approved by USAEDA to support thisproject :• Work Plan . This document includes the project schedule and identifies the scope ofwork on a site-by-site basis . Along with this, it delineates responsibilities for project6personnel, discusses mobilization, and identifies the sources for project resources . Thework plan also addresses steps used to remove, segregate, and quantify the waste bycontract line items and track waste movement from the project site to Lower-48 disposalfacilities .•Site Safety and Health Plan . This plan identifies site safety requirements, discussesaccident prevention, and outlines the steps for complying with EM 385-1-1 . It includesa hazard analysis for each work feature, lists precautionary measures for handlingHTW, and describes procedures for identifying and resolving safety problems at theproject site .•Contractor's Quality Control Plan (QCP) . This plan outlines OSCI's provisions forassuring the scope of work is completed in accordance with contract specifications . Itdescribes the company's quality control (QC) program and lists responsibilities forOSCI's QC personnel . The QCP also identifies potential QC problems for each workfeature and describes corrective actions . This plan also discusses OSCI's proceduresfor weighing the HTW, debris, and contaminated soil removed from each project site .•Sampling and Analysis Plan . This plan identifies : 1) data quality objectives for meetingU .S. EPA and Department of Transportation (DOT) waste identification and shippingrequirements, 2) the number of samples that would be collected at the project site, and3) analytical methods for each sample . It also discusses OSCI's field screening andsample handling procedures .•Waste Management Plan . This plan lists the project waste streams and discussesOSCI's procedures for waste identification, tracking, weighing, packaging, and storageat the project site . It also includes the steps for waste labeling, land ban restrictionnotifications, and manifest preparation . In addition, the waste management plan listscompanies identified for waste transportation and disposal .•Environmental Protection Plan . This plan outlines steps for protecting and restoringareas accessed by OSCI for HTW removal . As part of this plan, track-mounted vehicleswere used to transport personnel , HTW, contaminated soil, and debris across wettundra . It also explains how trails through the wet tundra will be seeded and fertilizedto minimize the potential for soil erosion ; how plastic liners will be used to protect theground in areas used for equipment and HTW storage ; and how graders will be usedto restore smooth surfaces on gravel beaches .2.5 Land Access FeesSivuqaq Incorporated levies a $100 .00 access fee for each person who crosses its land . Underarrangements made by USAEDA, neither OSCI nor its subcontractors had to pay this fee whileperforming project activities on the corporation's land . However, this fee was required if OSCI'spersonnel used the corporation's land for recreation or other activities .2.6 Applicable RegulationsHazardous and toxic waste included identified in the project scope of work was handled,transported and disposed of in accordance with the following regulations :7•29 CFR 1910 .120 . Under this section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),persons handling or working in areas containing hazardous or toxic materials wererequired to complete a 40 -hour HAZWOPER or an 8 -hour HAZWOPER refresher(if the one-year certification for the 40-hour HAZWOPER had expired ) course priorbeginning work . These courses familiarized the worker with the procedures forwearing and caring for personal protective equipment , material safety data sheets,and steps for personnel decontamination .•40 CFR 261 . This regulation provides the criteria for determining if a substance isa hazardous waste . It also provides EPA codes that must be placed on hazardouswaste labels and manifests . Additionally , it provides criteria or determining if asubstance meets the EPA definition for hazardous waste under toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) .•40 CFR 263 . EPA requirements for hazardous waste manifests , record keeping andspill cleanup are cited in this regulation .•40 CFR 761 . EPA requirements for handling, labeling and storing PCBcontaminated wastes are defined in this regulation . This regulation also establishesregulatory thresholds for liquids containing PCBs and PCB contaminated waste .•49 CFR 172. U .S . DOT requirements for waste shipping names, packagingmaterials, and hazard class identification are provided in this section of CFR .•18 AAC75 .341, Method 2 . This section of the Alaska Administrative Code definessoil cleanup levels for petroleum , chemical , PCB, and metal contamination .2.7 Delivery Order ModificationsThe following modifications were issued for Delivery Order 0004 :•Full-Time Archeologist . The delivery order included 10 days for an Archeologist at theproject site . Due to the possibility of encountering items that may have cultural orarcheological significance, the delivery order was modified to include : 1) a full-timeArcheologist for the project duration, 2) a separate vehicle for the Archeologist, and 3)additional report writing for the Archeologist if significant findings were discovered .•Corporation Meeting Attendance . Sivuqaq Incorporated requested USAEDA and OSCIrepresentatives to attend a March 25, 1999 public meeting in Gambell, Alaska, todiscuss Delivery Order 0004 . A modification was issued to cover OSCI's cost formeeting attendance .•Increase HTW Removal . The original delivery order identified 8 .5 tons of HTW forremoval and disposal . A modification was issued to increase the HTW quantity to 24tons .•Road Access at Project Site . The negotiated delivery order included one truck and four4-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) with trailers for hauling metal debris andcontaminated soil at Gambell . During April 1999, a USAEDA representative advisedOSCI that these vehicles were not suitable for the steep terrain on Sevuokuk Mountain .8He recommended replacing the ATVs with a Nodwell and several Argos . In responseto this, OSCI requested and USAEDA issued a modification which allowed three of the4-wheel ATVs to be replaced with one track -mounted Nodwell and two track-mountedArgos .•Revised Unit Cost for Contaminated Soil Removal . Drawings provided by USAEDAshowed well-defined trails to the contaminated soil removal area on SevuokukMountain . On arriving at the project site, OSCI discovered that there were no trails toSite 4, Areas 4A, 4B, and 4D on Sevuokuk Mountain . Instead, this area was surroundedby large boulders which prevented access by trucks, excavation equipment, and largetrack-mounted vehicles such as the Nodwell . In view of this, a modification was issuedfor revising the unit cost for removing contaminated soil from Site 4, Area 4B usingshovels, sand bags and Argos .•Delete Debris Removal Near Buried Power Line . The delivery order required OSCI toremove 64 tons of metal matting near the Gambell airport runway . While performingthis work, an energized cable for the runway lights was discovered near a portion of themetal matting . A modification from USAEDA deleted the requirement to remove themetal matting near the energized cable .•Increase Quantity for Metal Debris Removal . The debris quantity was increased from64 to 71 tons . This included an additional 410 linear feet of metal matting, 2 .2 miles ofNavy sonar cable, cable reels and one metal cargo sled .•Additional Sampling and Analyses . The delivery order included one sample to satisfywaste disposal facility acceptance criteria for soil excavated from Site 4, Area 4B . Amodification was issued to collect four post excavation confirmation samples from thissite . (This modification also included one quality control and one quality assurancesample .)•Confirmation Samples . A modification expanded the scope of work to include 10confirmation samples from areas that appear to have contamination . These sampleswere to be tested for GRO by AK1 01, DRO by AK1 02, RRO by AK1 03, VOC by EPAMethod 8260, VOA by EPA Method 8270, PCBs by EPA Method 8082 and Pesticidesby EPA Method 8081 .93.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS3 .1 Population and LifestyleGambell , Alaska , is a small community which has about 525 full-time residents (Photo 1) . Mostresidents are Yup'ik Eskimos who depend on birds , fish, marine mammals and reindeer forsubsistence .3 .2 ServicesTwo commuter airlines provide four flights per day from Nome, Alaska, to Gambell, Alaska .There is no airport terminal in Gambell . The village is approximately 1/2 mile from the landingstrip . Since there are no taxis or public transportation in the village, persons traveling toGambell must make advance arrangements for someone to meet them at the runway .The village normally receives one cargo barge per year (Photo 2) and up to two fuel barges peryear . During the summer months, several small cruise ships visit the village .Sivuqaq Incorporated operates a 15-room lodge in Gambell (Photos 3 through 6) . It has a fullkitchen which prepares fast food for the community . Persons staying in the lodge can orderfrom the menu or use the kitchen to prepare their own meals .3 .3 EconomyCommercial activities in Gambell are limited to a small Native store which caters to the localcommunity and Sivuqaq Lodge which caters to bird watchers during the summer months . Jobsare limited to a few positions offered by the school, post office, power plant, city government,tribal council, the local store and local Native corporation (which owns the lodge) .The village corporations (Sivuqaq, Inc . and Savoonga, Inc .) own all land and mineral rights onSt. Lawrence Island . As a result, they generate revenue by selling gravel to the State of Alaskafor airport runway construction and maintenance . These corporations also charge fees topersons and organizations that use their land for recreation or bird watching .When jobs are not available, Gambell residents depend on state assistance . Some residentsmake and sell ivory carvings to tourists who visit the island .3 .4 Community Benefits from ProjectUnder USAEDA specifications for this project , all site workers were required to meetOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hazardous materials (HAZMAT)requirements (29 CFR 1910 .120 ) for handling contaminated soil and hazardous waste . Sincethere were only six persons in Gambell who met this requirement , the following steps weretaken to maximize employment opportunities for local residents :• Tasks Restricted to HAZMAT Workers. Work such as contaminated soil excavation,drum handling , transformer packaging and battery handling was limited to residentswho had met the OSHA HAZMAT requirements . This work was supervised by PhilipServices Corporation .10•Tasks Set-Aside for Non-HAZMAT Workers . The project scope of work required OSCIto remove 115,000 pounds of metal landing matting from Site 8 . Since this debris wasnot contaminated or in areas containing HTW, persons handling it were not required tomeet the OSHA HAZMAT requirements cited in 29 CFR 1910 .120 . After obtaininggovernment approval, OSCI hired local workers who did not have HAZMAT training toremove, cut and package metal landing . They were also used to remove wire and othermetal debris from areas that did not contain HTW .Local residents provided 61 percent of the total project labor hours and received $86,302 inwages .To support the local community, OSCI purchased meals and lodging from the Sivuqaq Lodgeat a cost of $33,715. Along with this, OSCI spent $4,839 for food and fuel at the communitystore. In summary, this project contributed $124,856 to Gambell's economy .OSCI shipped $3,000 worth of canned goods and dry food to Gambell for crew meals . Lessthan 50 percent of this was consumed by the project personnel . Excess food was given tolocal residents and several Siberian Eskimos who were visiting Gambell . OSCI also gave acomputer and printer to a local family . The company sold a full-size refrigerator, microwaveoven, VCR and television to various residents for less than 10 percent of the purchase cost .3.5 Meetings Between Community Leaders and Project ManagerThe Gambell Mayor and Sivuqaq Board of Directors requested several meetings with OSCI'sproject manager. During each meeting, they questioned the steps OSCI was taking to hiremore local workers . Although local workers received 61 percent of the man-hours devoted toproject labor, the mayor and board of directors encouraged OSCI to provide training soGambell residents could fill all labor and equipment operator positions during futureenvironmental remediation projects on St . Lawrence Island .114.0 WORK DESCRIPTION AND EQUIPMENT4.1 Weather ConditionsGambell, Alaska, has a maritime climate with average summer temperatures ranging from 34to 48 °F . Average winter temperatures range from -2 to 10 °F .Project work began on July 6, 1999, and was completed on August 17, 1999 . During thisperiod, temperatures ranged from a low of 39 °F to a high of 55 °F . Based on data from aweather station at the Gambell airport runway, wind speeds ranged from 0 to 35 knots duringthis project .This delivery order required OSCI to remove 170 tons of debris, HTW and contaminated soilfrom Gambell . Approximately, 40 percent of this material was located on the top of SevuokukMountain (600 ft . above sea level .) Each day, low ceilings covered this area with dense fog .Surveyor's stakes with colored tape were used to mark routes on the mountain top and wettundra in Site 10 . This made it possible for personnel to navigate during reduced visibility .No significant project delays were caused by weather . Due to blowing rain and dense fog, nowork was performed on August 4, 1999 . No accidents or spills resulted from weatherconditions at the project site .4.2 Physical ConditionsThe following conditions were observed when OSCI arrived at the project site on July 5, 1999 :•Loose Gravel on North Beach . Project equipment and connex containers for wasteshipment were mobilized to Gambell, Alaska, by Northland Services . Due to wind andsea conditions, the barge offloaded these items on the north beach (Figure 2) . Thisbeach has loose gravel and could not provide a stable working surface for personnelor equipment . While walking on this beach, personnel would sink 3 to 6 inches witheach step . The company's 4-wheel drive truck was frequently stuck in the beach gravel .Small trailers loaded with debris bottomed out in the gravel .•Hard Packed Gravel on South Beach . In view of poor conditions on the north beach,OSCI set up an equipment staging area on the south beach where the gravel was hardpacked and would support both equipment and personnel . At this location, metaldebris, soil, and HTW were weighed with an electronic scale and placed in connexcontainers .•Limited Road System . As shown in Figure 2 and Photo 37, a hard-packed gravel roadis located on the east, west and south side of Troutman Lake . This road starts at therock quarry near the east side of the lake . It ends near the Gambell School . Therewere no roads through the housing area or trails through Site 4 or Site 10 .•Wet Tundra . Site 10 consisted of wet tundra that could not be crossed by trucks orheavy equipment . As shown in Photo 38, 4-wheel ATVs were frequently stuck whilecrossing the tundra . As noted in Photo 39, a track-mounted Nodwell was able to12Figure 2 : Terrain Features - Northwest Cape, Saint Lawrence Island13cross the tundra . However, initial testing showed that the tracks on this vehicle causedextensive tundra damage (Photo 40) . In view of this, Nodwell use was restricted togravel surfaces at the project site .•Boulder Field on Mountain Top . Site 4 is located on top of Sevuokuk Mountain . Largeboulders on the mountain (Photos 24 and 52) prevented site access by trucks or heavyequipment .•Low Ceilings Reduce Visibility on Mountain . The top of Sevuokuk Mountain isapproximately 600 ft . above sea level . At least 85 percent of the time, low ceilingsreduced visibility on the mountain top to 50 ft . or less .•High Water Table . Site 12 (Photo 45) contained dried paint, batteries and several largesurface stains that may have resulted from leaking drums . Due to its proximity toTroutman Lake, Nayvagag Lake and the Bering Sea, this site has a high water table .During calm weather, the water table was 6 to 8 inches below grade . When low windsoccurred, about 20 percent of this site was under water .4 .3 Findings at Project SitesThe scope of work identified nine sites at Gambell, Alaska, that contained soil, metal debris orHTW designated for removal under Delivery Order 0004 . The following items were found ateach site :•Site 2 - Petroleum Contaminated Soil . Site 2 (Photo 7) is at the base of SevuokukMountain, about 3/4 miles northeast of the Gambell school and 150 yards from theBering Sea shoreline . Based on pictures provided in the scope of work, this site wasidentified by small cable reels surrounding a large rock . All of the soil within 49 feet ofthis rock contained heavy petroleum stains . At the base of the rock, the stain was 2 ft .deep . At 49 ft . from the rock, it was 3 inches deep . Laboratory analyses revealed thatthe stained soil contained gasoline range organics (GRO) at 309 mg/kg, diesel rangeorganics (DRO) at 6,440 mg/kg and residual range organics (RRO) at 388 mg/kg . Nometals, pesticides or PCBs were detected in this soil .•Site 3 - Tanks and Metal Debris . Site 3 (Photos 10 through 12) was on the southwestslope of Sevuokuk Mountain . It started at ground level and ascended to approximately400 ft above grade . Three empty fuel tanks and several sheets of metal siding werefound at this site .•Site 4 - Contaminated Soil Metal Debris, and Transformers . As shown in Figure 2, Site4 is on the top of Sevuokuk Mountain . Pictures provided by the government made itpossible to identify Areas 4A, 4B and 4D . A generator was located near Area 4B .Additionally, Area 4B contained a large area of contaminated soil identified forexcavation during this project . Area 4D included metal debris from two Quonset huts(Photo 13) and three empty transformers (Photo 14) .Together, Areas 4A, 4B and 4C were at least 300 ft . long by 300 ft. wide. Wind blownmetal debris was lodged between the boulders throughout these areas . Skeletalremains and burial boxes were found near Area 4D . (These items were handled byOSCI's Archeologist and local residents from Gambell .)14As discussed in Section 2 .6, there were no trails to the project areas on SevuokukMountain . It was necessary to cross 1 .6 miles of wet tundra (Photo 41) to reach theseareas .•Site 5 - Metal Debris . This site was on the southwest slope of Sevuokuk Mountain . Itstarted at ground level and ended at the mountain top . Due to a steep slope containingjagged rocks, it was impossible to inspect this site at elevations above 450 ft . Thelocations which were inspected contained small pieces of metal debris .•Site 6 -HTW . Site 6 was near the Gambell school . It contained a stack of empty drums(Photos 25 and 26) . Local residents said these drums were excavated from the sitewhere the school was constructed .•Site 8 - Metal Debris . This site included all of the area west of Troutman Lake betweenthe contractor's main staging area on the south beach and the container staging areaon the north beach . As shown in Photo 27, this site contained an unknown quantity ofmetal runway matting . In some areas, the matting was fully exposed . In other areasit was covered with up to 1 ft of gravel . (Based on comments from Gambell residents,the metal runway matting presents a safety hazard for persons operating 4-wheel ATVsduring reduced visibility resulting from fog or blowing snow .)Site 8 also included a large metal sled (Photo 33), drums containing asphalt and a smallsteam boiler .•Site 10 - HTW . Hundreds of empty 55 - gallon drums were located in this site (Photo 41) .Based on comments from local workers , Gambell residents strategically placed manyof the drums so they would serve as trail markers for persons traveling to remotecamps . The terrain throughout most of Site 10 consisted of wet tundra that could notbe crossed with trucks or heavy equipment .•Site 12 - HTW . This site was on the road system at the south end of Troutman Lake .It included dozens of drums, batteries, dried paint and miscellaneous metal debris(Photos 43 through 48) . Most of the drums were punctured . This along with large soilstains suggests that some of the drums were allowed to drain at Site 12 .•Site 13 - HTW . Site 13 was also on the road system at the south end of Troutman Lake .It contained a few drums and several small pieces of metal debris .4.4 Project EquipmentThe following equipment was mobilized from other areas to Gambell, Alaska, for projectsupport :•Crew Transportation . Two 4-wheel ATVs , two track-mounted Argos and one crew cab4-wheel drive Ford pickup truck were shipped from Anchorage to Gambell by barge forcrew transportation . Four additional Argos were shipped to the project site by airfreight . Two additional 4-wheel ATVs were transported to the island by barge fromNome , Alaska .15•Soil and Debris Hauling . One Nodwell track-mounted vehicle along with the pickuptruck was mobilized for hauling soil, HTW and debris at the project site .•Heavy Equipment . A backhoe was leased from the Gambell Public Works Department(PWD) for excavating soil and loading items into connex containers . A 966 front-endloader was leased from a local construction company for moving empty connexcontainers and placing metal on the Nodwell . A 973 dozer with forks was leased fromthe Gambell PWD for moving connex containers filled with metal debris, soil or HTWto a location where they could be placed on a barge for demobilization .Fuel for Equipment . Gasoline and diesel fuel were purchased from the Gambell NativeStore . Once during this project, the store ran out of fuel . The fuel barge to Gambellwas delayed for a week by high winds . (It was possible to continue project activitiesbecause several drums of fuel were included with the equipment mobilized fromAnchorage .)•Miscellaneous Equipment . A pressure washer, drum crusher, demolition saws, cuttingtorches, pumps, scales, plastic fencing, hand tools, personal protective equipment,plastic liners, first aid equipment and sorbent materials were mobilized from Anchorage .Field screening and sampling equipment were also shipped from Anchorage .Clearing and Grubbing4.5No clearing or grubbing was required for this project .4 .6 Metal Debris RemovalTable 1 summarizes the metal debris removed from Gambell, Alaska, under Delivery Order No .0004 . This debris was characterized as follows :•Metal Runway Matting . About 67 percent of the debris (95,290 pounds) consisted ofmetal runway matting from Site 8 . Prior to removing this material from the ground,workers used demolition saws and propane torches to cut it into sections that could belifted with a 966 front-end loader . Following this, the loader placed the sections on aNodwell which hauled them to a lay down area (Photos 28 through 30) . At this location,the matting was cut into smaller sections (if required), weighed by an electronic scaleand placed in connex shipping containers .While work was in progress, energized electrical power cables were discovered on theeast side of the Gambell airport runway (Photo 32) . To avoid problems, the governmentinstructed OSCI to leave the matting in place (1,820 linear feet) near the cable . Basedon visual observation, less than 50 percent of the metal matting in Site 8 was removedduring this project .Metal Sled . A 12,800 pound sled was removed from Site 8 . It was cut into pieces,weighed and placed on a shipping flat for transportation from Gambell to Seattle,Washington .16Table 1Summary of Metal Debris Quantities Removed from Gambell, AlaskaDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Project SiteDebris Quantity Estimatedby Delivery OrderPoundsActual Quantity ofDebris RemovedPounds21,600037701,8804/Area 4A5,41012,3484/Area 4B9051,0524/Area 4D1,0006,96853156,268Between 5 and 3551,44163501,748715008115,000108,090101,3001,388121079813300343Total127,255142,324Notes:1 . Scale tickets showing field weights for metal debris are provided in Appendix B .2 . Metal debris was shipped from Gambell, Alaska, to Rabanco Recycling in Seattle,Washington for disposal . Manifests are provided in Appendix C .17•Cable, Wire and Weasel Tracks . A total of 13,866 pounds of miscellaneous metaldebris consisting of wire, cable, cable spools, weasel tracks and a steam boiler werecollected from Sites 3, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 . These items were placed in trailers pulledby ATVs and hauled to a lay down area for weighing, cutting and placement in connexcontainers .•Quonset Hut Debris and Metal Siding . Debris from Site 4 (Areas 4A, 4B and 4D)included 20,368 pounds of metal framing and siding from Quonset huts on SevuokukMountain . This material was manually removed from the ground and placed in trailers .Afterward, the trailers were pulled down the mountain by Argos (Photos 15 through 17) .When the Argos reached the access road around Troutman Lake, the debris wastransferred to a pickup truck and transported to a lay down area for weighing, cuttingand placement in connex containers (Photos 18, 34 and 36) .4 .7 Hazardous and Toxic Waste ( HTW) RemovalTable 2 lists the HTW quantities removed from each site at Gambell . For this project, HTWincluded fuel tanks, generators , engine blocks, asphalt, batteries , paint and empty drumspreviously containing unidentified materials .Under the original scope of work, OSCI was required to remove 16,140 pounds of HTW fromGambell . A modification issued by USAEDA, increased the HTW quantity to 53,738 pounds .This material was transported from the project site under the following U .S . DOT approvedshipping names :•Hazardous Waste , Solid, N .O.S . 9, NA3077, PG III, (D008) . Shovels were used toremove stained soil (601 pounds ) from areas at Site 12 that previously containedbatteries . This soil was placed in a 55-gallon drum . Based on laboratory results whichidentified high lead levels , it was shipped to Burlington Environmental Services inSeattle , Washington as Line Item 11 .a. on Manifest GAM02 .•Waste Tars, Liquid, 3, UN 1999, PG II, (D001) . Nine drums of asphalt were removedfrom Site 8 . Each drum was placed in an 85-gallon overpack container and shipped toBurlington Environmental Services in Seattle, Washington for disposal . The total weightfor these drums (4,458 pounds) was noted in Line Item 11 . b . on Manifest No . GAM02 .•Hazardous Waste , Solid, N .O.S . 9, NA3077, PG III, (D008 ) . Five 5-gallon cans of driedpaint (378 pounds ) were found in Site 12 . They were placed in an 85-gallon overpackand shipped to Burlington Environmental Services as Line Item 11 .c. on ManifestGAM02.•Environmentally Hazardous Substances , Solid, N .O .S. 9, UN3077, PG III (D008) .Several deteriorated lead acid batteries were found at Site 12 . Personnel wearing Level"C" personal protective equipment (PPE) packaged the batteries (619 pounds) in aplastic fish tote . Following this, the batteries were shipped to Burlington EnvironmentalServices as Line Item 11 .d. on Manifest GAM02 .18Table 2Summary of HTW Quantities Removed from Gambell , AlaskaDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Project SiteDebris Quantity Estimatedby Delivery OrderPoundsActual Quantity ofDebris RemovedPounds220036001,1504/Area 4A2,1402,4244/Area 4B2,2301,7644/Area 4D06,00850470Between 5and31000607,89770086,20012,807102,30012,516122,5508,7021300Total16,14053,738Notes :1 . Scale tickets showing field weights for metal debris are provided in Appendix B .2. Metal debris was shipped from Gambell, Alaska, to Burlington Environmental in Seattle,Washington for disposal . Manifests are provided in Appendix C .19•Non-RCRA Waste Solid . About 450 drums (including drum parts) were collected fromSites 3, 4A, 4D, 6, 8, 10 and 12 . Prior to being moved, each drum was inspected byexperienced HAZMAT personnel to discern which ones contained compatible materialsor required special handling to prevent spills .Most of the drums were previously punctured (by an unknown party) or contained openingscaused by natural deterioration . As a result, all of the drums were either empty or containedonly a few ounces of rainwater . For all sites except Sites 4 and 10, the drums were placed onthe back of a pickup truck (Photo 46) and transported to a staging area where they were placedon a liner, cleaned, crushed and weighed (Photo 34) . Following this, they were placed in aconnex shipping container.Drums in Sites 4 and 10 were placed in trailers towed by ATVs . Once the drivers reached theroad system , the drums were transferred to a pickup truck and transported to a staging areafor cleaning , crushing , weighing and packaging .All drums were shipped to Rabanco Recycling in Seattle, Washington, on Manifests GAM01,GAM12, GAM13, GAM14 and GAM15 . Empty transformers, engine blocks and generatorswere also shipped to Rabanco Recycling as Non-RCRA Waste Solid on Manifest No . GAM12 .(Laboratory testing revealed that the transformers did not contain PCBs . The engine blocksand generators did not contain fuel, fluid or lubricating oil .)4.8 Stained Soil RemovalBased on visual inspections, stained soil was identified at the following locations :SiteSoil RemovedPounds224,9824/Area 4A1,8774/Area 4D46384,79010540127,237At Site 2, dark stains were limited to an area surrounding a large boulder (Photos 7 through 9) .Heavy oil stains were present 3 ft . below grade at the base of the boulder . At 30 ft . from theboulder, the stains were 8 inches below the surface .After OSCI filled 24 supersacks with oil stained gravel (24,982 pounds) from Site 2, thegovernment's on-site Quality Assurance Representative (QAR) suspended further excavationpending clarification as to whether sufficient material should be removed to obtain site closureunder Alaska's oil pollution regulations .20After reviewing an environmental investigation for Gambell , Alaska , the QAR determined thatSite 2 was previously identified as an oil spill site and should not have been listed as a stainedsoil site under Task Order No . 0004 . Comments from local workers revealed that thepetroleum stain at this site probably resulted from oil that was drained from ATVs by Gambellresidents . In view of this, the QAR directed OSCI not to remove anymore stained gravel fromthis location .The 24 supersacks of stained gravel from Site 2 were identified as a Non-RCRA Waste Solidand shipped to Rabanco Recycling in Seattle, Washington for landfill disposal .At Site 4 (Areas 4A and 4D), Site 8, Site 10, and Site 12, shovels were used to scrape stainsfrom the ground . The soil from each site was placed in a separate supersack . After thesupersacks were weighed, the soil was shipped to Rabanco Recycling as a Non-RCRA WasteSolid under Manifests GAM01, GAM09, GAM 10, and GAM11 .4 .9 Contaminated Soil RemovalReference Drawing No . HTW-3 provided in the scope of work for Task Order 0004 was usedto locate the contaminated soil at Site 4/Area 4B on Sevuokuk Mountain . Following thedimensions provided in this drawing, spray paint was used to mark this oval shaped area whichhad a maximum length of 36 .6 ft . and a maximum width of 29 .0 ft .The surface soil at Site 4/Area 4B had a uniform brownish color . There were no significantstains indicating a spill occurred at this location . After excavation began, a strong odor camefrom the soil . Between the boulders in the excavated area, the soil was black and had an oilyfilm .Based on field measurements, 103,885 pounds of contaminated soil was removed from thedesignated area at Site 4/Area 4B . The excavation depth after removing this soil, ranged from22 to 24 inches below grade .Large boulders in this site made it impossible to use heavy equipment for soil excavation . Asshown in Photos 19 through 24, HAZMAT certified workers used shovels to place the soil in50-pound sand bags . Following this , the sand bags were placed in track-mounted Argos andhauled down the mountain to the access road on the east side of Troutman Lake . Here, theywere transferred to a pickup truck and taken to a lay down area where they were placed insupersacks and weighed . When the weight was recorded , the supersacks were placed inconnex containers .Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest (CWMN) in Arlington, Oregon, agreed toaccept the Site 4/Area 4B soil for landfill disposal . After reviewing laboratory data provided byOSCI, CWMN designated the soil as "Hazardous Waste, Solid, N .O .S . (D008), 9, NA3077,PGIII ."Manifests GAM03, GAM04, GAM05, GAM06, GAM07 and GAM08 were used to ship the soilto CWMN . Block 11 .j. on the manifests identified dioxin as one of the contaminants in the soil .(Manifest copies are provided in Appendix C .)Contaminated soil was also removed from Site 12 . Several deteriorated lead-acid batterieswere located at this site . As shown in Table 6, laboratory analysis revealed that the TCLP leadin the soil under the batteries was 1,450 mg/L . Since this exceeded the 5 .0 mg /L regulatory21limit for TCLP lead established by 40 CFR261 .24, shovels were used to remove 601 poundsof soil from the areas that previously contained batteries . The soil was place in a 55-gallonmetal drum and shipped to Burlington Environmental Services in Seattle , Washington as LineItem 11 .a . on Manifest No. GAM02 .4 .10 Weights and MeasurementsAn electronic scale certified by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilitieswas used to weigh metal debris, HTW and soil removed from the project site (Photo 34) . Aseach item was weighed, the scale reading was recorded on a separate weigh ticket (Photo 35) .Copies of the weight tickets are provided in Appendix B . Each ticket has a unique identificationnumber and shows the source and description of the item weighed . The tickets also providethe gross weight, tare weight and net weight for the items weighed . Along with this, the weighticket identifies the connex that was used to ship the waste .Throughout this project, weights and measurements were repeatedly checked by OSCI'sQuality Control System Manager and the government's QAR .4.11 Waste Shipment and DisposalManifests were used to document and track waste movement from Gambell, Alaska, todesignated disposal facilities in the Lower-48 states . Table 3 summarizes the manifests usedfor this project . A copy of each manifest is provided in Appendix C .4.12 Site RestorationRepeated trips to remove contaminated soil from Sevuokuk Mountain destroyed the grass andcreated ruts in the tundra at the base of the mountain (Site 10 ) . Argos with flat tracks wereused to smooth out the ruts . After completing this, local workers placed 210 pounds of grassseed (50 percent Tufted Hairgrass , 40 percent Arctared Fescue, and 10 percent Annual Rye)and 3 , 850 pounds of fertilizer (20-20-10) to restore the damaged area . ( Prior to placement, theseed mix and fertilizer were approved by USAEDA .)Based on a request from local residents and approval from Sivuqaq Incorporated, OSCI didnot install silt fences as part of its tundra restoration program . Local residents on OSCI's workcrew said that silt fence should not be placed because it would create safety hazards forpersonnel traveling through the area on 4-wheel ATVs and snowmobiles . They believe highwinds would blow the silt fence over the tundra . Following this, the filter fence fabric wouldcause accidents if it was tangled in the moving parts on their snowmobiles and ATVs .4 .13 Daily Quality Control ReportsDaily quality control reports (DQCRs) are summarized in Table 4 . A copy of these reports isprovided in Appendix D .4 .14 Safety and Health SummaryA total of 5,629 man-hours were required to complete this project . There were no accidents,spills, or equipment failures . A copy of the Safety and Health Phase-Out Report for this projectis provided in Appendix H .22Table 3Manifest Tracking LogDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, Alaska.0004,Contract No DACA85-97-D-0010Delivery Order NoManifestNumberWaste DescriptionWeightPoundsConnexNumberShippingDateDisposalFacilityReceiptDateGAM01Non-RCRA Waste Solid (POL Soil)Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)1,8778,0892993278-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99GAM02Hazardous Waste, Solid (Soil w/Lead)Waste Tars, LiquidHazardous Waste, Solid (Paint)Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Solid(Batteries)6014,4583786192992648-26-99Burlington EnvironmentalSeattle, Washington11-10-99GAM03Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)18,9962056768-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-10-99GAM04Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)18,3242055638-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-10-99GAM05Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)17,7492591768-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-15-99GAM06Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)15,5052592328-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-09-99GAM07Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)16,8302992728-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-10-99GAM08Hazardous Waste, Solid, D008 (leadcontaminated soil) (Soil also contains Dioxin)17,2632053268-26-99Chemical Waste ManageArlington, Oregon11-09-99GAM09Non-RCRA Waste Solid (POL Soil)15,7962015708-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-17-99Table 3 (Continued)Manifest Tracking LogDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, Alaska.0004,Contract No DACA85-97-D-0010Delivery Order NoManifestNumberWaste DescriptionWeightPoundsConnexNumberShippingDateDisposalFacilityReceiptDateGAM10Non-RCRA Waste Solid (POL Soil)7,4602992358-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99GAM1 1Non-RCRA Waste Solid (POL Soil)14,7412057848-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99GAM12Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)9,8652012168-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-16-99GAM13Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)9,0472057558-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99GAM14Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)12,0482012918-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-14-99GAM15Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)9,5441006858-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99GAM16Non-RCRA Waste Solid (Drums)12,8000247548-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-15-99GAM17Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)15,8802016228-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-16-99GAM18Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)6,4982991538-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-16-99GAM19Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)9,5312052558-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-12-99Table 3 (Continued)Manifest Tracking LogDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, AlaskaDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No DACA85-97-D-0010ManifestNumberWaste DescriptionWeightPoundsConnexNumberShippingDateDisposalFacilityReceiptDateGAM20Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)12,4601007168-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-12-99GAM21Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)8,7782610688-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-12-99GAM22Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)7,7252012788-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-16-99GAM23Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)11,7692014488-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-17-99GAM24Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)12,9802011538-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-12-99GAM25Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)6,2532990748-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-09-99GAM26Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)12,4652011248-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-17-99GAM27Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)12,1692590428-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-12-99GAM28Material Not Regulated byDOT (Scrap Metal)13,0162002568-26-99Rabanco RecyclingSeattle, Washington11-11-99Table 4Summary of Contractor Quality Control ReportsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Re ortDateTemp°FWindKnots17-6-9940 to 5015Offloaded equipment from barge and located Sites 2,3,8,10, 12, and 13 .27-7-9940 to 5015Set up field offices and continued reconnaissance for project sites .37-8-9940 to 5010Loose gravel on north beach and in village make these locations unsuitable forproject operating areas .47-9-9938 to 535Worked with local personnel to identify rental equipment for project support .57-10-9939 to 5515Located excavation area in Site 4 . Located debris in Sites 4 and 10 . Discoveredthat trails to these sites did not exist . Site 4 contains large boulders which preventvehicle access . Site 10 contains wet tundra which limits access to track-mountedvehicles .67-11-9940 to 51CalmContinued local investigation of local rental equipment .77-12-9940 to 50CalmDecided to set up work site at south beach due to stable gravel at this location .Requested Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Nome to provide locates forburied electrical cables supporting runway navigational aids .87-13-9939 to 48CalmLight rain and fog . Continued setting up work site on south beach . Front-endloader was stuck in loose gravel . Rented 966 dozer to free front-end loader .97-14-9943 to 483Light rain and fog . Hired three local workers . Unpacked and inspected tools .107-15-9946 to 48CalmRain . QAR and Project Manager arrived and inspected difficult travel conditions inSites 4 and Site 10 .117-16-9943 to 4815Collected and stockpiled metal debris at Site 8 . Contractor sent letter to FROidentifying differing conditions in Site 4 and Site 10 . Mechanic from Anchoragemade Nodwell repairs .127-17-9943 to 4833Nodwell placed in service . Live FAA power cable discovered in Site 8 near airportrunway . Work was terminated for 1,820 linear feet metal runway matting to avoidcontact with live cable .Significant Events and RemarksTable 4 (Continued)Summary of Contractor Quality Control ReportsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Re ortDateTemp°FWindKnots137-18-9943 to 4728Continued to stockpile metal debris in Site 8 . Set up scale for weighing debris .147-19-9943 to 4728Continued stockpiling and weighing metal debris in Site 8 . QAR suspended heavydebris removal, cutting and equipment operation near buried cable in Site 8 . FROapproved use of non-HAZMAT trained local workers for metal debris handling . Foursamples were collected for waste characterization .157-20-9947 to 5221Sunny . Removed HTW and stained soil from Site 12 . Collected sample for wastecharacterization .167-21-9943 to 4910Completed removal for Site 12 . Continued debris removal and weighing in Site 8 .177-22-9939 to 4725Light rain . Removed HTW and stained soil from Site 8 . Completed debris removalfrom Site 13 . Shipped two additional Argos to project site . QAR defined steepmountain slopes as "Off-Limit" for project activities .187-23-9945 to 4736Blowing rain . Removed drums from Site 6 . Completed debris from Sites 2 and 3 .Since metal debris was left in place in Site 8 to avoid contact with buried powercables, contractor was authorized to remove metal debris from the archeologicalarea located near the northern end of Site 8 .197-24-9942 to 4721Light rain . Started stained soil removal in Site 2 . QAR suspended soil removal atthis site because previous environmental investigation said it was an oil spill site .(This information was not included in the scope of work for Delivery Order No .0004 .) Identified route through Site 10 to work sites on mountain .207-25-9945 to 473Weighed and loaded stockpiled debris . CQC issued deficiency tracking report dueto placement of drums with petroleum odor in connex container and failure toremove tops from empty drums .Significant Events and RemarksTable 4 (Continued)Summary of Contractor Quality Control ReportsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Re ortDateTemp°FWindKnots217-26-9945 to 488Light rain and fog . Hired four additional local workers . Work continued foridentifying acceptable route to project sites on mountain top . 7-25-99 deficienciesfor connex containers were corrected .227-27-9945 to 488Light rain and fog . Established camp on mountain top . Since 4-wheel and 8-wheelATVS were causing damage to tundra, it was agreed to limit tundra traffic to trackmounted vehicles .237-28-9943 to 4720Light rain and fog . Removed debris from Site 5 . Stockpiled debris from Quonsethuts247-29-9944 to 4635Light rain and fog . Collected and stockpiled debris at Site 4, Areas 4A and 4B .257-30-9942 to 4617Light rain and fog . Hand digging started for removing 52 tons of contaminated soilfrom mountain top . Two additional Argos were mobilized to the job site .267-31-9944 to 4615Light rain and fog . Continued soil excavation at Site 4, Area 4B .278-01-9944 to 4715Light rain and fog . Continued soil excavation at Site 4 . Used 973 track loader tostage full connex containers for barge pickup .288-02-9944 to 4715Cloudy . Transported excavated soil to stagging area .298-03-9944 to 4725Rain . Weighed and loaded debris from Sites 4A and 4D . Terminated work onmountain due to poor weather conditions .308-04-9944 to 4735No work due to poor weather conditions .318-05-9946 to 4835Wind and rain . Transported, weighed and loaded HTW and contaminated soil .Located Navy cable .328-06-9946 to 4815Wind and rain . Continued removal, weighing and loading contaminated soil . QARruled that drums excavated by other contractors would not be included in scope ofwork for this delivery order . Archeological area debris in Site 8removed today .Significant Events and RemarksTable 4 (Continued)Summary of Contractor Quality Control ReportsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order No . 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Re ortDateTemp°FWindKnots338-07-9944 to 4615Cloudy . Continued removal, weighing and loading contaminated soil . Movedloaded connex containers to north beach . Sites 2, 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13 offered to QARfor final inspection .348-08-9946 to 4815Site 4 (mountain top) continues to experience heavy fog . Continued removal,weighing and loading contaminated soil . Collected 2 miles of Navy cable .358-09-9944 to 4431Heavy fog at mountain top . Continued removal, weighing and loading contaminatedsoil . Maintenance problems with Argos increasing .368-10-994416Light rain . Fog at mountain top . Hauled excavated soil down mountain to stagingarea for weighing . Moved loaded connex containers to north beach .378-11-9944 to 4615QAR inspected and approved Sites 2, 6, 7, 12, and 13 . Small debris needs to beremoved from Site 3 . Weighed contaminated soil .388-12-9941 to 4415Fog limited visibility and prevented plane with Resident Engineer from landing .Removed HTW and debris from archeological area in Site 8 . Completedcontaminated soil excavation . Picked up Navy cable .398-13-9944 to 4615Removed Navy shack . QAR issued final punch list for inspected sites .408-14-9944 to 4615Fog on mountain top . Confirmation samples collected . Site demobilization started .418-15-9944 to 4615Cleaned up staging areas .428-16-9944 to 4620Placed fertilizer and seed on tundra .438-17-9944 to 4610Completed fertilizing and seeding tundra . All site work completed . In response torequest from local workers and approval by local corporation, no silt fence wasinstalled .Significant Events and Remarks5 .0 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND LABORATORY RESULTS5 .1 Data Quality ObjectivesThe following data quality objectives (DQO) were established for this delivery order :•DQO -1 : Waste Characterization . Perform sufficient hazardous categorization to avoidconsolidating incompatible waste streams or mixing waste with different chemical orphysical characteristics .•DQO -2 : Obtain Data to Meet EPA Requirements for HTW Identification . Under Titles 40and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), a chemical description of thecontaminants must be provided before HTW can be : 1) transported over public highwaysor 2) accepted by an EPA-approved disposal facility . To satisfy this DQO, a separatecomposite sample will be collected from each site with stained soil and analyzed for TCLPmetals, semi-volatile organics, volatile organics, halogenated organics, petroleumhydrocarbons, pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, and reactivity . The analytical results will beused to prepare hazardous waste profiles which will be submitted to disposal facilities forwaste acceptance . The results will also be used to identify the proper EPA waste codesand shipping names from the Code of Federal Regulations .•DQO -3 : Identify PCB Level for Transformers . Under the Toxic Substance Control Act,PCBs at concentrations equal to or greater than 50 parts per million (ppm) are regulatedas PCB waste by the federal government . Under 18 AAC 75 .341, Method 2, the State ofAlaska regulates PCB contamination in soil when concentrations exceed 1 mg/kg insurface soil or 10 mg/kg in subsurface soil . For this DQO, discrete samples will becollected from liquids that are in the transformers . If the transformers are dry, wipe sampleswill be collected from the interior walls . The analytical results will be used to prepareprofiles which will be submitted to the disposal facilities for waste acceptance . They willalso be used to identify the proper EPA waste codes and shipping names from the Codeof Federal Regulations .DQO - 4 : Residual Contaminant Confirmation Sampling . To satisfy this DQO, samples willbe collected from contaminated soil and stained soil areas to identify residual contaminantlevels after the specified soil quantities are excavated .5 .2 Waste CharacterizationTo assure proper handling, each drum at the project site was inspected by experienced hazardouswaste technicians provided by OSCI and Philip Environmental Services (PES) . The objective wasto determine which drums : 1) required special handling to prevent spills during movement at theproject site and 2) could be consolidated for waste transportation and disposal .Approximately 460 drums were found . The drums at Sites 3 and 6 were empty and dry (containingno film or residue). Four drums at Site 4 were filled with gravel . Other drums at this location wereempty and dry . Nine drums at Site 8 were filled with solidified asphalt .30Site 10 contained wet tundra . Most of the drums at this location were punctured and standing in6 to 12 inches of clear water . An inspection revealed that the drums contained several inches oftundra water . This water quickly drained from the drums as they were removed from the tundra .At Site 12, five drums were filled with household trash . The other drums at this location wereempty .All empty drums were taken to a processing station and temporarily stored in a cell containing a20-millimeter (mm) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner . Following this, they were crushed,weighed, placed in connex containers (Photos 34 and 36) and shipped to Rabanco Recycling inSeattle, Washington, for disposal . (No liquid waste was generated by this process .)The drums containing asphalt were placed in overpack containers and shipped to BurlingtonEnvironmental as a hazardous waste . Trash from the Site 12 drums was placed in supersacks andshipped to Rabanco Recycling for disposal .5 .3 Samples for Waste Identification5 .3 .1 Soil SamplesSoil samples for waste identification were collected from the following locations :•Site 8 . Sample 99-GAM-001-SL was collected from a supersack filled with oil stained soilfrom Site 8 . As shown in Table 5, DRO and RRO levels for this soil were 2,380 and 13,500mg/kg, respectively . No PCBs were detected . Pesticides were 0 .0486 pg/L . As shown inTable 6, no TCLP metals were detected for this sample . (Sample locations are shown inFigures 3 through 8 .)•Site 12 . Samples 99-GAM -002-SL and 99-GAM-003-SL were collected from separate oilstained areas at Site 12 . Although both samples had relatively low DRO and RRO levels,Sample 99-GAM -003-SL contained TCLP lead at 1 ,450 mg / L (Table 6). In view of this, soilfrom stained areas that contained batteries was placed in separate supersacks and givena "D008" EPA waste code to identify the lead content .•Site 2 . Sample 99-GAM-004-SL was collected from an oil stained area at Site 2.Laboratory results (Table 5) revealed, that the GRO, DRO, RRO levels for this sample were309 mg/kg, 6,440 mg/kg and 388 mg/kg, respectively . No metals were detected in thissample .•Site 4 . Sample 99-GAM-005-SL (a composite sample) was collected from thecontaminated soil at Site 4/Area 4B . Based on analytical results, this area contained DROand RRO at 469 mg/kg and 2,110 mg/kg (Table 5), respectively . As shown in Table 7,dioxin levels for this sample ranged from 3 .1 to 1,880 parts per trillion (ppt) . The TCLP leadfor this sample was 11 .7 mg/L . Since this exceeds the 5 mg/L regulatory threshold for leadin 40 CFR 261 .30, the soil excavated from Site 4 was given a "D008" EPA waste code toidentify it as a lead contaminated waste .31Table 5Waste Identification Sample Results Summary for OrganicsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, Alaska(mg/kg)MaximumVOAEPA 8260m /LMaximumSVOAEPA 8270m /LMaximumPCBEPA 8082/LMaximumPesticideEPA 8081A/LMaximumHerbicideEPA 8150m /LGROAK101DROAK102RROAK103ite(mg/kg)(mg/kg)SampleIdentificationDateo.199-GAM-001-SL7/19/998U (1 .95)2 ,38013, 500U (0 .10 - 0 .50)U (0 .017)U (0 .179)0 .0486U (0 .010)299-GAM-002-SL7/19/99129 .55140230U (0 .10 - 0 .50)U (0 .018)U (0 .190)U (0 .0190 - 1 .90)U (0 .010)399-GAM-003-SL7/19/9912U (2 .75)47 .2136U (0 .10 - 0 .50)U (0 .015)U (0 .151)U (0 .151 - 1 .51)U ((0 .010)499-GAM-004-SL7/19/9923096 ,440388U (0 .10 - 0 .50)U (0 .014)U (0 .105)U (0 .0105 - 1 .05)U (0 .010)599-GAM-005-SL7/19/994/4B3 .734692 ,110U (0 .10 - 0 .50)U (0 .022)U (0 .279)U (0 .0279 - 2 .79)U (0 .010)699-GAM-006-W7/28/994NRNRNRNRNRU (1 .00)NRNR799-GAM-007-W7/28/994NRNRNRNRNRU (1 .00)NRNR899-GAM-008-W7/28/994NRNRNRNRNRU (1 .00)NRNRRegulatory Limit - 18 AAC 75 .341, Method 230025011,000Notes :3 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .4 . mg/L means milligrams per liter .5 . pg/L means micrograms per liter .6 . "NR" means no analyses performed by the laboratory .7 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is thelaboratory detection limit .."W"means the sample was a wipe sample .8.Laboratorydata reports are provided in Appendix F .7.Numbersprintedin boldface exceed regulatory limits .89 . TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed forVOA, SVOA, PCB, Pesticides and Herbicides .10 . See Table 5A in Appendix E for VOA analyte results .11 . See Table 5B in Appendix E for SVOA analyte results .12 . See Table 5C in Appendix E for PCB analyte results .13 . See Table 5D in Appendix E for pesticides analyte results .14 . See Table 5E in Appendix E for herbicides analyte results .15 . Sample 99 - GAM-005-SL is a composite sample . Othersamples are discrete samples .Table 6Waste Identification Sample Results for TCLP MetalsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaBariumEPA 6010m /LCadmiumEPA 6010m /LChromiumEPA 6010m /LLeadEPA 6010m /LMercuryEPA 7470m /LSeleniumEPA 7740m /LSilverEPA 7760m /LNo .IdentificationDateSiteArsenicEPA 7060m /L199-GAM-001-SL7/19/998U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)U (0 .200)U (0 .100)U (1 .00)U (0 .00200)U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)299-GAM-002-SL7/19/99120 .1922 .12U (0 .200)0 .145U (1 .00)U (0 .00200)U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)399-GAM-003-SL7/19/99120 .5520 .279U (0 .200)U (0 .100)1,450U (0 .00200)U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)499-GAM-004-SL7/19/992U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)U (0 .200)U (0 .100)U (1 .00)U (0 .00200)U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)599-GAM-005-SL7/19/994/4BU (0 .00500)7 .550 .211U (0 .100)11 .7U (0 .00200)U (0 .00500)U (0 .100)5 .0100 .01 .05 .05 .00 .21 .05 .0SampleRegulatory Limit - 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1Notes :1 . mg/L means milligrams per liter .2. "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3. Laboratory data reports are provided in Appendix F .4. TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for TCLP metals .5 . Numbers printed in boldface exceed regulatory limits .Table 7Waste Identification Results for DioxinDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaAnal tesSample 99-GAM-005-SLEPA 8290t2,3,7,8-TODD3 .11,2,3,7,8-PeCDD18 .01,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD23 .71,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD53 .71,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD81 .01,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD4901,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD12502,3,7,8-TCDF2721,2,3,7,8-PeCDF53 .22,3,4,7,8-PeCDF1431,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF5391,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF1522,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF3671,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF8 .31,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF11201,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF72 .71,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF614Total TODD146Total PeCDD374Total HxCDD700Total HpCDD1090Total TCDF1350Total PeCDF1800Total HxCDF1880Total HpCDF1560Notes :1 . ppt = parts per trillion .2 . Sample collected 6 inches below surface at Site 4/4B .3 . Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix D .4. Sample 99-GAM-005-SL is a composite sample .34Figure 3 : Site - Sample Collection Locations35Figure 4 : Site - Sample Collection Locations36Figure 5: Site - Sample Collection Locations37Notes :1 . See Figure 2 for Site 4/Area 4B location .2 . Excavation is 22 inches to 24 inches deep .3 . Excavation was not backfilled per governmentinstructions .4 . Sample 99-GAM-005- SL was a pre - excavationcomposite sample collected from soil 6 inchesbelow the surface of the excavation area .5 . Other samples are post excavation samplescollected 6 inches below excavation bottom .6 . See Photo 22 for picture of excavation area .7 . Excavation is surrounded by large boulders .Sample Point99-GAM-024-SLExcavationExcavation BoundarySample Point13' 99-GAM-025-SLVAXSample Points99 ..GAM-020-SL99-GAM-021-SL99-GAM-022-SLf18'29'Sample Point99-GAM-023-SL15'36 .6'Sevuokuk MountainDrawing Not to Scale(DCP 2-9-01)Figure 6 1 Site 4/Area 4B - Sample Collection LocationsTrail to Site 10Notes :1 . Samples were collected 6 inches belowthe surface after soil stains were removed .2 . See Photo 13 for picture of Site 4/Area 4A .Sevuokuk Mountain3. See Figure 2 for Site 4/Area 4A location .99-GAM-018-SL2 8'Quonset HutFootprint410'20'VDrawing Not to Scale(DCP 2-9-01)Figure 7Site 4/Area 4A - Sample Collection LocationsSevuokuk Mountain--------------Sample Point99-GAM-026-SL~If ,SchoolABoundary for FormerDrum Stockpile at Site 61 . Samples was collected 6 inches belowgravel surface after drums were removed .Wind Fence2 . See Figure 2 for Site 6 location .3 . See Photos 25 and 26 for pictures of Site 6 .HousesDrawing Not to Scale(DCP 2-9-01)Figure 8Site 6 - Sample Collection Location5.3 .2 Transformer Wipe SamplesThree empty transformers were found at Site 4/Area 4D . A separate wipe sample (99-GAM-006W, 99-GAM-007-W, and 99-GAM-008-W in Table 5) was collected from the internal walls of eachtransformer . No PCBs were detected .5.3 .3 Waste Shipping Names and Regulatory CodesTo ensure proper waste identification and coding under Titles 40 and 49 of the Code of FederalRegulations, laboratory results (Appendix F) for the soil and wipe samples were sent to PES forreview . PES worked with Burlington Environmental and Chemical Waste Management of theNorthwest to determine the shipping names for the project waste . PES also prepared themanifests and shipping labels for all regulated waste shipped from Gambell, Alaska, togovernment-approved disposal sites . Copies of the manifests and laboratory analyses areprovided in Appendices C and F, respectively .5.3 .4 Items Not Requiring SamplesLaboratory analyses were not required for the asphalt from Site 8, batteries from Site 12 anddried paint from Site 12 . Burlington Environmental agreed to accept these waste streams basedon verbal information provided by PES personnel at the project site .5.4 Confirmation SamplesAfter completing soil excavation, confirmation samples were collected at following locations :•Site 12 . Workers used shovels to excavate 7,237 pounds of stained soil from Site 12 .Afterward , Samples 99 -GAM-009-SL, 99-GAM -010-SL and 99-GAM -011-SL werecollected . Analytical results showed that the DRO levels for these samples ranged from20 .5 mg /kg to 463 mg/kg (Table 8). RRO levels ranged from 98 .3 mg /kg to 1 ,890 mg/kg(Table 8) .As shown in Table 9 , total lead and total cadmium for Sample 99-GAM -009-SL were 562mg/kg and 142 mg/kg , respectively . This exceeds the 400 mg/kg limit for total lead andthe 5 mg /kg limit for cadmium established by 18 AAC 75.341 , Method 2 .The arsenic level for Sample 99-GAM-009-SL was 3 .06 mg/kg . It was 3 .64 mg/kg and6.02 mg/kg for Samples 99-GAM-010-SL and 99-GAM-011-SL, respectively . Bycomparison, the regulatory limit for arsenic is 2 mg/kg under 18 AAC 75 .341, Method 2 .•Site 8 . Samples 99-GAM-012-SL and 99-GAM-013-SL were collected after removing4,790 pounds of stained soil from Site 8 . DRO levels for these samples ranged from nondetect to 30 .0 mg/kg (Table 8) . RRO levels ranged from 15 .6 mg/kg to 70 .9 mg/kg .Most of the metal debris, HTW and soil removed from Gambell, Alaska, was weighed atSite 8 . Sample 99-GAM-013-SL was collected to confirm residual contaminant levels inthe soil at the weighing station . GRO was not detected for this sample . DRO and RROwere 30 .0 mg/kg and 70 .9 mg/kg (Table 8), respectively . Under Method 2 for Alaska'sOil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Regulations, 250 mg/kg is the state's41Table 8Confirmation Sample Results Summary for OrganicsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, Alaskao.1234567891011121314151617181920SampleIdentification99-GAM-009-SL99-GAM-010-SL99-GAM-011-SL99-GAM-012-SL99-GAM-013-SL99-GAM-014-SL99-GAM-015-SL99-GAM-016-SL99-GAM-017-SL99-GAM-018-SL99-GAM-019-SL99-GAM-020-SL99-GAM-021-SL99-GAM-022-SL99-GAM-023-SL99-GAM-024-SL99-GAM-025-SL99-GAM-026-SL99-GAM-027-SL99-GAM-028-SLGROAK101DROAK102RROAK103ateite(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)8/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/99121288U (3 .43)U (2 .19)U (1 .86)U (1 .79)U (1 .90)U (2 .99)U (2 .95)U (1 .7)U (1 .88)U (2 .66)U (2 .85)46340720 .5U (9 .06)30 .084 .068 .87215 .31,31077813,9001 ,7208/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/998/14/99Regulatory Limit, 18 AAC 75 .341,Method 284A4A4A4A4A4A4B4B4B4B4B4B6MFBMTB34 .934 .7NRU (2 .68)U (2 .17)U (2 .05)U (1 .36)12 .6U (0 .0900)30013,700NR643U (10 .2)24 .8U (9.35)NRNR-F1,89098 .315 .670 .959230327047 .7930450905984NR187MaximumSVOAEPA 8270(mg/kg)MaximumPCBEPA 8082m /kMaximumPesticideEPA 8081Am /kU (0 .034 - 0 .34)U (0 .022 - 0 .22)U (0 .019 - 0 .19)U (0 .018 - 0 .18)U (0 .019 - 0 .19)U (0 .030 - 0 .30)U (0 .030 - 0 .30)U (0 .015 - 0.160)U (0 .019 - 0 .19)1 .20U (0 .029 - 0 .29)0 .3820 .371U (11 - 56)U (0 .35 - 1 .8)U (0 .35 - 1 .8)U (0 .32 - 1 .6)U (9 .1 - 46)U (9 .0 - 46)U (9 .0 - 46)U (0 .370 - 1 .700)U (0 .34 - 1 .7)25 .2U (8 .4 -43)U (9 .4 - 48)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0365)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00329)0 .03170 .0111U (0 .0022 - 0 .0089)U (0 .00325)U (0 .349)U (0.0314)U (0.0390)U (0 .0386)NRU (0 .00343)U (0 .00317)0 .09210 .04380 .000950 .0332U (0 .000329 - 0 .0329)U (0 .00507 - 0 .507)U (0 .00177 - 0 .0177)U (0 .00020 - 0 .0030)0 .000358U (0 .697 - 69 .7)U (0 .0110 - 1 .10)U (0 .0117 - 1 .17)U (0 .0116 - 1 .16)NRU (0.00171 - 0 .171)U (0 .000317 - 0 .317)U (0 .00341)U (0 .00326)NRNRU (0.000341 - 0 .0341)U (0 .000326 - 0 .0326)NRNRNR0.1640 .141U (0.020 - 0 .20)0 .101.0262- 0 .262)U (0U (0 .00100 - 0 .0100 mg/L)22 .050 .125 .6NRNR250 11,000Notes :1 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2 . mg/L means milligrams per liter .3 . "NR" means no analyses performed by the laboratory .4 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis islaboratory detection limit ..Laboratorydata reports are provided in Appendix F .5MaximumVOAEPA 8260(mg/kg)U (3 .5 -18)NR0 .384U (0 .31 - 1 .6)U (0 .33 - 1 .7)U (0 .31 - 1 .6)NRNR1Numbers printed in boldface exceed regulatory limits .7 . See Table 6A in Appendix E for VOA analyte results .8 . See Table 6B in Appendix E for SVOA analyte results .9 . See Table 6C in Appendix E for PCB analyte results .10 . See Table 6D in Appendix E for pesticides analyte results .6.Table 9Confirmation Samples for 8-RCRA MetalsDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaBariumEPA 6010(mg/kg)CadmiumEPA 6010(mg/kg)ChromiumEPA 6010m /kLeadEPA 6010m /kMercuryEPA 7470(mg/kg)SeleniumEPA 7740(mg/kg)SilverEPA 7760(mg/kg)No .SampleIdentificationDateSiteArsenicEPA 7060(mg/kg)199-GAM-009-SL8/14/99123.0616914216 .65620 .6220 .7020 .114299-GAM-010-SL8/14/99123.6419 .90 .1392 .5912 .4U (0.0143)U (0 .231)U (0 .0462)399-GAM-011-SL8/14/9986.0216 .80 .18220 .056 .0U (0.0146)0 .546U (0 .0444)499-GAM-012-SL8/14/9983.913 .59U (0 .0205)1 .393 .89U (0 .00867)U (0 .205)U (0 .0410)599-GAM-013-SL8/14/9983 .6012.70 .01963 .6214 .3U (0 .00676)U (0 .192)U (0 .0384)699-GAM-014-SL (1)8/14/994A1 .7557.30 .65913 .22120 .101U (0 .439)1 .62799-GAM-015-SL (1)8/14/994A1 .6066.71 .5723 .93110 .1150 .4020 .169899-GAM-016-SL (1)8/14/994A8 .357 .0U (0 .12)24 .71970 .121 .3U (0 .23)999-GAM-017-SL8/14/994A3 .1310 .00 .06995 .526 .43U (0 .00873)U (0 .200)U (0 .0400)1099 -GAM-018-SL8/14/994A3 .0118 .60 .29042244 .30 .04450 .4880 .4401199-GAM-019-SL8/14/994A4.2216 .81 .9131135 .10 .01730 .6680 .07671299-GAM-026-SL8/14/9965 .305 .95U (0 .0202)1 .333 .47U (0 .0109)U (0 .202)0 .041921,1005264001 .43 .521ADEC Regulatory Limit - 18 AAC 75 .341,Table B1, Method 2Notes : 1 . Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL, and 99-GAM-016-SL are parts of a triplicate sample where 99-GAM-014 is the project sample,99-GAM-015-SL is the quality control sample, and 99-GAM-016-SL is the quality assurance sample .2 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .3. "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .4 . Laboratory data reports are provided in Appendix F .5 . Numbers printed in boldface exceeds regulatory limits .limit for DRO . The regulated threshold for RRO is 11,000 mg/kg . In view of this, Sample99-GAM-013-SL confirms that no significant petroleum contamination resulted from debrisand waste handling at the project weighing station .For Samples 99-GAM-012-SL and 99-GAM-013-SL, arsenic was the only metal thatexceeded the ADEC cleanup action levels cited in 18 AAC75 .341, Method 2 . As shownin Table 9, the arsenic levels for these samples ranged from 3 .60 mg/kg to 3 .91 mg/kg .•Site 4/Area 4A . About 1,877 pounds of stained soil were removed from Site 4, Area 4A .When this was completed, Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL, 99-GAM-016-SL,99-GAM-017-SL, 99-GAM-018-SL, and 99-GAM-019-SL were collected to confirmresidual contaminant levels .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL, and 99-GAM-016-SL are parts of a triplicatesample . Samples 99-GAM-016-SL was the quality assurance 1 sample . It was analyzedby Quanterra Environmental Services . The other samples were analyzed by C .T. & E .Environmental Services .GRO was not detected in any of the samples . DRO ranged from 15 .3 mg/kg to 1,310mg/kg (Table 8) . RRO levels ranged from 47 .7 mg/kg to 930 mg/kg (Table 8) .Total chromium for Samples 99-GAM-018-SL and 99-GAM-019-SL was 422 mg/kg and311 mg/kg, respectively . This exceeds ADEC's 26 mg/kg cleanup threshold for totalchromium . Samples 99-GAM-016-SL, 99-GAM-017-SL, 99-GAM-018-SL, and 99-GAM019-SL had arsenic levels above ADEC's 2 mg/kg limit .•Site 4/Area 4B . Nearly, 52 tons of contaminated soil was excavated at Site 4/Area 4B .Samples 99-GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021-SL, 99-GAM-022-SL, 99-GAM-023-SL, 99-GAM024-SL, and 99-GAM-025-SL were collected to identify residual contaminant levels in theexcavated area .Samples 99 -GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021-SL, and 99-GAM -022-SL are parts of a triplicatesample . Samples 99 -GAM-022-SL was the quality assurance sample . It was analyzedby Quanterra Environmental Services . The other samples were analyzed by C .T. & E .Environmental Services .GRO was not detected in any of the samples . DRO levels ranged from non-detectableto 13,900 mg/kg (Table 8) . Other analytes detected in the post excavation samples forSite 4/Area 4B were below regulatory thresholds established by the state and EPA .Residual dioxins at this site varied from non-detect to 1,250 ppt (Table 11) .•Site 6 . This site contained 7,897 pounds of empty drums and 1,748 pounds of metaldebris . After removing these items, Sample 99-GAM-026-SL was collected to determineif the soil was contaminated . Laboratory results revealed that GRO and DRO were notpresent . RRO was detected at 25 .6 mg/kg (Table 8) . Total arsenic was 5.3 mg/kg (Table9).44Table 10Metal Results for Site 4/Area 4B SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaSiteAntimonyEPA 7041(mg/kg)ArsenicEPA 7060m /kCadmiumEPA 7131(mg/kg)CopperEPA 6010B(mg/kg)LeadEPA 7421(mg/kg)8/14/994/4BU (0 .216)0 .9780 .096563 .916 .199-GAM-021-SL (1)8/14/994/4BU (0 .206)0 .6420 .092733 .222 .2399-GAM-022-SL (1)8/14/994/4BU (0 .50)1 .1U (0 .13)65 .736 .5499-GAM-023-SL8/14/994/4B3 .341 .571 .806,940396599-GAM-024-SL8/14/994/4BU (0 .211)1 .090 .03757 .325 .64699-GAM-025-SL8/14/994/4BU (0 .204)0 .6040 .12949 .39 .0225No .SampleIdentificationDate199-GAM-020-SL (1)2ADEC Regulatory Limit, 18 AAC 75 .341,Table B1, Method 2Notes :1 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .4002. "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3. "SL" means the sample matrix was soil .4. Laboratory data reports are provided in Appendix F .45Table 11Confirmation Sample Results for Dioxin by EPA Method 8290Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaSample No .99-GAM-020-SLtSample No .99-GAM-021-SLtSample No .99-GAM-022-SLtSample No.99-GAM-023-SLtSample No .99-GAM-024-SLtSample No .99-GAM-025-SLt2,3,7,8-TCDDU (0 .8)U (0 .6)0 .60 JU (1 .0)U (1 .0)U (0 .7)1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD2 .6 J2 .2 JU (2 .2)3 .3 JU (1 .4)U (0 .8)1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD3 .8 J3 .0 J3 .3 J2 .9 JU (1 .0)U (0 .6)1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD14 .18 .9125 .8U (0 .9)U (0 .6)1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD10 .98 .25 .1 J8 .7U (0 .9)U (0 .6)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD266151250 B46 .39 .9 B1 .3 JB1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD1,2508001100 B18052 .49 .7 JB2,3,7,8-TCDF3 .5 B4 .1 B1 .2 CON44 .24 .8 BU (0 .7)1,2,3,7,8-PeCDFU (0 .6)0 .97 J EMPCU (1 .6)6 .9 EMPCU (0 .9)U (0 .6)2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF1 .2 J1 .7 JU (1 .5)16 .62 .5 J EMPCU (0 .7)1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF4 .3 J4 .6 JU (2 .9)50 .38 .61 .2 J1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF1 .7 J1 .8 JU (2 .1)14 .02 .2 JU (0 .4)2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF2 .9 J2 .9 JU (1 .8)29 .16 .7U (0 .5)1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDFU (0 .6)U (0 .5)U (0 .18)U (0 .8)U (0 .9)U (0 .5)1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF10774 .19683 .417 .62 .4 JB1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF6 .54 .8 J5 .0 J7 .92 .1 JU (0 .7)1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF59643657058 .115 .41 .9 J EMPCTotal TCDD1 .71 .57 .617 .1U (1 .0)U (0 .7)Total PeCDD24 .319 .1U (4 .5)45 .1U (1 .4)U (0 .8)Total HxCDD97 .967 .16873 .26 .6U (0 .6)Total HpCDD46126343091 .221 .82 .3Total TCDF24 .926 .7472147 .5U (0 .7)Total PeCDF8 .612 .81116611 .1U (0 .6)Total HxCDF85 .559 .46115726 .02 .1Total HpCDF52636247014132 .94 .1AnalytesNotes :1.2.3.4."U" means not detected .Detection limit in parenthesis .J means estimated .B = Method blank contamination .5 . EMPC is estimated maximum .6 . ppt = parts per trillion .7 . CON is confirmation analysis .465 .5 Procedures for Sample CollectionWaste characterization samples were obtained from soil 6 inches below the surface in areascontaining stains . Confirmation samples were collected from soil 6 inches below the surfacein areas where excavation was performed to remove stains or contamination from a locationthat contained HTW.At each sample point, a clean metal spoon was used to dig a hole 8 inches deep . Followingthis, a plastic spoon was used to take soil from the sides of the hole (6 inches below thesurface ) and place it into sample jars provided by the project laboratory .At each sample point, soil for the GRO and volatile organic analyses (VOA) samples wasplaced in the same 4 ounce glass sample jar (with a septa lid) . After putting 25 mg of soil inthe jar, 25 ml of methanol were added . Next, the sample jar was capped and put in a Ziplocplastic bag which had the sample identification number and required analytical results writtenon it . (No labels were placed on the jar since its weight was pre-measured by the laboratory .)Based on instructions from the project laboratory (C.T . & E . Environmental Services ), soil forDRO, RRO, semi-volatile organic analysis (SVOA), metals , PCBs , herbicides and pesticideswere placed in the same 8-ounce glass sample jar . Each jar contained a typed label identifyingthe required analysis and analytical method . The date and time were written on the labelsimmediately after the sample was collected . Following this , the sample was logged on a chainof custody form and placed in an ice chest containing blue ice (Photos 53 and 54 ). A separate8-ounce glass jar was used for the dioxin sample .The following steps were used to collect triplicate samples :•GRO and VOA Samples . A plastic spoon was used to place 25 mg of soil (each) fromthe designated sample point in three 4-oz . sample bottles (with septa lids) . Immediatelyfollowing this, 25 ml of methanol was poured over the soil in each jar . Afterward, thejars were closed and put in separate Ziploc plastic bags which had the sampleidentification number and the required analytical results written on them .•DRO RRO SVOA PCB Metals Herbicides and Pesticides Samples . Plastic spoonswere used to partly fill a large Ziploc plastic bag with soil from the designated samplepoint . After the bag was sealed and shaken to mix the soil, new plastic spoons wereused to remove the soil from the bag and place it in three 8-ounce pre-labeled samplejars . No preservatives were added to the sample jars .•Dioxin Sample . Plastic spoons were used to partly fill a large Ziploc plastic bag with soilfrom the designated sample point . After the bag was sealed and shaken to mix the soil,new plastic spoons were used to remove the soil from the bag and place it in three 8ounce pre-labeled sample jars . No preservatives were added to the sample jars .All samples were logged on a chain of custody form and stored in coolers containing blue ice .Wooden stakes were placed in the ground to mark the sample point locations . Laboratory datareports for the soil samples are provided in Appendix F .475 .6 Personnel Collecting SamplesAll samples were collected , labeled, packaged and shipped to the project laboratory by Mr .Randy Easley. He holds a degree in Chemical Engineering and is recognized as a "QualifiedPerson" for sample collection by ADEC .Mr . David Rein was the Contractor Quality Control System Manager for this project . He waspresent during sample collection .5 .7 Sample ShipmentSealed coolers containing the project samples were air freighted from Gambell to Anchorage .In Anchorage , project and quality control samples were delivered to C.T .& E . by Mr. Easley .The quality assurance samples were delivered to Quanterra per instructions from the FairbanksResident Office . Both C .T. & E . and Quanterra used Triangle Laboratories , Inc . in Durham,North Carolina for dioxin analysis .5 .8 Chemical Data Quality ReviewUnder a separate contract issued by the USAEDA, analytical data for Samples 99-GAM-009SL through 99-GAM-028-SL was evaluated by Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc . (LDC) locatedin Carlsbad, California . A complete copy of LDC's evaluation is provided in Appendix I of thisreport .During this project, two triplicate samples were collected for quality control (QC) and qualityassurance (QA) . The components for these samples were :TriplicateSampleProject SampleQC SampleQA Sample199-GAM-014-SL99-GAM-015-SL99-GAM-016-SL299-GAM-020-SL99-GAM-021-SL99-GAM-022-SLThe quality assurance samples were analyzed by Quanterra Environmental Services andreferred to as Sample Delivery Group (SDG) 064096 in LDC's report . The other samples wereanalyzed by C .T. & E . Environmental and identified as SDG 994255 in LDC's report .LDC's chemical data evaluation is summarized as follows :•Sample Custody and Preservation . All samples were properly preserved and deliveredto the laboratories with chain-of-custody forms . The forms were signed and date .Sample temperatures ranged from 2 .2 to 5 .3 °C .•Holding Times . All samples were analyzed within the required holding times .•GC/MS Instrument Performance Checks . For EPA Method 8260B (VOA analysis),differences in the initial and continuing instrument calibrations exceeded QC limits for2-butanone and 2-chloroethylvinyl ether for both samples in the SDG 064096 and48chloroethane for Sample 99-GAM-028-SL in SDG 994255 . In view of this, the resultsfor these analytes for these samples are qualified as estimates .For EPA Method 8270 (SVOA analysis), differences in the initial and continuinginstrument calibration exceeded QC limits for N-nitrosodimethylamine for SDG 064096 .These samples are also qualified as estimates .•Method Blanks . Methylene chloride was detected in the method blanks associated withSamples 99 GAM-009 through 99-GAM-019-SL and Samples 99-GAM-026 through 99GAM-028-SL . Bomomethane was detected in the method blank associated withSample 99-GAM-028-SL .DRO was detected in the method blank associated with the samples in SDG 994255 .Cadmium and lead were detected in the preparation blanks for Samples 99 -GAM-009SL, 99-GAM-010-SL, 99-GAM-011-SL, 99-GAM-012-SL, and 99-GAM-013-SL . Bariumand Chromium was detected in the preparation blanks for Samples 99 -GAM-014-SL,99-GAM-015-SL, 99-GAM-017-SL, 99-GAM-018-SL, 99-GAM-019-SL, and 99-GAM026-SL .Dioxin (EPA Method 8290) compounds were found in the blanks for all samples in SDG064096 and 994255 .•Surrogate Recoveries . Bromofluorobenzene surrogate recoveries exceeded QC limitsfor Samples 99-GAM-009-SL, 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL and 99-GAM-016-SLunder EPA Method 8260B . Therefore, the VOA results for these samples are qualifiedas estimates .Under EPA Method 8082 (PCB), the decahlorobiphenyl surrogate recovery levelexceeded QC limits for Sample 99-GAM-009-SL . All PCB results for this sample arequalified as estimates .For GRO analysis by AK101, low 4-bromofluorobenzene surrogate recoveries werereported for Samples 99-GAM-009-SL, 99-GAM-011-SL, 99-GAM-014-SL, and 99GAM-015-SL, and 99-GAM-016-SL . As a result the GRO values reported for thesesamples are qualified as estimates .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-016-SL, 99-GAM-019-SL, and 99-GAM-026-SLexperienced high surrogate recovery levels under AK102 . As a result, the DRO valuesfor these samples were qualified as estimates . The DRO surrogates were diluted outfor Samples 99-GAM-009-SL, 99-GAM-010-SL, and 99-GAM-018-SL . No dataqualifications were made for high surrogate recoveries based on the diluted sampleresults .•Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSD) . MS/MSD were not run for EPAMethods 82608, 8270, 8081, 8082 and 8290 . MS/MSD were not performed for AK 101,AK102 and AK103 .49•Laboratory Control Samples and Laboratory Control Sample Duplicates (LCS/LCSD) .Both laboratories ran LCS/ LCSD to assess precision and accuracy . Under EPA Method8260B , high LCS and LCSD recoveries were obtained for methylene chloride forSample 99-GAM -028-SL . Therefore , detected methylene chloride results for thissample are deemed to be estimates.Under EPA Method 8270, LCS and LCSD recoveries were outside the QC limits for3,3'-dichlorobenzidine, butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, pyridine, anddi-n-octylphthalate for all samples in SDG 994255 . Consequently, reported results forthese compounds are qualified as estimates .The LCS and LCSD recoveries for EPA Method 8082 were outside the QC limits forendosulfan sulfate . Therefore, detectable results under this method are qualified asestimates .•Internal Standard Recoveries (ISR) . Samples 99-GAM-021-SL and 99-GAM-023-SLhad high ISR for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD under EPA Method 8290 . As a result, reportedvalues for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD and total HpCDD are qualified as estimates .•Triplicate Sample 1 . GRO, VOA, SVOA, pesticides , and herbicides were not detectedin the components for this triplicate sample (99-GAM-014-SL , 99-GAM-015-SL and 99GAM-016-SL) . PCBs were not detected in Sample 99 -GAM-014-SL . Samples 99GAM-015-SL and 99-GAM-016-SL contained PCBs at 0 .0317 mg/kg and 0 .0111 mg/kg,respectively . This low degree of variability for the PCB results was deemed to betechnically acceptable by LDC .Detected DRO levels for the components of this triplicate sample ranges from 68 .8mg/kg to 84 mg/kg . RRO levels ranged from 270 mg/kg to 592 mg/kg . Hence, thecomparability for DRO results and RRO results for the triplicate sample componentswere viewed as technically acceptable by LDC .Except for the following analytes, components for Triplicate Sample 1 had acceptablecomparability for total metal results :AnalyteSample99-GAM-014-SL(mg/kg)Sample99-GAM-015-SL(mg/kg)Sample99-GAM-016-SL(mg/kg)Arsenic1 .751 .608 .3Cadmium0.6591 .57U(1 .2)SeleniumU(0.127)0.402U(1 .2)Silver1 .620 .169U(2.3)Sample homogeneity or subsampling in the laboratories may account for the variabilityin the sample results for these analytes .50Triplicate Sample 2 . This triplicate sample was collected from Site4/Area 4B at theproject site and included Samples 99-GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021 -SL and 99-GAM-022SL . Under Modification 04P4 issued by USAEDA, the required analyses forconfirmation samples from this area were limited to dioxin, antimony, arsenic, cadmium,copper and lead .Antimony was not detected in the Triplicate Sample 2 . Comparability for the othermetals is as follows :AnalyteSample99-GAM-020-SL(mg/kg)Sample99-GAM-021-SL(mg/kg)Sample99-GAM-022-SL(mg/kg)Arsenic0.9870.6421 .1Cadmium0.09650 .0927U(0 .63)Copper63.933 .265.7Lead16.122.236.5Sample homogeneity or subsampling in the laboratories may account for the variabilityin the sample results for these analytes .LDC's chemical data evaluation revealed acceptable comparability for all but thefollowing dioxin analytes for Triplicate Sample 2 :AnalyteSample99-GAM-020-SLtSample99-GAM-021-SLtSample99-GAM-022-SLtTotal TCDD1 .71 .57 .6Total PeCDD24.319.1U(4.5)Again, sample homogeneity or subsampling in the laboratories may account for thevariability in the sample results for these analytes .Overall, LDC concluded that the chemical data for the confirmation samples are acceptablewith the limitations noted in its report .516.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6 .1 Waste Shipped and ReceivedIn accordance with the scope of work for Delivery Order 0004 under Contract No . DACA85-97D-0010, OSCI removed the following debris, HTW and soil from Gambell :OriginalQuantityPoundsQuantityRemovedPoundsDebris127 , 255142,324Rabanco RecyclingSeattle , WashingtonHTW16, 14053 ,738Burlington EnvironmentalWasteCategoryDisposal Facilities/LocationsSeattle , WashingtonRabanco RecyclingSeattle, WashingtonStained Soil40,00039 ,889Rabanco RecyclingSeattle , WashingtonContaminatedSoil104,000103,885Chemical Waste Managementof the NorthwestArlington, OregonAll waste departed Alaska under manifests signed by the government . After the waste arrivedat the designated disposal facilities during November 1999, the manifests were signed by adisposal facility representative and copies were mailed to the government at : "US ArmyEngineering District AK CEPOA-CO-FR (Gambell), P .O . Box 35066, Ft . Wainwright, Alaska99703-0066 ."6 .2 Contaminant ReductionBy removing 103,885 pounds of soil from Site 4/Area 4B, petroleum contaminate levelschanged as follows :GROAK101(mg/kg)DROAK102(mg/kg)RROAK103(mg/kg)Pre-ExcavationComposite Sample3.734692,100Maximum Level for PostExcavation Discrete Sample34.913,900984Regulatory Limit18 AAC 75 .341, Method 230025011,000Sample/Regulatory Limit52Based on laboratory results , the residual DRO level in Site 4 /Area 4B is above the 250 mg/kgregulatory limit established by ADEC Method 2 . As shown in Table 10 , post excavation metalconcentrations at this location are below regulatory levels .Confirmation samples for this project reveal that following analytes at Site 12 exceededregulatory limits :Regulatory Limit18 AAC 75 .341 , Method 2(mg/kg)Maximum DetectedResidual Level(mg/kg)DRO250463Arsenic23 .64Cadmium5142Lead400562Analytes(Site 12At Site 4/Area 4A, the following analytes are above regulatory limits :Regulatory Limit18 AAC 75 .341, Method 2(mg/kg)Maximum DetectedResidual Levelm /kDRO2501,310Arsenic28.3Chromium26422Analytes(Site 4/ Area 4AArsenic at 5 .3 mg/kg was the only analyte at Site 6 that exceeded regulatory limits . Thearsenic level at Site 8 (6 .02 mg/kg) was also above the state's 2 mg/kg limit .Pre-excavation and post excavation dioxin levels for Site 4/Area 4B are listed in Table 12 . Thevalues in the "Maximum Detected Residual Level Column" are the maximum analyteconcentrations for the confirmation samples listed in Table 11 . By removing 52 tons of soilfrom Site 4/Area 4B, the average reduction for the dioxin analytes was 77 .7 percent .6 .3 Work LimitationsThe original scope of work for this delivery order required OSCI to remove 115,000 poundsmetal matting on the east and west sides of the paved airport runway at Gambell, Alaska .While performing this work, energized electrical cables connecting the runway lights to a powersource were discovered on the east side of the runway . To avoid safety problems, thegovernment terminated work in areas where the cables were observed .Although 108,090 pounds of metal debris were removed from this area, visual observationsuggests that an equal quantity of metal runway matting remain at the project site . To safelyremove this matting, the electrical cables must be de-energized and elevated .53Table 12Pre-Excavation and Post Dioxin Results by EPA Method 8290 for Site 4/Area 4BDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaPre-ExcavationLeveltMaximum DetectedResidual LeveltPercentReductiont2,3,7,8-TODD3 .1U (1 .0)1001,2,3,7,8-PeCDD18 .03 .381 .71,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD23 .73 .883 .91,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD53 .714 .173 .41,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD81 .010 .986 .51,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD49026645 .71,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD1250125002, 3, 7, 8-TCDF27244.283 .61,2,3,7,8-PeCDF53 .26 .9 EMPC87 .02, 3, 4, 7, 8-PeCDF14316 .688 .41,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF53950 .390 .71,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF15214 .090 .82,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF36729 .192 .11,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF8 .3U (0 .6)1001,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF112010790 .51,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF72 .76 .591 .01,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF6145962 .9Total TCDD14617 .188 .3Total PeCDD37445 .187 .3Total HxCDD70097 .986 .0Total HpCDD109046157 .7Total TCDF135021484 .2Total PeCDF180016690 .8Total HxCDF188015791 .7Total HpCDF156052666 .3Anal tesNotes :1.2.3.4.5."U" means not detected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory limit .Detection limit in parenthesis.Pre-excavation dioxin levels are the results for Sample No . 99-GAM-005-SLppt means parts per trillion .Maximum residual level is the highest analyte level for the Site 4/Area 4Bconfirmation samples listed in Table 11 .6 . EMPC is estimated maximum .54Two Quonset huts were located on the top of Sevuokuk Mountain at Site 4/Area 4D . Prior toproject mobilization, winds scattered metal from these huts along the west side of themountain . Steep cliffs made it impossible for OSCI to access and remove metal debris fromthe side of the mountain at elevations exceeding 400 feet above sea level .6 .4 Lessons LearnedThe following lessons learned during this project may benefit others who are consideringremedial activities at Gambell, Alaska :•Lodging and Meals . The Sivuqaq Lodge is a former work camp that is operated as ahotel by the village corporation . It has an industrial kitchen and four restrooms and canprovide accommodations for 16 to 20 people . Meals served by the lodge are limited tofast food . The cooks do not prepare breakfast . Occasionally, they do not work on theweekend . Firms planning to use the lodge to house their work crews should : 1) hire afull-time cook and a full-time housekeeper, 2) plan meals in advance and 3) shipsufficient food to Gambell for the meals . Since the lodge uses most of its refrigeratorand freezer space to store fast food items, it would be advisable for firms using thelodge to provide their own refrigerators . It would also be a good idea to shiptelephones, a television, VCR and videos for crew entertainment .•Local Transportation . Gambell does not have public transportation . Persons travelingto this location should ask the lodge to have someone with an ATV meet them at theairport . Wet tundra is located on the south end of Troutman Lake . This area must becrossed to get to Sevuokuk Mountain . Four-wheel ATVs have trouble crossing thetundra . They get stuck in locations where the mud and water are more than 18 inchesdeep . Eight-wheel Argos with tracks are better suited for crossing the tundra . Tops arerecommended for the Argos to keep the passengers and cargo from being coated withmud. (The tundra contains many submerged boulders that can damage Argos andATVs. To avoid problems , low speeds should be used while crossing the tundra .)•Track-Mounted Vehicles . Track-mounted vehicles are needed for crossing and workingon wet tundra in the Gambell area . To minimize tundra damage, these vehicles shouldhave flat tracks that will not dig into the ground . Tracks that have a "U" shapedsprockets will uproot vegetation that holds the tundra soil together and create ruts thatwill cause rapid erosion . This will destroy the tundra by creating lakes in flat areas andcausing erosion in sloping areas .•Boulders and Reduced Visibility on Mountain Top. The top of Sevuokuk Mountain iscovered with large boulders that prevent access by trucks and heavy equipment . Asdemonstrated during this project , Argos can drive over the boulders . Low ceilingscause dense fog on the mountain . As a result, visibility can be limited to 50 feet or less .•Beach Conditions . Barges transporting cargo to Gambell land at the north beach . Thegravel at this location is loose and difficult to work on . The south beach has hardpacked gravel and is suitable for heavy equipment and trucks .•Security is Required . During the first week at Gambell, gas was removed from vehiclesstored at the work site overnight . This was stopped by using locking gas caps .55•Local Rental Equipment . The Gambell Public Works Department has heavy equipmentthat can be leased . For this project, it was necessary to hire a mechanic to installbackup alarms and correct other problems so this equipment would meet requirementsestablished by the USAEDA .•Limit Crew Working Hours . Workers mobilized to Gambell from Anchorage insisted onworking seven 12-hour days per week to maximize their earnings . Due to harshenvironmental conditions and strenuous labor requirements, this proved to be too muchover a 43-day period . Although there were no accidents or spills, work related stresscaused friction between crew members . A shorter work week consisting of six 10-hourdays will create less stress for personnel at the job site .•Native Burial Sites on Mountain . Many burial boxes with skeletal remains werediscovered near debris removal sites on Sevuokuk Mountain . High winds havedamaged the boxes and scattered some of the remains . In view of this, firmsperforming remedial actions at Gambell, Alaska, should include an Archeologist on theirfield crews and make arrangements with the Gambell Native Council for handlingskeletal remains and artifacts found at the work site .56LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A : Photo Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1Appendix B : Scale Tickets Showing Debris , HTW and Soil Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1Appendix C : Waste Manifests and Certificates of Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1Appendix D :Daily Quality Control Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1Appendix E :Laboratory Data Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1Appendix F :Chain of Custody and Laboratory Data Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1Appendix G : Data Deliverables for Project Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1Appendix H : Safety and Health Phase-Out Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1Appendix I :Chemical Data Quality Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1Appendix APhoto SummaryDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell , AlaskaContract No. DACA85 -97-D-0010, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 1 : Gambell , Alaska (looking west) .Photo 2: Barge landing at North Beachwith contractor equipment .Photo 3 : Floor plan for Sivugag Lodge(used for contractor meals andlodging) .Photo 4 : Cooks and kitchen in SivugagLodge .Photo 5:Photo 6 :Dining area in Sivugag Lodge .Bedroom in Sivugag Lodge .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No. DACA85-97-D-0010, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 7 : Worker collecting soil sample atSite 2 .Photo 8 : Backhoe moving supersack filledwith stained soil at Site 2.Photo 9: Site 2 after stained soilexcavation .Photo 10 : Empty fuel tank at Site 3 .Photo 11 : Backhoe preparing to removeempty fuel tank at Site 3 .Photo 12 : Government Representativeand contractor inspecting Site 3after debris removal .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 13 : Metal debris from Quonset Hutsat Site 4A/Area 4A .Photo 14 : Empty transformer at Site4/Area 4A .Photo 15 :Workers loading bagscontaining small pieces ofmetal debris into Argo at Site4/Area 4A .Photo 16 :Argo hauling debris fromSite 4/Area 4A through Site10 to transfer station .Photo 17 :Worker transferring metaldebris from Argo to wagon fortransportation to weighingstation at Site 8 .Photo 18 :Backhoe removing supersackcontaining Site 4/Area 4Adebris from Argo to pickuptruck .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No. DACA85-97-D-0010 , Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 19 :Worker preparing for debrisremoval at Site 4/Area 4B .Photo 20 : Shovels used to excavatecontaminated soil at Site 4/Area4B.Photo 21 : Sand bags filled withcontaminated soil at Site 4/Area4B.Photo 22 : Sand bags filled with soil placedin Argo for transportation downthe mountain .Photo 23 : Supersacks filled withcontaminated soil placed inconnex .Photo 24 : Site 4/Area 4B after 52 tons ofcontaminated soil excavated .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999IIIPhoto 25 : Drums at Site 6 .Photo 26 : Site 6 after drum removal .Photo 27 : Metal runway matting at Site 8 .Photo 28 : Loader placing runway mattingon Nodwell .Photo 29 : Nodwell hauling runway matting .Photo 30 : Nodwell offloading runwaymatting .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No. DACA85 -97-D-0010 , Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 31 : Metal debris stockpiled at Site 8 .Photo 32 : Energized power cable forrunway lights exposed at Site 8 .(Metal debris suspended nearpower cable .)Photo 33 : Workers dismantle metal sled atSite 8 .Photo 34 : Drums weighed with anelectronic scale at Site 8 .Photo 35 : Scale weights for each loadrecorded at Site 8 processingstation .Photo 36 : Workers load crushed drumsinto connex container at Site 8 .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell , AlaskaContract No . DACA85-97-D-0010 , Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 37 : Access road to Site 10 . (Eastsite of Troutman Lake .)Photo 39 : Nodwell tested on tundra atSite 10 .Photo 41 : Drums on tundra at Site 10 .Photo 38 : 4-Wheel AN stuck in wettundra at Site 10 .Photo 40 : Tundra after three passes withNodwell . (Tundra was seeded torestore vegetation.)Photo 42 : Site 10 after drums removed .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No. DACA85-97-D-0010, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 43 : Drums at Site 12 .Photo 44 : Deteriorated battery at Site 12 .Photo 45 : Dried paint and batteries at Site12.Photo 46 : Drums from Site 12 placed onpickup truck and hauled to Site8 processing station .Photo 47 : Workers in Level "C" PPEremove batteries and dried paintat Site 12 .Photo 48 : Site 12 after HTW removal .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell , AlaskaContract No . DACA85 -97-D-0010 , Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 49 : Argo used to transportpersonnel and samplingsupplies .Photo 50 : Sample collection tocharacterize soil in supersack atSite 8 .Photo 51 : Soil characterization sampling atSite 2 .Photo 52 : Post-excavation confirmationsampling at Site4/Area 4B .Photo 53 : Samples labeled and logged onchain of custody form .Photo 54 : Cooler with samples and chainof custody form in Ziploc bags .Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic RemovalGambell , AlaskaContract No. DACA85-97-D-0010, Delivery Order No . 0004July and August 1999Photo 55 : Top view of excavation at Site4/Area 4B . Soil was excavatedto 24" below grade .Photo 56 : Sample Point 99 -GAM-20-SL .(6" below excavation bottom .)Photo 57 : Yellow tape is Sample Point 99GAM-023-SL .Photo 58 : Sample Point 99-GAM -024-SL .Soil was excavated betweenrocks .Photo 59 : Sample Point 99-GAM-025-SL .(6" below excavation bottom .)Appendix BScale Tickets Showing Debris, HTW and Soil WeightsW'.- .cketDebris Removal and Contains . ,d HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket #b f fl/ ( QSiteGrossWeightDate 7 -1CollectedDateWeighed} (/)fjDescriptionDateLoaded7- ,r 10/7HTW41 1Count PIA: r f=-~~GyTare Weight -~ / Z Net Weight !7'507q5SSOtherInitialsCSM)ct LNetWeightTicket #~Tare toConnext)"6_ mm l,.DateCollectedGross toConnex7' Connex#Date 7~~Weighed7SiteDescriptionW~ ,OG VV1 A TGrossWeightTare WeightZ ~ ' Net Weight tNetWeight~~Tare to-- Connex144• DateCollectedTicket #lowSiteGrossWeight 7NetWeight2~fl7-1 -qql dGZ002-5,">/DateLoaded ~~SSOtherCount :qGross to ~~Connex -~ Connex#1-001'DateWeighedDateLoadedA'1 A7DescriptionG_Tare Weight2 - Net WeightTare to Gross toConnex Connex13Count:Vq 5Initialsc6 ~'GR"SSOtherHTWCSInitialsConnex#HTWCS_Weigl i _ .:ketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket #CollectedWeighedDescriptionG 'D1AI6 /214TG A KO L~Site~~19DateLoaded-z- /9--q7BDHTWCSCount: ~~OtherGrossWeight7ZNet//Weight 1(~Tare WeightTare6 ?'-_Z97-,Net Weight q32Gross toConnextoConnexDateTicket # ~'o0_Initials c CZConnex#DateCollected7`"f1 9Description°/1/AWeighed72-00DateLoaded/7 gHTWBDH'SiteGrossWeightCount:MIATare Weight 2-92- Net WeightNet LWeight7`6SSOtherCSInitialsTare to Gross toConnex ConnexConnex#ZOO -~"‚VTicket #Date _ ~G/ rMCPCollected(f31,EI~C1'Ticket #Vl11,5SiteDateCollectedDescriptionDateWeighed2a'I A l)LDate 7 ~~ ,c 9Loaded7-Z -`__Count: _}HTWCSSSOtherGrossWeight5f)Net1 C3~~Gl ____WeightTicket #-6AM i I ~;SiteTare WeightNet WeightTare toGross toConnex0Connex~~Tare toConnexGPO /17CollectedrDateSite1))l5DateLoaded`"9971- z.c9(i r (lIt"363 ~vl l19~Conned71DateDateCollected '~ WeighedCount:HTWCSSSOtherrTare WeightNetWeightGrossWeightl -3Description'rGrossWeightTicket #InitialsNet WeightInitialsGrossConnex_to''Connex# / /S___VDate -~We9 hedDescriptionTare WeightNetTare toWeightConnexNet WeightGross toConnexq6 "C,~(,)Initials/~O/l IConnex#757-11Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket #(-AAA. I ~SiteGrossWeightDateCollected 7-Description .~!Tarec~-M) ISiteGrossWeightDate 7 ZWeighed .Date`~Loaded~r1313HTWCSOtherCount :WeightNet WeightGrossDate'~ pp~Collected ~` / ~ 1 1Descriptionq~,' 4' /toConnexInitial s'Connex#Date(~Weighed 2 ` 1j m A~l_. }l~Lhf/7l L rS~DateLoaded 7- Z' 1 ~qBD$Count: 1I /NetWeightTicket #Tare Weightk'y__Net WeightInitialsTare toConnexGross toConnex1~~DateDateWeighed4~~Collected ______ cfC onnex#Description9Count :L-A0N(j I ', p ITare WeightNet WeightNet ? Tare to Gross toWeightConnexConnex L--t~20 :31b144S_DateLoadedOtherGross~,''(~Weight 2- GCS/V//Zo / I~ovrSiteHTWOther'~I )9'7~~~~Tare toNetWeightConnexl(Ticket #~C onnex#InitialsHTWCSAWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaDate-~ --~2~ Collected l - l J tdTicket # (NetWeightDateLoadedDescriptionSiteGrossWeightDateWeighed~~TareWeightTare to770Count:-~<Neta0Weight1' bConnexTicket # 1C7 /~ ~ ~.DateCollectedInitialsGross toConnex 4nnex#DateLoadedDate__WeighedNetWeightTare Weight .Net WeightTare .toConnexGross toConnexDateTicket#GAM /1'Site .5~ NetWeight3 , . Collected)-0 /DateWeighedtionDescri p4Gross ~~Weight540Tare WeightTare to,Conne)t)-2,5-R7Count:_ . FS.5f5 OtherSite Description,GrossWeight'OtherConnex#-~DateLoaded -*A9Count :Net Weightb ross to\ J Connex,6q~a&ywInitialsHTWCSIWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket #(A-14 I.9 rZV vNetWeight-/ Ticket #NetWeightDateLoadede7F /-2'b10 _Net WeightTare toConnexIGross toConnexDate ~~~CollectedCAM 12-6( 70Count:Weight 3/1100Site / tipGrossWeight5DescriptionSiteGrossWeightDateDateCollected 21 Weighed 72Dateg edWei h edDescription _/Net WeightltoGrossSSOtherCSInitials)MNAftllJoel~ZConne547DateLoaded 7Count:~~CSp O br7C.~i njiilis G-YJU-1 //ate-25)areConnextoConnex425ZDate '~DateCollected / ~l Wei gh ed ~`7-01~~ Ticket #Connex#26 1-,A ISiteGrossWeight/VJ061__Tare Weight7-ZE ~'7Descriptiono bTare WeightNetTareWeigh ttoConnex~fCount :Net WeightGross toConnex&Connex#DateLoaded7J 2~gtCSWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket #(,AM 1 Z7GrossWeight _a(I_ Tare Weight IqNetWeigh tFCA/ \i 5Tare toConnextolDateCollected`Descrip tio nGrossWeightTare WeightNetWeightTare toConnex,VAn~I t,CollectedDate /- 5Loaded G--BDR `HM-'C o u nt:'SS CS-~-`~ Other3Net Weight~"l qq~Gross toConnexIn iti l's L"DateLoaded,~~~Coun t: /V/J~75DescriptionGrossWeightTare WeightNetWeightTare toConnex _\CHTWConnex#05"? ~11-1~Net Weight _DateLoaded ~~~~Gross toConnexCount :6i'J12-0DateWeighed~BDRSSInitiI Is,10Site~OtherGross to ~~Connex7- 2-~_Connex#Net WeightDatem i Z19DateWeighedDateWeighed ~~1SiteTicket #~_n(1~~,W I " t,D es cri p tionSiteTicket#DateCollected_____GJC onnex#BDRSSCSOther~initials,Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaDateCollectedTicket # (,, j r\- 0DateWeighed50DescriptionSiteGross~~Weight 16NetWeightCount : _ MTare WeightInitials2Gross toDateDateTare toConnex152 -?lConnex / 53CollectedWeighedPAiSiteGrossWeightJUw A cThtj614 NetTare to..~ ./Connex V2~Ticket#WeightGross toConnexConnex#Date7-- /-Y 7LoadedkSDescriptionsTare WeightNetWeightSStherCount:J ':q2„li L lDate'e-4e2 DateCollected____ WeighedConnex#q7-O? -lSC, . mE-fAt, ~lsSiteGrossWeightNetWeightDescriptio n .1'Z-10Tare Weight 3 1 '1 Net WeightTare toConnexGross toConnexInitials201~8' ~ J711Connex#HTWCSWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambeii AlaskaDateCollectedTicket #Description-Site GrossWeightDatec~ 19\3 Ticket # (;P,InitialsGrossto--~Connex Connex# 2, ~~ jl/V5LAWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell Alaskacket #DateCollectedYI'q-() 1k rn Z~`DateWeighedDateLoadedHTWDescription c./ i 14 /A)C- . JSite-14&GrossWeightNetWeight;L,-7.=~"TareConnexc____~ATicket #DateCollected7dTare Weight-O C--Net Weightto Gross toConnex7-~~GrossWeightTare WeightNet WeightTicketSite#NetWeight67Tare Weight' L) 1Tare toConnexNet WeigInitials A Cto~vZS50~Connex# 2 3 Z 7- --DatLoade~-Count: Jht-6-2)Gross toConnex2q ~3z 7 I/DateLoaded_~61Ll la - ,Vi, .~-A~7C onnex#C BDR + HTWCount: 16' ' u (CSOtherDate C~ I -I _C'DateCollectedWeighedC6b(GrossWeight--GrossConnextoConnexDescriptionInitialsDateWeighed-~~DescriptionB'CS(6 A-, :Other'5-60,_15ISiteNetTareWeight~~~†Count :° lJ~.l Connex#DR Y HTWCS--SSOtherInitials /1/1.7CiK\N,, .,jh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal , Gambell AlaskaTicket #C')...SiteGrossWeightDateCollected~1 rv\qi)5qjNetWeight~~MTicket #SiteDescriptionDateWeighed-1- -Ciq,MI,f1l~&t~Tare WeightNet WeightTare toConnexGross toConnexDateCollected ~ .-~VDateLoaded-/Lt Connex#.0(52-5'-_-)v12DateLoadedCount :QI--~J_RHTWSS CSOthercrossWeight6NetWeight1JTare toConnexGross toConnex/~,--~Connex#20 5.-S~'CWDateCollectedDateWeighedql-aTicket #SiteGrossWeightTare WeightDescriptionC..~II! Vl ( ~~d Net WeightABq9 2-)m~~CInitials~DDateLoaded-fSHTWount : ~~ SS CSOther~Tare WeightNet WeightTare toConnexGross toConnexInitialsCiNetWeight(iInitial sDescription`-99BDR1/ HTWSS CSOtherS Count :CDateWeighed_~~ I Connex#10Z c7(4-Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTVV Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket # A JCollectedDateLoaded UWeighed5PAA 0 q CX6SiteDescriptionMle-( S Count: 0A-Gpl LBD HTWSS CSOtherGrossWeightTare WeightNetWeightTare toConnex~'Ticket #G L M1SiteGrossWeightI1 7Eq4 $- C"_DateWeighedreC- s)Tare toConnexGross toConnexSiteDescriptionGrossWeightTare WeightNetWeightTare toConnexg_lRCount :HTWSS'OtherInitials/(11t%/DateLoadedCount :Net WeightICS;yC14,52-550Connex#Date ~_ .Weighed †Coy72 .05155O/DateLoadedrNet WeightC /a'M 'L70Connex#rTare WeightDateCollectedInitials iGross toConnexDescriptionNet-C..(Weight lTicket #DateCollectedNet Weight _InitialsGross toConnex ! 7 g~ Connex# '~qBDRSSOtherCS,'rMSG0(Wt.TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal , Gambell AlaskaTicket #21DateWeighedq 6(~ -,~''`)Description CC )Site 00GrossWeightDateCollectedl 6 INei ~~~~l~'~. JWeightTare WeightDate'Loaded q'-3 ,Count :-'5o/ ---NetWeight1O-Tare to Gross LO 'ConnexConnexf ~' Connex#GrossWeightTareNet eo IWeightNetWeightVWeight5140_ t~1/-HTWCSGDWSSOtherInitialsSDateWeighedIDateLoadedc~~rDescriptionSiteGrossWeightNet;_M5TaretoGrosstoSSOConnex#2p2,ConnexConnexDateCollectedTicket #[)&0d S Count:uInitialsLoaded - (?DescriptionWeightCSJ2~ `7Z-7Z-ASite q ' ,1BDRSSOtherDateDate' ~G1 DateCollected WeighedTicket #~ 34C~BDR_)HTWSSCSCount :OtherTare WeightNet Weight-22-)Tare toConnexGross toConnex120InitialsConnex#2 ZS5O , lWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaDateCollectedTicket #Site 6 )GrossWeight .~J~TareDescriptionCN /Tare toConnexTi ket #DateCollectedDescription--7DateLoaded~~:Count : ) …j A/`T .5 -z-Gross toConnexSSROtherM3C-'w J5 3263 /InitialsConnex#DateWeighedC0/~~".G5J/ ( ._Net WeightWeightNetWeightSitel _DateWeighed ___DateLoaded0/L.Count : 1 8BDRSSHTWOtherGrossWeightNetWeightTare WeightTareConnexTicket # -DateCollectedSiteDescription7Net Weightto Gross to-7 Connex/6/GGInitials~~I '7 73Connex#DateWeighedGrossWeightTare Weight J Net WeightNetWeightTare to Gross toConnex Connexf15C26-D Ili -32-62>DateLoadedCount : _8I + G '7BDRSSOtherInitialsConnex# 7.05415C_-34Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaNTicket #b(/11 2-7/SiteDateCollectedDescriptionDatet&Tq-'tf^1-~? 1.GrossWeightBDRSSOtherr~ Tare WeightNet ~(1c ;o 5Weight l"'T`~ -9-17D ateLoadedCount :/C,:~YyInitialsTare toConnex3263Gross toConnex3Connex# ! 9 ~~ ^7atliket # AM Z7SiteDateWeigheDescriptionCount :lGrossWeight_Tare WeightNetWeight~Tare toConnexInitials /f I.I2t~3~6w ._ Gross toConnexConnex#"DateCollectedTicket #SiteDescription__" _ _"DateWeighedGrossI-0'C ` CDate ILoadeR1566Weight-F?NetWeightDateCollected"'Count :04/ 65c7Tare Weight -37HNet WeightTare toConnexGross to.r Connex`Initials~.,~' 6Connex#QS3Z63Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell Alaska\ NlTicket #~~Site46GrossWeightf -7if~NetWeightTicket #'.Descriptioni &) /~:)o [Tare Weight-7Net WeightL1-`~Tare toConnex,'` i cDateCollectedDateLoadedDateWeighedDateCollecte d 'GrosstoConnexCount :BDRSSOtherV206 5630Initials ~_15(32-- Connex#DateDateWeighedLoaded_SiteGrossWeightNetWeight--Ticket #(4 (3o/ ) j --J/L 5 0(` ~,7 1 1/-? kMZ!KZ-TareConnexGrossWei g ht -/l~p(. 9to~DateCollectedDescriptionBDRCount :(a)/ L,Gross toConnex~(-'~'~ n~T-115Z'InitialsC onnex#DateoadedDateWeighed3OHTW_SS~S1OtherK 9MNet WeightTare WeightSiteNetWeightDescriptionCount? I~~, ILTare WeightNet WeightTare toConnexGross toConnexq -'q lV~BDR~S JSS'Other tInitials7OConnex#20 5qZG3AWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell Alaska'cket#~~~'/vIDateCollected°- lZ9DateWeighedDateLoaded)4 L$SiteDescription~BDRHTWCount .:-;/SSOther L'CGrossJWeight /Tare Weight Net~l~ /NetTareWeight_ l L--Ti'ket #toConnex(~J 1GrossWeight• t_ INetWeightDescriptionTare Weight~~~.InitialsrGross toConnex7~~Date/ "/ r l Z CollectedSiteWeight~~t-~DateWeigheY, ~,Connex#-C A)T- SO( (2~UDateWeighedDescriptionGrossWeightTare WeightNet WeightTare toConnexGross toConnexu-4~~JimS'SiteNetWeightBDRSSOtherNet WeightInitials/'[ 5 C,0% 7(d.7Ticket#-10-98DateLoadedCount :Tare to - s~ Gross toConnexConnexDateCollected~za ~5 6 30+~C onnex# =5 -10 .q~~dy~DateLoaded `Count :BDRSSOtherCInitials /14 .5.~~Connex#0,/Lo766~y°Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell Alaska~.Ticket #DateCollectedSiteDateWeighed'?DescriptionqI30 1DateLoaded-( o~LCount : _lSSR(J)OtherGross Weight/,530Net Weight ~ i 2Tare WeightNetWeightTareConnextoGross toConnex (S 363Initials A'S-Connex#~~4#2-Q567667/llTicket #6-6A )-/ 'l 2 7DateCollectedDescriptionSiteGrossiJ..Weight- .~ Tare WeightNet IWeight\ Ticket #(GrossWeightNet\aWeightQ-2DateLoadedSo t!-BDRSsOtherCount : '1Net Weight I V S IGross toTare toConnex6 A /)I Zn 5SiteDateWeighedConnexDateDateCollected1 /Weighed16-31KInitialsConnex#. / ,.1 l `C tl~ZcDate C--~Loaded~~"DescriptionCount :BDR~~(~ SSOtherTare WeightTaretoConnexiNet Weightf-`1 /qGross to~wOConnexHTWConnex#'CSInitials_gq~1 2O5ro766~ JaWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell AlaskaTicket#CollectedDateLoadedWeighed ~~Site I L' DescriptionGrossWeightTare WeightNet Weight ~5NetWeightTare toConnexGross to ~~~ConnexTicket #r A iOSiteGrossWeightBDRSSOtherCount :Date ~Collected. 0 -q~HTWCS40Initials <Connex#DateWeighedDateLoadedDescription _~A)1 1 Ii ?_Tare Weight/ Net WeighttoGrossCInitials t r2 q ~l / 3 `toConnexConnex#DD~sTicket #~~Date3z"1 CollectedJDateWeighed~'6 - R" DateLoadedHTWSiteDescriptionCount : AIMSSCsOtherGross~qWeight _q )6oNetWeightC; `6rOTare Weight 395 ZaNet WeightTare to Gross toConnexConnexInitials ANN;q 76 0Connex#ZO 1 6 zZCWeigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal, Gambell Alaska3 2~Ticket #Date/ _Collected `6j 'tjDateWeighed-6 -q q DateLoaded''I--- 77hrNBLC)&KSDescription C..OTSiteCount:6MGrossWeight7000LlNet WeightGross toTare toConnexNetWeightTicket #Tare WeightGf*,41 3LConnexDateCollected-~GrossWeightDescription~/620Z--rG'1T'OO Connex# 2GrossConnex-1 0Tare tooG,(-UWeightConnexAny 317Initials ~~Count: ~~ ~A' SSR CSOtherNet WeightNetTicket # C7 q eclztlDate~'†'_%ateWeighed Loaded -___&C-01SiteC RDR~ HTWSS CSOtherBDR-~ HTWSS CSOtherInitials Sty~((2- '~ 00C onnex# (qL/-/ 75q (f-1 A,V/CAppendix CWaste Manifests and Certificates of Disposal99A607 08/23/991 . Generator's US EPA ID No .NON-HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFESTManifestK .R . O .O . O .O .0 2 2 2 82 . Page I•("` f .60lof 13 . Generator' s Nome and Mailing Address:FPMDIST AK( -ER (GAME)US Ala4YPO B( 350664. Generator's Phone ( FT5.YAT1tSRT(fj'Transporter1AK 99703-0066 (9M)353-7063CompanyNameTransporter2A . Transporter' s Phone. A . D .9 .8 .1 .7 .7 .3 .0 .0 .5)Iorthl ar>Id Services7.6 . US EPA ID NumberCompanyName8 . US EPA ID Number(206)763-30010B . Transporter's Phone.A -D-0-6 .1-6-72S .12Resource Recovery9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID NumberRABAW0 BEL'YC2JM(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-40004 TH & IBSSEATTLE, VA 98106.X .E .M .P .T ..11 . Waste Shipping Name and Description12 . Containers13 .TotalNo . TypeQuanta14 .UnitWt Volla.IN-ICU TASTE SOLID ( PBTIOLEDI CORAQIAT° SOIL)Gb.ENERA c.T0RIX -1C1A TASTE SOLID ( I3iPTT DIOIS).d.E . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed AboveD . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Abovea) 162939 -00 - - PETIOLSOI COITAII1ATED SOIL, 1ABAICO CEDTIIICATIOI 10 . 9!-1121 01101 ( 22) b) 162!40 - 00 - - 1CIA KI PTT 010IS , I.ABAICO CBITIIICATIOI I0 . 99-1120 -a) b)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information6UE ATOR ' S CBITIIICATIOII : I hereby declare that the contents o! this consigneent are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nue , and are classified , packaged , urked , and labelled /placarded, and are in all respectsilt proper condition for transport via air , road , rail and urine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest ore not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignaturePrinted/Typed NameTANSP0RTERMonth Day Year17. Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignatureMonthDayYea,18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonthDoyYear19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceFAC120 . Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .Printed /TypedNameSignatureMonthDayORIGINAL - RETURN TO GENERATOR MYear11/1?/bbnLUs'D .rfo9 9A607 O ' : - 31 . Generator' s US EPA ID No .NC N .HAZARDOUST-WASTE MANIFEST3 . Generotor'Manifest.K .R .O .O .O .0 .0 .3 3 1IG it'.`R•d'•1Name and Mailing O .ddressOS ARP ( ENGtNk.EIUNG DIST AK C~a'CiA-fi>t1-‚r'Et ((A14 ~i .L)PO H)X 35C ~64 . GoneratoV Phone'Z. ^ NAi. NSRIe 11'5, Transpartei 1 Comi . . tYName---AK 99703-0066 (907) .!5* --/L)636 . US .EPA 1 . ! .umberNo rthl . u)d Services _W A .U .9-ff.3 .O A SS . U i eV.. ID .tiu'.sber7 . Tronsponci 2 CompoA‚ r lameJ .A .L)-O .6 . 1 _6_Re sour- :e Rc c_crv10 .9 . Designated Facilit ' N , me and 5i-e AddressUSe. Tronspon .rs Phonc.2 .8 .1 .2(253) 383-30 .44'A I' p .r .berRABANC ) RI ' . ti : LTNG4 TH & LAI '%ZSSE A'I'!'ly, w : -1 _981081 1 . Waste Shy aping t , -and Dts . _riplio '1o.NUN-MA 1 kST? MID {PSTROLSIJA CO)1T1U(INATSu 5J1L}NONACRA V%' SOLI D t g?1'Y U1:Glfs ;C.d.s iar Mate rials Lasted Abov.tD . Additional Doscrif'a) 1629 ;13-oO Y6TiiOl,cUt GJNTMI1NA'l O SUIL, dAbakCQ IV.IIF : .: .' . . ! . Y9 .1121illHOi ( ~ !) b j '6,-O (1 - fCBA .MP1" DRUM, PA61v)CO ',RTIF' L 19-1120 -nTaal p ._ . _ ..15 . Special H Indlinr‚raio and Adaitiond1 InlormolionOFNERAT0l'S CF ' .i).1"CATIUK : I lletelly declart: that .the coatents ,-f tt ., .'inslgnaent are fl.i ly and accur~ ; ,y describedstore by the gnper shipping ncee ,ii nd are clae'3U. ied, paciUged ,~ .arlri, ud label led / plal:arded, and art a all tebpectsin proper condi.t.ion,for Transport via air, road , rail and ' aariir; wedAccording to app icaple iuterr . . anal addna.tional regut , tir :'s .1 6 . GRNERAT )R 'S CL-k, . . .:ATION. Ice pity use rrsm edals described o bo. . an th,s one, .1TPremed/T)1 7 . Tr onsporte r 1 Ack ,oedN/AV16 . Tr. snsportc r 2 Ac, .rated /T1 ped~ ..-a . .v of R. ceipi of M aterials._---s . 'lea o federal reaulat o s !or rep Los (al `'.C%cJ.5 Spec'I I Hanat ; g lnstrucoons and Additional Informationdeclare that me contents of this c0a nmeni ar-. fully and accurately de‚ .eAbed above by16 . GENE iATOR'S t‚c,TWICAT)0N: I ttoreayproper shipping ii me and an. clautlled. Packed. marked . and labeled/plararded, and era in ail rospeas in proper condition for Iransporraccort ng to applirablo International and national government regulation.III arr a targ. . luantity generator . I cor ity that I have a program in place to reCu. a the - alumo and toxicity of waste generated to the legree I have detorminod to beecono nicatly r : -4= e and .hat 1 have selected the practicable method of treatment, .Jto : : go r r disposal currently available tome wttrdt ' nimizes the present and futurea gooo teeth effort to minimize my wait )eneration and sclCct the bestthreat o hum :,, . ;ualm and ;he environment, OR, if lama small quantity generator. ,w tste nanagr .nt method twt is avallA Dle to me and that t can afford .Pnnt' :d / TYp4 ‚t ' lame I''j ril:TPANSPA-4FMonth Day Year1-0 o- GolT1 i . Tran : porter 1 A . tinowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrint/ / yf . ::d Name 1 idTs1H. Tran- ,portt> - 2 +, cl, nowledgement cif Rec eipt of Materialsr'~Month DayYearI 1 0 I•i`i.14 \itYearrr .f Print Typ. :. .' 7ffrneMonth Day19. Disc epancy ,r 0 ration SpaceFAC2U . Facie ty Owr. er . .r Operator : Certific ation of receipt of hazarCOUS ma ~ tals_ : . _~ red by this manifest except as note sLEPA FonwPrini!d/Type[Namea .e.f Pr.v.oue . atecn. „. .e.a.„..>oo- .2la.r2TRANSP0' : ^,T 0',- ; NO . 2Item 19 .mournuay.ca+‚ FCR 24 HOURi RE'CJ 66 1itMl*V r iUtt, CALL (90 /) 211-90o'1 , ,()99A60708/17/99Form Approved. OMB no . 2050-0039 . Expires 9-30-99ase print or type (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch) typewriter )Generators US EPA ID NoUNIFORM HAZARDOUS ('WASTE MANIFEST AKw 00003228ManIf Docum.nt No.2 Pa ge 1of 1IG 3Information in the shaded areasis not required by Federal law3 . Generator's Name and Mailing AddressA. State Manifest Document NumberUS ARMY ENGII G DIST AK C IEKA-OD-ER (G 1, )PO BOX 350664 . Generator's Phone ET WATZISRIGHT AK 99703 -0066 (907)353-7063B . State Generator's 105 . Transporter 1 Company Name 6 US EPA ID NumberC . State Transporter's IDD . Transporter's Phone (206)763-3000Northland Services WAD9817730057 . Transporter 2 Company Name 8 . US EPA ID NumberE . State Transporter's IDF . Transporter's Phone 253383-3044WAD061672812Resource9 . Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID NumberChem Waste Mot of Northwest17629 Cedar Springs LaneArIi on , OR 97812G . State Facilitys IDH . Facititys Phone( 541) 454-2643ORD08945235312 Conta iners11 . US DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class and ID Number)N a.E13 .TotalQuantity14 .UnittNolNo .T17BA16436P1TB2560PHAt.IIDOQS IASTE , SOLID, I .O .S . (0001) 9 IA3077 PGIII BIG#(171)R1.Waste No .0001RT b.HAXAIDOQS VASYK , SOLID , LO .S . (D008) 9 113077 PGIII S1GI ( 171)0RQD001C,d.J . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveK . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 004133 -00 - - LEAD CORTUIIAT° SOIL - DI101 ( i) b) COU33 -00 - - LEADCMTAJIIAT° SOIL - DI101 (7)a) b)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above byproper shipping name and are classified, packed, marked, and labeledtplacarded, and are in all respects in prope r condition for transportaccording to applicable international and national government regulations .If I am a large quantity generator , I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity c1 waste generated to the degree I have determined to beeconomically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and futurethreat to human health and the environment: OR, if I am a small quantity generator . I have made a good faith effort to minimize my waste generation and select the bestwaste management method that is available to me and that I can afford.Pnnted/Typed NameTSignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day Year17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted /Typed NameNSPR18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsTPrinted/Typed NameER719 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceFtY20 . Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this manifest except as noted in item 19SignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonth DayEPA Fpm‚700-22 (Rev. 5-U ) Previous editions am ob .obtsORIGINAL-RETURN TO GENERATORYear1 ;:f : 13p Philip Services Corp-LL-11/18/ 99THi; 10 :23 FAX907 272 9005P .05?OR ‚24 HC14L2 F,~DStCC ,NC'Y. &a4-ZPONSC 1Wr'1LAtKXT1.ON, . . CALL ( 907) 2,?-.1-9001 '1 -1 991t607 08/24/99,t'lo,.tte dt,rt ,w tv .e . (Fore ' dnsyncd la NR * nn ad .,, (12‚t>‚rcht tvo .wrrt., I~/UNIFOAM HAZARDOUS I t3enerator$US EPA tD NotiF xrn Approved . OMB no. 20 003ti. Expires fiwLrawatf7ot:urnsnt 2?,UL Page'WAS TE MANIFESTa~iv~Xxm,~…g= r1~~~~rr.~r--}7jenara o r s N am . and Ma iS mg A ddres I JS A14MY P)iG? RE RING DIST AK CE )A-(.`O-Fr, (CftHI LL }ofr.mar ra1 tnrormaloom in the shades 3 .is not required; by Fwrarai taw-PO 210X'355-06643enQra or's Phone f'3' rt+'PixNS 1%V 1130 Q~'Z-&7tKri 1`907 .3353-70ta35 . Transp. rter71 Company Name 6 US EPA 1C Numbert~7'.X13C . Stsba~~.~aretpcrlas'}tS;U~SIGiA' ; ;aumberE . St1*:Tiaws it. .a)b'$ r ; h l attd Serve c~us _transp -nor 2 Company NameRest urce ttc!covew1 f AM13 1 5'7 2j='~9 . Design dots Facility NamF and Site AddressF . t :r†spert ::'s l s ,o~e . . I10 . U3 S' A lQ \umaer G. St$w F..ae t'sto ..113 -3csaaChe Wasto tiglt+t; of Not t1i sc_sti 176< 9 C dar i;Fr. i nq5 1.flEtrZr 1 1 nyt.un09 9"8I .i 1 . US DC T Dascnption (Including Propty Shoving Name . Hazard Crass ink :J Ni.. n r/0 I r~FL 1t__12. Containers 13 . ts .1.Total. Unli West. rto‚No . T 7e 0uantit wWdlA'1teU06S MkSt3 , 50i.IC, 1 .3 .S . ID008}_9 7113077 PG!1I 1DGO1iM‚L1-a' tGt(( ~i16436T b . !AZA900IiS lpt~1?!, S4LI,1, 11 .0 .5 . 1D003' v 9/l307'; I{T (t ;! (I 110~~41(f711+~I 'Nah, ‚K Nanditng .Code ., 'tu‚Wasuas UstedAboveJ- Addhle nal Dies,: ;poems lot M aterials Uste 6 ADaveC i1L33-t.7 - - WO COfI!l1i176,l9}`‚SQAr ('CCDCr, . !'CD'.} - Dili01 {3b } ~l : A1b33-80_560.PCB . ssr' 1 t, leCDts,'JI DQsEXCD1a,'crczws , PeCNI, PeCDht ; .?C.DOt, .ratsI_- :DTt41'_(31}15 Spec at Handling lnstruc ,. ions and Additional Information10 . GENE FFATOti ' S C RCAr10N : I r.raey d.eI de that V* contents of this cons nntt :n ; err ;ally and aecuratey do scntxa attovm by? t -lam ',,all respects in propCr Cwndltlort br transpomprop . st‚iDtt n nema and ar m ciasshfed, paDnid, enarXted, and lab .lad/placard .aCCD1' tag to rppowbte intt ;tranonai and natiorul government ra)ulatiants . tf'tl tan a larva quantity gcneator. I corny Mai I have a p+o9ram in platy to radt 1 tna fa;r‚ns and touchy ct wta-e q .n. ratad 10 tr,* dograe I have daiatmined to tscon: lleally DracI cable and blot I haw r aledt tl ttte Dractieabla method o f lr.atr : ar* . ;te .qa . tx disposal curre ury a eIis i . la m. watch rnmimizas t e Dresent ann R,hu: OR, if t am a amalt quantity g .netatAr i l3tY mad. a good win elton to minimus my wash gen e ration and sated trio bethreat to nunwn haatth and the environmenttamed &1C management matnpd M al is awla bie to me and that I cam of orrl.Print id / Typed Name 1r`~of L41= C1 t,.S y e .- .rGm)oTsign.>LTran : porter i ACknowle‚~gament cf Re. :eipl of Materials,G-r~ l tX~JPr I id/Typed Nameig5 ' Sn"reMonth Day Yg ~r ae~ruMonth Day 1Trait porter 2 Acknowla .ige m e nt Of fiae:e . pt o f M ate rta~lsit j~tepancy lndicatton 5pacaFel1 20 . Faei qty Owner o r Cipera: oTi nn ed/Typed?""0SPA /,. ..,, .T.Oa(F- "111)in Iterr 19Cert tht :anon of receipt of nazar dJS maien ;llp r:1x od by Mot ma 'west except\ as..notec,o 9'9_n' /Month Dayf' . ..hr . .era.+ta .n atr.+w7Tf.4NSF :OI~i'ATIOP" NO . 2‚**FOR 24 HOUR EICY RESPONSE I)(NATION, CALL (907) 272- 9007 '')99A607 08/17/99Please print or type (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch) typewriter )UNIFORM HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFEST4Form Approved . OMB no . 2050 -0039 . Expires 9-30-99I Generator's US EPA ID8NoManlf.u Doa,m . rtt No .3 . Generator's Name and Mailing AddressB . State Generators ID4 . Generator'sPhone5 . Transporter 1 Company Name 6 US EPA ID NumberServices7 . Transporter 2 Company NameResource Recovery9 . Designated Facility Name and Site AddressC . State Transporters IDD . TransportersPhon. (206)763-300078 . US EPA ID NumberE. State Transporbrs ID1 WAD061672812F . Transporters Phons 253383-410 . US EPA ID NumberG. State Facility's IDChem Waste Hg at of Northwest17629 Cedar Springs LaneArlingtonRH . Facilitys Phone978125511 . US DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class and ID Number)ArlHASA1D0US /ASYH , SOLID, 1 .0 .5 . (DOOS ) ! 1A3077 PCIII 1ZC$ ( 171)N a.ERQRATInformation i n the shaded areasis not required by Federal law .A . State Manifest Document NumberUS ARMY ENGINEERING DIST AK CEPOA-a>-FR. (CAM,)PO BOX 35066Northland2 Page 1of 1G!!04541 454-264312 . Containers13 .TotalNo . TQuantity14iUnitWtNolI.Waste No.D00120BA18342Pb.0RC,d.J . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveK Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 001133 -00 - - LEAD COffUMUTIM SOIL - DI101 (1)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above byproper shipping name and are classified , packed, marked , and labeled /placarded, aald are in all respects in proper condition for transportaccording to applicable international and national government regulations .If I am a large quantity generator , I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity c' waste generated to the degree I have determined to beeconomically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment ., storage , or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and futurethreat to human health and the environment ; OR, if I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good faith effort to minimize my waste generation and select the bestwaste management method that is available to me and that I can afford .YFTRAPrinted /Typed NameSignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day Year17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted /Typed NameNSPORT18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameER19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceT20 . Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19Printed/Typed NameSignatureMonth Day YearLYTEPA Form 1 700-22 M*v . %-U) Previoua . dmoni w, oe,o,,t.ORIGINAL-RETURN TO GENERATOR11f1!/DD1!LLvi' .`silam._*RE 2 4 -0MtR MgMGE3XT I2I5 T]!TI O* 4ATi :w : t,; :i1 .L (9O7 )'- 272-9OQT was()J9PFit` .7~'Plua .C print or type ~for' rid for use on elite ( 1 2-pnrh) typewriter .)'IDEPA o1 Generato r s us NHAZARDOUSA UNIFORIAWAST E MA NIFESTiLttro ~Ar '. oowm .rx tvo.t,1 niikWk~'4 77A.P- J7 708/2 } '')9proved . OMB r! - 2050-0039 . Expires 9 .30.99Inform . on in the shaded areasis not ri 1 :Iired by Federal taw,3 Gone- s Na and Mailing Address -U1 . ARHX `'DGBI,'-j2ZM DIST AK GY A - M-FR, y C AM F LL ) .P(1 BOX ?x)66.4 . Generator s Phone !7. ` for 5K 99 0 -{)066 (%1 .7~- ">6.US EPA II P j r,,ber5 . Transport, it I Company NamirNorth ? AW i-4tv1 c= :7 . Transport, or 2 Co.rripany Narr iPƒsoin -sa.j t( Rt 1'7 ?,~11.7 _ . .US EP -. IC fwr:-berWAt"X)f161 . 171,L.'s:QV-elz~9 . Designate d Facii tv Name anc Site Address 10 . US EPA ID ri . ,nber.Ctx m i fasts I4mt of Northwest17629 Cdr Spr1rrjs LarnArli nc M= .,11 . US DOT I )esct . : ti, : ;; (InUuding Proper Shipping Name, Hazard CLasa and ID Number)0NHAE JDOUf i4XSTg, SOLID, J .O . ;i . (DOO* ) 11U13077 PGIII .( DOO .aJIRGI(171 iRAT015 . Special dandling !ttstructiors and Adeitional InformationCab016. GENERA rOR'S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents d 1Ns ~Igr .ment a :a lurly and accurately dasalbed above byproper sr pping name and are staSSllied , pet cod. martcod , and labeleWplecarded , and are in all jespects in proper concitlon br transportaccording to applicable international and national government regulationsIt I am a ergo quantity goneratt ‚ r. I certify that I lave a program in place jq reduce ti•ui vo(fne , and toxldty of waste venerated to the degree I have determined to beeconomic ally practicable and that I have a .teaed the practicable method of treatment , sicrag2 , o disposal alrrontty avail ible to me which minir :tizas the present and futurentreat to human hr.afth and the environment : OR . If t am a small quantity generator, I have cram a good faith effort to rdrrmize my waste oc+nerallon and select the bestwaste me iagem o nt .me'noo that is available to. Imo and that l can afford.Printed , Typed Name ltd v ~t r, tr,Xi Goth r17 . Tr a n spg rter t :>cknowied9cment of Recei it of MaterialsPrinted, Typed Name,.AI-YWQ-18 . Transpr . rter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of Ma t erialsPrinted , TYP d Name~Q~~?a19. DiscreF envy Indic ..tiCn Space20 . Facility Dwnar or Operator: Certification of receipt of hazardous materia ls covered by this manifest ex cept as noted in hem 19SignaturePrinteq Typed Name//7SPA Fe. .n a7aa.22 / acv . ace)Month Dav rYepr,TRANSPORTATION NO . 2i .rI- Y urt L 4tX.RJtC CISCJO.aC, w r ~A\i7A 1 i. ~aa r.2 itr--A S(ase print or type (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch) typewriter )UNIFORM HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFEST)‚ ‚‚ ., .t 7v r I t i t-T1.I r99A607Form Approved . OMB no . 2050-0039. Expires 9-30-991 Generator's US EPA ID No Maniw! Document No .AK 00003228( GAMS3 . Generator 's Name and Mailing AddressResourceGENInformation i n the shaded areasi s not required by Federal law .B . State Generators ID6 . US EPA ID NumberC . State Transporter's IDNorthland Services NAD9817730057 . Transporter 2 Company Name2 Pa ge 1or 1A . State Manifest Document NumberUS ARMY E NGINEIItING DIST AK CE2' Oltl-MFR ( GAJ 1.L )p0 BOX 350660066 ( 907 ) 353-70634 . Generator 's Phone FT WATNSRIQ ' AK 99703 5 . Transporter 1 Company Name06/17/99D . TransportersPhone ( 206)763-30008 . US EPA ID NumberE . State Transporter's IDWAD061672812F . Transporter's Phone 253383-30449 . Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA 10 NumberG . State Facility's IDChem Waste Mgt of NorthKest17629 Cedar Springs LaneArlington OR 97812 ORD089452353H . Facilitys Phone11 . US DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name , Hazard Class and ID Number)-W-,a( 541) 454-264312 Containers13 .14 .I.UnitWaste No .No . TypeTotalQuantityWtNoI,13RQBA17749PRAT b.0RC.d.J . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveK. Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 004133 -00 - - LEAD COITh1IIR° SOIL - DA01 (!)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information16 . GENERATOR' S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above byproper shipping name and are classified . packed , marked, and labeled/placarded. and are in all respects in proper condition for transportaccording to applicable international and national government regulations .If I am a large quantity generator, I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity c' waste generated to the degree I have determined to beeconomically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment , storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and futurethreat to human health and the environment ; OR, it I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good faith effort to minimize my waste generation and select the bestwaste management method that is available to me and that I can afford .Printed/Typed NameTASignatureMonth DaySignatuereMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day Year17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted /Typed NameNsPoTYear18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameER19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceS1r20 . Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19SignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonth Day YearEPA FFonn ‚700.22 (flow. ts ) Pr.vlou, s ftons we oe.wefrORIGINAL-RETURN TO GENERATOR11i17/ vi t,i) t'br"'E DFtr_ 2t rfC L ` . I C-Y 1SYONSE INF012HA'J'L09,CA‚(7)2-?901G.)4371607yDPkxtsc p an t ro rypu "1FMrA ` d i.y ttell Inr' iw mt f.waP (12-jitch) typ.writ*r .)1 Generators US EPA ID No .Fa m Approved . OMBf4P‚‚rife.? DowUNIFOA M HAIARDO U SWAS" E MANIFEST N aO 0OW3228A. t ;tate Manifest Document NumbeiL AKMY E K :I krcliR IN(, D) : S" 1' AK CF130A--rt dq typewriter. Generator's US EPA ID No . AAentiaal tfoa,ntwtt~No .RNHAZARDOUS1~ 1UN IFOWASTE ; MANIFESTAIKR000Q03228 L Lm2 Pt: ge 1of1Information in the shaded areasis not required by Federal law .3 . Generator: Name and Mailing 4ddressUS AR? y . MM E RING- oxsr AK (EOA- O-1cR (r:PJff4..,L )PO BO% 350664 . Generator: Phoner wAT'tisRTc f r AK 99"1)3-0066 S9O71 -1h .ƒi5. Transporte 1 Company Name a ; US EPA ID Number,CA=Ic es ifAP19R1773~'w48 . US EPA ID Number7 . Transports 2 Company Name-fY- !110 . US EPA ID Number9 . Designatec Facility Name and Site AddressChew W liste log t of Northwest17629 - :edar Springs Lane_ y OR 97812hr 11nc7 cont 1 . US DOT D ascription (lnCluding Proper Shipping Name. Hazard Class a†7! I1,1 `lumoe: )aENEHAZHD005 mere, 501.10, N .G .5 . (D0081 i 11L3077 P6ITl. (DOtla 1RQ(fGI(171 1RAT015 . Special h andlin :j Instructions and Additional Information16 . GENEAAi DR'S CEpr1FICATION : I hereby oeclara that the contents d this consigninant are fully and accurately described above byproper shi ping t-ame and are classified, packed, marked . and IabeleGtplacarded, arid- re it all respects In propercondiion for transportaccording o applicab . ‚e Ii 4ernariotal and national government regulations .It I am a L rge quantity peneralot, I certify that I have a program In place tc reduce the v it do and lo,ddry of waste gtxterated to the de,. .- I have determined to beec.onomla Iy pracacable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment,stora a ‚ ‚'r disposal currently availainle to me which ml : d'e Las the present and futurethroat to h ,man health and the environment ; OR, If I am a smell quantity generator, I have -n-de r, good faith effort to minirruze my waste g .mr,radon and salad the bestwaste mar agement method tha t i s available t o me and that I can afford..Printedf yped I : - U.aLhAC' tF+ vi?`-IL K~17 . T ra n spo ter I Acl,tr owledgem ento f Race pt of Materials' ~Pr int d / "Sped K .-ileMV !-f- /f wc~Montn Day Yeare j~ y r18 . Transpo - ter 2 AL knowied9emert of Receipt of MaterialsPrin ted ty ped 14,Styrtr r .'te0RMonth19 .,; Discrep + racy Indication Space.Facility t /yrtel;i; Operator : _eru6cation of receipt of h azardous mate r i als -o e.rel$lgnaturePrinted /19PA Form 1700-22 (low . Nr!pr- ‚ iota' bone ors 0b~&Day YearI//1 ~7 99Z-TRANSPOR' : 4:"i.:- / ,10 .2t .ept as noted in i r n 1 9 .%/C :~Month Dayyear99A607e print or type (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch ) typewriter )UNIFORM HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFESTForm1 Generators US EPA ID NoAIQbD0000322806/17/99Approved . OMB no . 2050-0039 . Expires 9-30-99MartMast ~~(G&MD7~‚Page l1ARMYF3iGII'ffitIIIIGAK DISTC'30A -M-ER (.L )PO BOX 3506699703-0066 (907) 353-70634 Generators Phone ET iAINS'RIMN AKB . State Generators ID5 . Transporter 1 Company Name 6 . US EPA ID NumberC . State Transports 's IDD . Transporters Phone E . State Transporter's IDNorthland Services iQ~D9817730057 . Transporter 2 Company Name 8 . US EPA ID NumberF . Transporter's Phone (253)383-35WResource Recovery KAD0616728129 . Designated Facility .Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID NumberG . State Facility's IDChest Waste Mgnt of Northwest17629 Cedar Springs LaneArlington , OR 97812 ORD089452353H . Facifitys Phone(541) 454-264312 . Containers11 . US DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class and ID Number)NaERATORInformation i n the shaded areasis not required by Federal law .A . State Manifest Document Number3 . Generator's Name and Mailing AddressUS2of~t13 .TotalQuantityNo . Type14 .UnitI.Waste No .WWoISOLID,10RQ1A16830Pb.C,d.J . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveK. Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 004x33 -00 - - LM C0iIY h1M' BOIL - DI101 (11)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information16 . GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above byproper shipping name and are classified, packed, marked, and labeled/placarded, and are in all respects in proper condition for transportaccording to applicable international and national government regulations .If I am a large quantity generator, I certify that I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity c1 waste generated to the degree I have determined to beeconomically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and futurethreat to human health and the environment ; OR, it I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good faith effort to minimize my waste generation and select the bestwaste management method that is available to me and that I can afford .Prlnted/Typed NameTASignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonth Day Year17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameNSPOT18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignatureMonthDayYear20 . Facility Owner or Operator Certification of receipt of hazardous materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19Printed/Typed NameSignaturerMonth DayYearER19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceFATEPA Fare $7V042 (pw . F-U) Prwlow editions w. ob oy.,ORIGINAL-RETURN TO GENERATORbb _11t.u^uar- :.*‚%F HOUR EF iCY RESPONSE TMMON , =l~T,L (907 ) 27a.-9007 ‚ ‚ `08/24 /99;r r.PIctise Dnnt ip tqW . (For m deigned for use on otne ;12- p.tch) rypowntcr i Form Approvod . OMB no . 2050-oo39 . Expires 9-30-99ilenthad. ooc†n,.rt tner.uo( s US EPA ID No .y ?age 1 Information in the shaded areUNIFORM'. HAZARDOUS 1 . G''G lMa7 r t 1 is not rs+ quired by Federal lavAKI 000003 228WA'$1 'E MANIFESTI3 . Generatc rs Name and Mailing Address3 ARM ,U , ENGY E RT13G DLST AK CEPOA-s t,erol reerigr n. fell epoft's e‚ape r Inperel at retard- west,Frinf .d,rTYF -d Nome:7t i-~V9T 17 Tro :ports r 1 Acktto ‚ l lydyem en+ of Ittrcr pt o f Mor erialsrt.X ~YF1 :A I OtinredlTyp ‚ d Nome y..+~GLRlyv_-oT:r naturer+Il~r'.r,tIMe‚‚rh OarV-., O- .AA*.. e.0 ' 18 . Tro o porter 2 Ackno_iedoement . d Race:pt o f Mof VialsTff.d 'Typ rd!`\jaipnatur.' 1/1J Mon,n`Do'g ~ .'~ 1P pixreponcy indocolion Space20 . foal,ry Cl .r se e . Op.ro/ar : Cerfifconon of r .seep ' of att, netenois cc-red by :,'h mani{est except as noted in Item 19 .Seed naty r eI 1Pnwi .d / I yp ,d Nome.TRAPIs."OPTFR ?i2To' d9006ZLZL06d .A03 saw L n .,+ las d L L L 4d d6I : ZO00-OZ-u1--PNON-HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFEST1 . Generator's US EPA ID No .Manifest2 . Page 1R R 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 8 Dnufn'1No7of 1ors Name Moiling Address3 . GeneratlAE RING DIST AK CEF%- 0 -FR (GAH3ELL)PO BOX 350664 . G enerat or's Phone ( F "SRI( T AK 99703-0066 (907) 353-7063US EPA5.llor~hlai1Services7. Transporter 2 Company NameNumber. Transporter's Phone6 . A D 9 8 .11 78 . US EPA ID Number(206)763-3000B . Transporter's PhoneResource Recovery ADO 6 1 6 7 2 8 1 29 . Designoted_Facili Nome and Address 10 . US EPA ID Number~~TH4 TH & LADSSF'ATrIE , NA 98108(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-4000XEKPT12 . Containers11 . Waste Shipping Name and Description13.TotalQuantityNo . Type14 .Unitt Vola . 11TEIIIL WT tEGULITED By DOT ( SCw IKYAL)GENERAT0Rb.Id..c..D . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveE . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 162942 -00 - - SCM WILL, IARAICO CEITIIICATIOI 10 . 99-1119 - 01101 (24)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional InformationGDKUT01 'S CEITIUICATIOI : I hereby declare that the contents of this cansign .ent are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nane , and are classified , packaged, carted , and labelled/placarded , and are in all respectsin proper condition for transport via air , road, rail and urine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16 . GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest are not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignaturePrinted/Typed NameTRANSP0RTMonthDayYea,17. Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonthDayYearMonthDayYearMonthDayYear18. Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameE19. Discrepancy Indication SpaceFAC20. Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in hem 19 .TYPrinted/TypedNameSignatureORV NAL-RETURN TO GENERATOR99A607 08/23/99~,~)Manifest. Per . 12NO J HAZARDOtbC 1 . Generator's US EPA 10 NoKrK .R .0 .0 .0 .0 0 3! . 2 & ),'1117`1 7 of 1WA STE MANIFESTcnerator s lame ~nd Mailing Address,l-I}US ARl~C E I RING DIST 'AK C o*-co :.im GAr` ~, )PO BOX 35066 Ie, t,aonoro tor' s phone ( FT N&Ili(SRIG'1‚!rI' AK 99703-0066 (907) 353- 70635 . Transporter Company Name. .Northland ServicesUS. E?:: ID Hj6.nberjI .A .)7 .'0.1,7 .7 3.sn.._ ._. US EPA ID Nil-,bar7, Transportor ! Company NomeReBOtrc s Rec a=yAA. Transporter'sASPhone(206)i__763-3000L Tnsnsporter's Phone, ,.A .D ,001 ,6 -7 2 B 1 2 l (253) 383-30449. Designated -oc;lity Name andSiteAddress)0 . US EPA lD Nw,mI rC. Fccility's PhoneRAERNM RECYQ..4 1'H & C .ANDE RSJMLE, WA .,9b108(206) 62 .1-4000IA.UnitWT Vol1ATBi LAL IqT p1;GULA!&[ BY DOT (SCQAP KTAL)E . Handling Codes for V aster Listed AboveD . Additional I escriptions for Mo,crisls Listed Abovea j 1629 ( 2 -00 - - SCUP K.ETAL, QABhI1CO CEITIFICATI01 10 . 99-1114 - Q141 124)15 . Special Ho idling h i .'ructions ant; Addiiona InformationG1L71BYATOp'S CSETIY.ICATI01 ; I hereby declare that the contents of thIT rx- ;rlgn.ent are fully and accurate y describedabove by . Lhe proper sb'pping nan ,and ire classified, pactaged , e4rtewii, ,,pd labelled /plac ;rded, and are 'n all respectsla proper condition for transport cola -air, road, rail and term. vaafrrl :wording to applicable lnterfnat~onal andnational :equlations .. t ce a `ST~Qr. n s h malifest are not d to federal regvlMl16 . GENERATC R 'S CERTIffCATIPrinted/TyF ad Name.17'•r.., .:P'ere;nt a f'Mnrerial,printed/TyF ed Name it I r .004_14`/. AfAA'I Si9na18 . Transporter 2 Ackn' ' edgement , )f Receipt c ‚f MoteiolsPrinted /TyFed19. Dlscrepon q Indication 'Focefor reporting props dispoml of Haxordov3 Wwte .Sifitnon+%Nom,_ _ _riSignotv,e-2i20 . Facility Owi er or Operator. Cerfiiieation of receipt of waste materials covered by thi murtiep except as noted in b- :m 19.Y RESPONSE INFORMATION, CALL---F'CIt 24 HOUR EI'( 907) 272-9007 ---99A607 08/23/991 . enerator's US EPA ID No .NON-HAZARDOUS-WASTE MANIFEST3.Manifest) R 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 8ftul4nl c82 . Page 1of 1Generator's l~j~pykpAG DIST AK CFF'0&- -FR (GAH~LL)P0 ID 35066W flISItIGf' AK 99703-0066 (907) 353-70634 . Generator 's Phone( FTUJs . _jransransporter7. T2A D 9 8 .11 7CompanyResource Recovery9.Number6.jai d mSeiYvN?cesrteNameADAddress4 ZH & LAIRSSEATTLE,A . Transporter's Phone0 0 58 . US EPA ID Number061(~) 763-3000B . Transporter 's Phone6 .7 .2 .8 .1 .210. US EPA ID Number(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-4000VA98108XEMPT11 . Waste Shipping Name and Description12 . Containers13 .TotalNo . TypeQuantity14 .UnitWt Vola . IATEIIAL JOT IEGQLATED BY DO! ( SCUP IETAL)GENERAT0Rb..c.d.E . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed AboveD . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Abovea) 162942 -00 - - SCUP IETAL , UBAICO CEITIFICATI01 10 . 99-1119 - DI101 (25)t)15. Special Handling Instructions and Additional InformationCDEUT01 'S CRITIFICATIOI : I hereby declare that the contents of this consiguent are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nue , and are classified , packaged , urked , and labelled / placarded, and are in all respectsin proper condition for transport via air, road , rail and urine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16. GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest ore not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignaturePrinted/Typed NameTRANSPORTMonthDo,Year17. Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignatureMonthDayYearSignatureMonthDayYearMonthDayYear18. Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameER19. Discrepancy Indication SpaceFAC20. Facility Owner or Operator: Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .TYPrinted/Typed NameSignatureORIGINAL - RETURN TO GENERATORe - -FOR 24 HOUR f24: R( 77CY R ESPONSE INFORHATIObf r CALL ( 907) 272-•900799A6071. toNOI J-HAZARDOUS09/23/49r1 US EPA ID NoWA STE MANIFEST--eb O 0 o t.xManifest~~ ~ nd3 . Genertgs I qW-- MCsI1lCt. t{YfG DIST AK G POA-C0-FR ( GAHFl1;w.,Sa)PO . ~0X 35066`1AX 49703 -0066 (~,O7) 353-7063(FWINSRIQITA. Genrroro / s Phone5US EPA iD Nu bemie. NOr~[iL8:7c3mservl605A. Tmnsporter 's PhoneA D98';I 773005e.(206)763-3000EPA f1 Num',,arU5WADO6, .1 67 281 2(253) 383-304410. US EPA 1 Npmknr(206) 623-4000IEXEMPT)a.12. Containers 13 .Tota lU nitNo .Type,Quantity Wit/volNATBA AL NOT REGULATED 8T DOT ISCal3 WAL)O'0' C'E . Handling Codes for V. ates Listed AboveD. Additional C,scripitons for Mote ;i c'h listed Abovedi !b2942 00 -PSCI P 'AL, a At .ANCC Cb'NTIFICATIOA N0 . 99-1115 • t. M i (2511115 . Special Hot dying Instructions and Additional InformofionGEL ATOP 5 CE'?TIFICATION : 1 hereby declare that the cooteLLS of this consigavent are tu11Y and accurate'( describedabove by ne prnpec shipping na .e,and are classified, pactaged ,ailKtld, tad label led/placacded, and are 1 all respectsin proper condition for transpozL via air, road , rail and aarin4°resiel according to applicable lnternat_oral andnational equlatlons .16. GEN ERATO VS CERTIIIC{ .TION : I conify the matatiols described abe a on this rnan`i(ettPri d/Typ d Name&&A tt v S of O V7Sig.rrr rot sub! - d to federo l reg ulation for reporting propsw lispo oI of Hozordan Wove .DayYearMonth DarYearmonthrc17 . Transporter i Adkn v r i dpemenr o f Receipt of Mat erialsPrint d/Typ td Nome 4'.4'Q/cGa/4,QDSignoiu.11-A.18 . Transporter ? Acknov iedgement : Receipt of Mot oriolsdSignatum`Name'-Printed/ Typ ,1t . Disereponcy Indicw 'e•• tpocr1;ail''-20. Facility Owr or or Oporater : Certification of nrceipt of waste materials covered by thi- me n far' except as noted in hem 19... . I K L, I Qy,_MonthpayYearIN11-(,1g9ace99A607NON-HAZARDOUS08/23/991 . Generator's US EPA ID No .ManifestWASTE MANIFEST K .R .0 .O 0 0 0 3 2 2 8t" .'Kny"C192 . Page 1of 13 . Generator's Name and Mailing AddressUS ARHY ENGINEERENG DIST AK CEPQA-CO-FR (GAMS . )PO BOX 350664 . Generator's Phone( FT 1AINS UGH'T AK 99703-0066 (907) 353-70635.Transporter1CompanyName7.Transporter2Resource6 . US EPA ID NumberA . Transporter's Phone. A . D . 9 .8 .1 .7 .7 .3 O 0 5Northland ServicesCompanyNameRecovery8 . US EPA ID NumberB . Transporter's PhoneA . D 0 6 .1 6 .7 .2 8 1 29 . Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID NumberRAHANW RF>rYCL NG4 TH & LAIRSSEATITE, WA 98106(206) 763-3000(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-4000.X .E .H P T12 . Containers11 . Waste Shipping Name and DescriptionNo . Type13 .TotalQuanta14 .UnitWt vola' IITBRIAL WT LEGULATKD BY DOT ( SCRIP IBTAL)GENERATb.c.0RE . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed AboveD. Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Abovea) 162962 - 00 - - SCRIP IBTAL, UBAICO CK1TIFICITIOI W . 99-1119 - DI101 (26 )a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional InformationGBIODZITOI'S CBRTI ?ICITIOI : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignaent are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nue , and are classified , packaged , urked , and labelled/placarded , and are in all respectsin proper condition for transport via air, road , rail and urine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16. GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest are not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignaturePrinted/Typed NomeTANSPORTERMonthDoy Year17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonthDayYearMonthYear18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignatureDay19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceFAC20. Facility Owner or Operator : Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .YPrinted/Typed NameSignatureORIGINAL - RETURN TO GENERATORMonth Doy Year99A607• NOI J - HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFESTs06/2 3/i91 . Generators US EPA ID No.Monffen~ .K .R .0 .O .o O .O .3 ,2 .2 8 jer.WnY'I°93 . Crnerator's Jome and Mailing AddressUS ' ARHY 2 GIN1 RING L1ISl'.?QA-CD-FR:AX (f( t'8F' LL, )PO k1QX 35066A.Genarotors none ( F2' W AIINSRIGHI ' AK 997O3-• o066 (907'13`3-10636.. US EPA ID NumberA . Tninsponer's Phone 'A D 9 1 7 7 ..3 0 0 5I 8.7 . Transporter CompanyfNomeReeourca RecoveryI10.9, Designated I acuity Name and Site AddresshAIiANCC RECYCLINGU9 ID NumberA D O 6 1 6 7 2 8 3 2. US EPA !0 Numbert (20606 :~-3000B . Trtmsporices PhoneM(253)383-3044C. Focilifyh Phone44 rlli & LANDiERSS12 TILE , WA 96108(206) 62 -400012 . Cantainers11 . Wostc Ship )in9 Nave and DescriptionNo .;Type i~IIlIAYH JL 907 UGJLATE BY Q0T i SCULP METAL)1tt13 .la .Total UnitOvanti Wt Vcl•C1rl1E . Handling Codes for wastes Listed AboveD . Additional C escripncn6 tar Materials Listed Abovea ) 1t2342 00 - SCRAP liisPAL, flAEANC0 Ci LTlf1C)T1ON K0 . 99 -1119 - ?igill Itf)a;15 . Special Mar dung Inuruerfons and Additional InformationG11 J.AT(lu S CiiYTt iCATION : I hereby deciac~t4hai the co4Lants 91. ;hi . :a/:f~tgneent are tuU f cud accuratecaacrlbedabaire by he p ap ehippi2g naae , and are classified, packaged , ilarkea , and label led/placaf•ded, and are , all reapectain proper condl'toli 1017 tr ospoit via alt, road , tall and marine K•aasci ::cording to appli :able interoai: . nil and+j,vnational ogula tans .16 .GENERATO !'S CE RTIHLATI ON : I comfy nc . mororioh described abo.e an thn non- fs re .o' '* ea to federal ra ularions for reporting proper .irposol of Hazardous wost ..DayYOGIPrinted/Typ, d NomeN F..=-14,LF =-14,4L4= 10,C s/$ 6• p - Sign y - -, MonthT 17. Trays r sner I Ac kn ow ledgement o f ReceiptRPrimed /Typ rA.dp 18. Trn spo rt e rofMaterialsA~NomeSid__nature.~MonthAchno • ted‚g emo m o f Receipt of MaterialsR printed /Typ ~d Nom I .Tear''Si. _ - ,..ourrERDay..ahrhA .d19. Discrepancy Indication : .aceFAC20. Futility Own tr or O•saratar: CertiFcotion of nrceipt of waste tnefer41$ covered by,tl)it m. n : st except of noted in her 19.SignatureTRANSPOPTr_rl # .er..FOR 24 HOUR ICY RESPONSE I NFORMATION , CALL (907)99A607 08/23/99Reltrcar'OXUPAIRy''a3 2 2 8 f^'D6ZUrfilnt&oyr~q ~ f e0. 2 .NON-HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFEST3 . Gener sfEGa9Mof.911W DIPO BOX 35066FT WJNSRIGHT4 . Generator's Phone ( )5 . filmm"g} a7 . geget&C:%~C+pegAD$1&dP'i9 . immuW "I{Ti. :Z41S22RSiteAD qP Sj rt1e3 0 0 5lDd4"'Ib*2Address8110 . US EPA ID Number2. Transporter's PhoneB. Transpo rt er's Phone(206) 763-3000(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-40004 TH & IAm sSEATI1E , VA 98108X E M P T11 . Waste Shipping Name and Description12 . Containers13 .Total14.UnitNo . TypeQuantaWt Vola . IATE1IIL 10T REGULATED BY DOT (SCAM IET11L)•0 .1M 1 .2 .4 .6 .0Pb.C.d.E . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed AboveD . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Abovea) 162942 -00 - - SCALP EM, LABIICO CELTIFICATIOI 10 . 99-1119 - DIli01 (27)t)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information _GBIIIIT0I ' S CIRTIIICATI01 : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignunt are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nue , and are classified , packaged , urked , and labelled / placarded, and are In all respectsIn proper condition for transport via air, road , rail and urine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest ore not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignatureMonthDayYearPrinted/Typed Name17. Transporter I Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonthDayYearMonthDayYea,MonthDayYearIf 18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignature19 . Discrepancy Indication Space20 . Facility Owner or Operator: Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .rPrinted /Typed NameSignatureORIGINAL - RETURN TO GENERA'Op• `F0 24 I OUItt l WEIV-71 M-MPONSE IN)?0RMATI(I:;', CALL (907) 272-9W799A607()8/2.3/49N etarcWCU!aPPIUOda3 . .2 2 . 8. GhoeumAn3fii.nNO N-HAZARDOUSW{STE MANIFEST3 .1 Geerdt 's nPO BOX 3506601ST. . .Oa.C2YClA-ZS'V)CA1)0° l lk) . 71 -}, '. } •3 . : . (1fJav~rY,13 . Speciol r .ndlinf Instruetions a,d Adda:ona InformationGbt18WTl'i 'S C2T1lfCAT3-N4 : 1 hinebp dee)are LhaL khe c uteatP at .414 .rtRligh%e b t are Wit is •Ccvzat : ly describedd ore b• the proper zh4j;)iaq gue,asd are c14101iId Services lM A ll 9'8 ;~ 7 `7 3 .0 P .58. US EPA ID Num6gbr7 . Transporter ! Company NameResource Recovery. A . D . 0 ;'G ,1 .6 , 7 .2 .8 .1 , 29. Designated acuity Nami and Sits AddressBABA) CC R .'YCLM-!10. US EPA 10 Number4 TH & L .ARS11I1 , WA 93108(206) 62:1-400011 . Wove Shipping Name and De . aiptionKATE ; ILL E1 aRGUlrATK1) BY DOT (SC&AP METAL)0. Additional C ezeriptions for Materials Listed Above11 162942 -00 - - . CW JET", "LKCO C†YTIFICCATION 1O . 0-111 :+ - BIRO! 131)15 . Special Ha dling.-,hIr fictions and Additional informationGƒiBY.AYOF S :CERTIFICATIONI Lerebti declare that the contetits al to 9 :oL ':ignaent are tally and accurately describedabove by . he proper shipping naae , and are claeaitied , pactaged , wu ted , and label led / placarded , and are . a all respectsin proper condition for transport via iii, road, rail and aallne .,ew according to applicable international andnational -agulitions .16. GENERATO .S CERTIRCATION : I certify s he mate rials described above on this menlfest ore not rbiea so federal regulations for r eporting proper Jisposo l of Ibzordmrs Wean.Primed/Typ :d Nomefj.p Vf-It+V V. ,LI4 - OF` 1/517 . Transporter I Acknowledgement of Receipt o f MaterialsPA ted/Typ :d Name L l4 ~4. .5,.~/I)5-'R,-C-Oh •eAy li)L >!18 . Transporter 2 Ackn owled gement c l Receipt o f Mai erio s20 . Facility Owr x or Ow,,, or: Cerlilicotion of oxeipr of waste materials corured b y this moo fro except as noted in Item 19 .TRANSPOR"rL ;z. t!199A607NON-HAZARDOUSWASTE MANIFEST3 . Generator's Name anilin1 . Generator's US EPA ID No.DManifestK .R 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 8Address(08/23/99mo2 . Page 1p4l ?f 2Jc of 1)GAM _--• L .US ARMY W06II RING DISP AK (P0A--00-ER n*tRtrPO H]X 35066AK 99703-0066 (907) 353-70634 . Generator 's Phone( ET WIHSRIQ5.Transporter7.Transporter1CompanyName6 . US EPA ID NumberA . Transporter's Phone(206)763-3000Hor~hland Services A D 9 8 1 7 7 3 0 0 52CompanyNamej Resource Recovery8 . US EPA ID Number8. Transporter's Phone.ADO 6 1 .6 7 2 8 1 2C . Facility's Phone9 . Designated Focili Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID Number4 TH & LAMMSSSOWME , VA(253)383-3044(206) 623-400098108XEMPT.12 . Containers11 . Waste Shipping Name and DescriptionNo . Typea13 .TotalQuanta14 .UnitWt Vol. IITSIIAL WT 1ZCUL ATƒ BY DOT (SCRAP IIETAL)b.C.d.E . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Above0 . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Abovea) 162!12 - 00 - - SCRAP IKTAL, LABAIC0 CBYTIIIC &TI01 10 . !9- lII! - Dit01 (32)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional InformationGU KIII0t 'S C12TIIICATIOI : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignsent are fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping nue , and are classified , packaged , .arced , and labelled / placarded , and are in all respectsin proper condition for transport via air, road , rail and [arisie vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest are not subject to federal regulations for reporting proper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignaturePrinted/Typed NameTRANSMonthDayYearDayYear17 . Transporter I Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturePrinted/Typed NameMonth18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed NameSignatureMonthDayyearMonthDayYear19 . Discrepancy Indication Space20 . Facility Owner or Operator: Certification of receipt of waste materials covered by this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .Printed /Typed NameSignaturer tPlr ;INAL - RETURN TO GFNER4SOP11/17iaat1J L.1.u : uu rt112E 3PONSE INFORMATION, CAM, (90.1)99A607s %.#w%L~W a`~Manifest.K .R. .0 .O .O .O .0 .3`'! 2 BWR STE MANIFESTA1O8 / 2 3/99Ti1 . Generolors US EPA ID No.3 . Generafer's Name and Mailing AddressUS AM FNGINkERING LliSir AK -CO--FA-~(PO BOX 35066..L)14,. Generator's Phone ( FT WAIZI5RIG1[)' Afi 99703-0066 ( 90 .7.) .35`3-'10636.North la nd ServicesUS EPA ID Nvrrl,er7, Transporter 2 Company NameM .A .D ;9 .8 ,1 .7' .3 3 .0 O 58 . -US-EPA I NumberResource RecoveryA .D .O .b :='1 .61,7 2 S .1 29 . Designated =aciliry Name and 5tu : AddressRA13N X RECYCLING10.a. Transporters PhoneBUS t~r-_17. Transporter I Acknowledgement -,f Receipt of Ma terialsSignal"QwRpPrinted/ TyF ed Naner18. Tra nsporter 2 Acknow t aaement of Receipt o f Ma teri a ls~S;ynafv mar! -Pr6,tes1/Tve ed Na r .e_~i1F19. Oil-pa/c, Indicori ., r SpaceAFII-------_. _ . . . .; Certi'icotion of receipt of waste materials covered b1 tI' mono ^ auepl as noted in M-m 19 ..fI- 20. Facility Owe per or Opo' otorTY.,blept„ payr(:is aI :nD .,IaC;t' D .' M',NON-HAZARDOUSgoo1 . Generator's US EPA ID No .WASTE MANIFESTManifestDo um nt No .- R .R .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .2 S G .A .)i .2 .82 . Page 1of 13 . Generator's Nome and Mailing AddressUS ARHY ENGIN LNG DIST AK C P0A-CD-ER (GAIMd,)PO BOX 350664 . Generator's Phone( FT Iffy-MSR.IC TI' AK 99703-0066 (907)353-70635.Transporter1CompanyNameNorthland Services7.Transporter26 . US EPA ID NumberA. Transporter's Phone. A . D . 9 .8 .1 .7 .7 .3 .0 .0 .5CompanyNameRe ouI ce Recovery8 . US EPA ID Number(206)763-3=B. Transporter's Phone. A . D .O .6 .1 .6 .7 .2 .8 .1 .29 . Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10 . US EPA ID NumberRAW" REMCLM4 TH & I J4I SSEATTLE, VA 98108(253)383-3044C . Facility's Phone(206) 623-4000.X .E .H .P .T ..12 . Containers11 . Waste Shipping Name and DescriptionNo . Type13 .14 .TotalUnitQuantaWt Vola.IATBIIAL LOT 1BGQLAT EO BY DOT ( SCRAP IETAL)G b.ENERA c.T0R.d.D . Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed AboveE . Handling Codes for Wastes Listed Abovea) 162942 -00 - - SCRAP IETAL, 1ABAICO CERTIFICATION NO . 99-1119 - DIRO1 (35)a)15 . Special Handling Instructions and Additional InformationCE'IE1ATOR ' S CERTIFICATION : I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment ire fully and accurately describedabove by the proper shipping naee,and are classified, packaged , marked , and labelled /placarded, and are in all respectsIn proper condition for transport via air , road, rail and marine vessel according to applicable international andnational regulations .16 . GENERATOR 'S CERTIFICATION : I certify the materials described above on this manifest are not subject to federal regulations for reportingPrinted/Typed NameTRNSF,RTERproper disposal of Hazardous Waste .SignatureMonth Day YearSignatureMonthDay YearSignatureMonthDayYearMonthDayYear17 . Transporter 1 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed Nome18 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of MaterialsPrinted/Typed Name19 . Discrepancy Indication SpaceFA1T20 . Facility Owner or Operator: Certification of receipt of waste materials covered b5' this manifest except as noted in Item 19 .YPrinted/Typed NameSignatureORIGINAL - RETURN TO GENERATOR11/17/ 98 W.D 10401 k- A.1(49 9A607NON-HAZARDOUSW),STE MA IFEST3 . Goncraror' sNameovi!081 -21• GcncroTors US EPA 10 N6 ./Ma nifest 2. Pc .ye 1Docume n t No.• K-R •0 .4 .0 .0 •I• -3 • 8 ~ - alMoilingAddress1 . _1 ;4 4US ARMY I2iGINJ;3 RZA1G 1)IS'r AK tmvoA-{X)-1'R ;t Ghll~tlE:Li )POBOX3,066,A . Gereroiers Phone (WAI1iS12ZGH.r A{ 99703--006 (902'1)353-70635 . Transporter I Company`NameNorth 1 . Ind Services7 . Transporter 2 Compon1/ omerReam :e Etec vez9 . Des. gneied Fociliry Nome and Situ Address6 . L15'ePI. ID NumberA. Transporter's PhoneIk • A .13 9'7 .3 .0 .0 .5B . US EPA IDh'vmf.er.B. Trnnsporier's, PhoneyICI . A :0 .0 .6-1 .6 . 7r.2 .A .1 .2110. US EPA ID Number(206)763-3000C . FuclliWs PhoneRASUGI, I XafC,'TJ.NG4 711 & L1 NDi BSSEAt1 rL :, WA `4 810811 . Waste Ship ping Nome and Descriptiona.1(Al'E!IAL NU1' .iRGIJLATEi) BY GOT iSCIAP NETALIb.C.d.fp. Additional >escriprio;+ : for Mater als Listed Abort. a1 16294 : -Osi - SCRAP LTAL, R1t ANCO CgltTOICATION 00, X9-1115 . Di1,0i (35)15 . Special Mc ndling Insrru Zion and Addilioncl InformationiCE)1K AIOI 'S CRds' .FICATIOR I hereby declare that tGe conl .E:nls ct thla cmianaent are tut if and accuratr , ly deacrlbeoabove DY the props: shlpp . ag naie , and are classified , pactag d, airted, and labelled /placiirded, and are in all respectsin prope r condition for transport via air, road , rail and tarTne vessel according to applicable International i`idnational regulations .16. GENERATI )R'5 CERTIFICATION : I eenify the materials described oba ." on obis reael l ea ort nrr si eject t o Iede rol tegvtatien , for te paning props d isposal of Mavardout Wane .Printed / Ty 'ad Naroe17 . Trcnsportef..#Signo+u.e1 Acknc -i_dgemeni of Re ceipt .sf Ma terialsPrime /Ty Pod Namel+ .4.,018, Tre nsporrc 2 Ackr, Dwl edgernenl of Receipt of MaterialsSignaturVA,dosed /Ty red NomeI19, Discrepant F Indiccr-oi . Space20 . Focaity O .. ner or Operator : Certification of receipt of . ..onto materials ces•ered by +hia m r ifes' except as noted in Item 19 .Printed /Ty )ad NorneSENT BY : RABANCO ;2063327611 ;NOV-9 - 01 12 :04 ;PAGERABANCO54 SOUTH DAWSON STRE1 TSEAT rL Z , WA 98134(20M)3S2-7700 FAX(206)763-1234CERTIFICATE OF DISPOSAL. November 9, 2001OSCIAttn : Diving PortudesBill of Lading :99-1119 ( see attached)This is to certify that NON-DANGEROUS WASTE as defined on the above referenced Bill ofLading was shipped by US Army Engineering District Alaska, CEPOA-CO-FR from Gamble, AK .The scrap metal was received by Regional Disposal Company and disposed of at RooseveltRegional Landfill, 1800 Roosevelt Grade Road , Roosevelt, WA 99356 . The above described :NON-DANGEROUS WASTE was managed in compliance with all Permits and Laws Regulatingthis Facility .Final Disposition : Subtitle D and WAC 173- 351 MSW LandfilltdSignatureFor Regional Disposal Company2/0SENT BY : RABANCO ;2063327611 ; NOV-9-01 12 :04 ;SUMMARY OF LOADS HAULEDPAGE :INVOICE *9924043-K1KD;m(71) Industrial Waste - Seattle11/09 / 99 112118635,64029,14011/11/ 99PAGE112252541,22029,04011/12/ 99 112296238,00011/12 / 99 112305111/12 / 99 112319239,10041,62029,38028,80011/12 / 99 112323811/12/ 99 112325641,12042,00029,26028,96029,2206,50012,1803 .2506 .0909009008,6204 .31090010,30012,36012,16012,7805 .1506 .1806 .0806 .390900900900900Total :37 .450NSIU 299074CAXU 2590422NSIU 20115333/3SENT BY : RABANCO ;2060327611 ; NOV-9-01 12 :09 ;PAGE213RABANCO54 SOUTH L)AWSON STREETSb:ArrL.E, WA 08134(2061332-7700 FAX (20(I 7W-1234CERTIFICATE OF DISPOSALNovember 9, 2001OSCIAttn .' Divina PortudesBill of Lading :99-1120 (see attached)This is to certify that NON-DANGEROUS WASTE as defined on the above referenced Bill ofLading was shipped by US Army Engineering District Alaska, CEPOA-CO-FR from Gamble, AK .The RCRA Empty Drums were received by Regional Disposal Company and disposed of atRoosevelt Regional Landfill , 1800 Roosevelt Grade Road , Roosevelt, WA 99356 . The abovedescribed NON-DANGEROUS WASTE was managed in compliance with all Permits and LawsRegulating this Facility .Final Disposition : Subtitle D and WAC 173-351 MSW LandfillSignatureFor Regional Disposal Company~aSENT BY : RABANCO ;2063327611 ; NOV-9-01 12 :09 ;SUMMARY OF LOADS HAULEDPAGE :DATEPAGEINVOICE #9924044-K1TILT#GROSSTARENET NETONSTRUCK # CONTAINER #`(71) Industrial waste - Seattle11/09 / 99 112124739,18029,5409,6404 .82090011/11/ 99 112259911/12 / 99 112313239,08037,72029,44028,8809,6408,8404 .8204 .420900900Total :14 .0603/3SENT BY : RABANCO ;2063327611 ;NOV-9-0112 :12 ;PAGERABANCOg4 SOUTN r7AWSON STRE[rSEA'ITLE, WA 98134(2061332-1700 rAX ( 20(i) 763 1234CERTIFICATE OF DISPOSALNovember 9, 2001OSCIAttn : Divina PortudesBill of Lading :99-1121 (see a _ hed)This is to certify that NON-DANGEROUS WASTE as defined on the above referenced Bill ofLading was shipped by US Army Engineering District Alaska, CEPOA-CO-FR from Gamble, AKThe Petroleum Contaminated Soil was received by Regional Disposal Company and disposed ofat Roosevelt Regional Landfill , 1800 Roosevelt Grade Road , Roosevelt, WA 99356 . Theabove described NON-DANGEROUS WASTE was managed in compliance with all Permits andLaws Regulating this Facility .Final Disposition : Subtitle D and WAC 173-351 MSW LandfillSignatureFor Regional Disposal Company2!3SENT BY : RABANCO ;2063327611 ; NOV-9-0i 12 :12 ;SUMMARY OF LOADS HAULEDPAGE :1DATETICKET #GROSSPAGEINVOICE #9924045-KTARENETNET TONS(34) Petroleum Contaminated Soil Disposal -- Sea tt11/09/99 112133636,28028,9207,3603 .68039,00028,98011/11/ 99 112246510,0205 .01011/11/ 99 112265943,52028,86014,6607 .330Total :16 .020TRUCK #CONTAINER #900900900MSIU 2992352NSIU 299327 ;CMCU 20578443/3Date : 11 /07/01 CERTIFICATE OF TREATMENT , RECYCLING , AND/OR DISPOSALLC)This is to certify that the following waste material was received , managed, and treated in compliance withall applicable Federal and Washington State Laws and regulations .vFacility :BURLINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL TUC . 734 SOUTH LUCILE STREETGEORGETOWN FACILITY SEATTLE WA 98108EPA ID : WAD0008129D9Generator : 32944Manifest :- US ARMY ENGINEERING D1ST AK EPA ID :GAM02-99Line ProfileWasteReceipt # :N0AXRD00003228GTW-40524 Date Received :'-n11/10/99Material DescriptionFinal Treatment/Treatment/Disposal Description Disposal FacilityFinal PSC Final Date/ManifestPgLn DateShippedIA162785-00HAZARDOUS WASTE, SOLID, N .O .S .( 0008)M111 STABILIZATION /CHEMICALFIXATION /CEMENTCHEM WASTE MGMT OF NORTHWEST15969-KNT1A12/29/991B162781-00WASTE TARS, LIQUIDM061 FUEL BLENDINGCONTINENTAL CEMENT CO . L .t .CSYSTECR ENVIRONMENTALSYSTECR ENVIRONMENTALSYSTECH ENVIRONMENTALSYSTECH ENVIRONMENTAL25213- GTW25252-GTW25270 -GTW25271-GTW25310- GTW1C1A1A1AIA12/03/9901/06/0001/17/0001/18/0002/15/001C162783- ODHAZARDOUS WASTE . SOLID, N .O .S( DO08 )M111 STABILIZATION / CHEMICAL CHEM WASTE NGMT OF NORTHWESTFIXATION / CEMENT15969-KNT1A12/29/991D162782- 00ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUSSUBSTANCES , SOLID, N .O .S . (LEAD)M013 SECONDARY SMELTING KINSBURSK) BROTHERS ,INC .25196-GTW1C12/10/99Name :Wanda GrondahlncISignatureTitle : Certificate Production Specialistz0wNOW.- z xwxvzi• -FM 24 ucta II1XPC MATICN, CALL (907) 272-9007 ,( y 99A607 C43 I17j99'~AJU NIFORM HAZARDOUS l . Generatcr'$ JS --FA 'CNoLis'JFarm ADprWOC . -'M3 no , logo-Ccze .aMWde .t Dooum•ni N o .Page ! n/ormetton n.Me' 3hadeo areas i9 0l ' .OUKed Dy edaral 'ew.3~t, l0 2WA TE MANIFEST A322a0/A Stag.tytltMlget7 • Generators Name ano Ma liag Addreea.A-a,,-FR (G L)U9 Al MY P~iG MST AX tPO W X 35066T AX 99703-CC66 (907) 353-70634, Generator' s Phone F'T VMI =d . U5 ~PA .C NumoerNAMS177300SS . Transporter 1 Company NameNcrthland'Sexy icesRecoveryDesignated Facility Name and S lie Address3lL C:31CIl~L331GPC~ii 734 South Ltlci la StroatA 98108rSeattleIIaX81290913 .TotalIT v.! Cuantit2 . Containers11 . us DOT Description (Including Prayer Shipping Name, Ma3erd Claea end 10 Number)a1!9 j!3rSOLID, l ; . S. (boosIJ4 iiT.Inal(i.IL 1{.fL :...J.--14 ,I UnIWWoip)11 IL!! 601 1 PMIr rt~sntNumber~8, JS EPA !C Numtrer}tlCL61572S1210 .US PA ;O :Number7. Transporter 2 Cornpirw Name9.oiros 3-30-Ao1A1t D a iS99 '9II( DCC1 )t3i( ;3O)!1 9 ` CH 4458c . a YA3~ , 30 0,,Or3, (Kill 9 IA307 241 :1 51(111 }UK375d.ISOC.71 Et i ATCR'e CERTtFICATlONaiby seders that The oentsn * of ty!ia consignment are fully and aecurataly deacrtbed boa tryproper shlpDing name and Are clasaltied, pecked , marked, and tabsl d/placarCed and are In all respects in proper conCldon for,ranaponeaccrding to apoileabls lntarnellonal and nedeiie! govemmsnt reguladone,It I am a large quantity generator, I eenity flat 1 haee a program in place to ;educe the volurne, end ioxICNy of waste aeneAlted to ale degree I have Cetermirad woesconomlcally preedeabte and that I lava salOgod the prectleao1e method of treatment, storage , or dlspoul OUrrentry available to me wNch mWmlzee the present and lulurethreat to human nsalth and the environment ; OR, it I am a small quantity generator, I have made a good itlth effort to minlmlze my waste generation and Ielect the bestwaste mahaCernant method that is available to me and 0-at I can afford .Primed/Typed Nart) e 1 V j44up = Vg So`!T17 . Transporter I Acknowiedgement of Rece t of MaterialsPfIntep/ Typed NametPrint Type d N #sMoron , Day YearSigma re0a 19 . Transporter 2 Acknowledgement0flecelpt oI MaterialsaMonthSignature19 . Discrepancy indication Spacea1r720 . Faclity Owner or Oper ator : Ca rtiflcattan of, eceipt of hazardous materials COver s d by this manifest except as noted in Item 19Printed /Typed Namet:PA lame 17eyf (Ray , II•M ) Pievtau. .dhieee enƒeei wSignatureDayYea,/(1 r n Iqu.~OAIQINAL- RETURN TO GENERATOR11/07/ 01 WED 16 : 01 FAX 5414543279 Chem-Waste Arlington, ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812 .US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/17/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM03 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34756401Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/19/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above -described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations , permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MLYRILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 6835712/09/99Q00211/07 / 01 WED 16 : 01 FAX 5414543279 Chem - Waste Arlington, ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/17/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM03 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34756402Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/19/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MICRILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 6835812/09/99lj 00311/07/01 WED 16 :01 FAX 5414543279 Chem-Waste Arlington, ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/10/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM04 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34739601Treatment Date : 11/16/99CWM Unit # : 1*0 thru 20*0I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MtRILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 9385711/07/01Cj 00411/07/01 WED 16 :02 FAX 5414543279 Chem-Waste Arlington . ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/15/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM05 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34747201Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/17/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MU(RILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 6836212/09/99X100511/07 / 01 WED 16 : 02 FAX 5414543279 Chem - Waste Arlington . ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/09/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM06 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34731901Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/10/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MT RILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 6724511/18/99Z00611/07 / 01 WED 16 : 03 FAX 5414543279 Chem - Waste Arlington, ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/10/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM07 .Profile Number :CWM Tracking ID :Treatment Date :CWM Unit # :C048333473940111/16/991*0 thru 10*0I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .0LYNN MtIRRILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 9386011/07/011Q00711/07 / 01 WED 16 : 03 FAX 5414543279 Chem - Waste Arlington, ORCWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/09/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM08 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34731801Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/10/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .0 aLYNN MUUILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 7119002/09/001100811/07/01 WED 16 :03 FAX 5414543279 Chem-Waste Arlington,OR1J009CWM OF THE NORTHWESTFederal EPA ID : ORD08945235317629 CEDAR SPRINGS LANEARLINGTON, OR 97812US ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICTATTN : MANIFEST SECTIONAKR000003228CEPOA-CO-FRGAMBELL AK 99742CONFIRMATION OF DESTRUCTIONChemical Waste Management, Inc . has received waste material from USARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT on 11/09/99 as described on [StateManifest or Uniform] Hazardous Waste Manifest number GAM08 .Profile Number : C04833CWM Tracking ID : 34731802Process : CHEMICAL FIXATIONTreatment Date : 11/10/99I certify, on behalf of the above listed treatment facility, that tothe best of my knowledge, the above-described waste was managed incompliance with all applicable laws, regulations, permits andlicenses on the date listed above .LYNN MU$RILLRECORDS MANAGERCertificate # 7119102/09/001Appendix DDaily Quality Control ReportsEnvironmental Quality Control/Qualit~• :Assurance ReportIo41 ,ContractDACA3__e•37 -D 331 :,D .O . 0004UPC,Prcleet T :t-,Debris Rcrnov3i and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCCC R .rort99-0i1L)atc or Ti,nc PeriodT:n1;9Weather C .,Temp Lc,.,, _Wind Srcrd •__-nliLoc ; :icn and TcamGambcli, AlaskaContractorTemp HiConditions Pt :y cliyOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality; cncns._.t.CoPerformed This Date 'r- : rJe inspections . results, derc,encies ots•:r- .cy, and acv ;n 1Prepara : : f soo JiUched a,cUbsiinitial~,seooluct,ed check!ntFollow-U :.WasYes 0 NoField Sarp ; , s ., ., rci .• ".gHasfic : :_ . .Type cf x, :Yes C1 Not%le :ho . Ma ::,x Ouar .tty of sam ;. ; _sResuiaNoneHave Don C , . :y C :-' ves been achievedlN,AYesOHave Samples Geen Collected for Laboratory Analysis?EPA Test blcthod.T,Aatrx'q; .. 7f TestCcc-'.iy ::f SamplesSC t .p t ; es a :.d r,rsa :•n ccHave req_.,ea -. .achieved) lUAHave a,pr ..p : Y-, _ . .`'aNd :d: •y tuts bee' OrJEr^ .7 _ 'a :r,x SrrACS, r•',E!hO dE!hOd blanks, 5U r rajat. .:s ence,c ;•_ .s _"CS et .'Have OA a-d CC _ : ics been cc ::ected in the spec.1e d quantity? N/AYesoYesDYasDHave sa::•- :__`YasDr:y!JNoOYesand pac`'N :ANoDNODNODNotHealth andWorker prxe,. . : 's..:cdLevel A 0 Level 8 l7 Level C I] Level D e N/AQWas any v:J :-. . . . . . . _- .uct^J vdhin a ccn'rcd scacclYes Q Noe:;.`Was an?v.cr} : c _ crd ct d vr .in a^ r^_3 (;c :e•-. .-c ; to be imredlate!y dangerous to life and re :Ith'rYesQNoeWere apprc .c : Jc-- a^ :ail o . p;r_ec .:res used cn wcrkers and equipment as requ,red7Yes 0 NoeSafety Cor : crs : -' de ar y nf:actions W approved safety plan, and include instr,;ctions from Governmen t personnel. Specify corrective action taken-)The COC receive d a detailed briefing on terrain hazards and instructions in ATV operation .Wont Acti • :t;P4dcnned This DateReference•C • . cVi Sr r :Locale S,teu~Ate. :, .Locatorae .' rr•eJ or,n ;issanca Jf sites 2,3,8 10 12, 13CARalC .:an.t.tyContractorsurvey of sites onlyMobil iza t ._r N :,C C .__7r Unpacked vehicles from conr. ex . Started soup of fcld cflceStarted sutsistence arrangements . Made arrangemert ; nor, :.°', cc .n pleteOAR ofr,,;e and phones .Manpower and Equipmentebor ClassificationProject ktt : :3gcrCAC System MnrJCUCrSuperintc _Archeolc y.stOperatorLaborersNumberMan Hours1111I ;Equipment Type4 wheelerCJt 4CC lCJCCr1.•~cNed1 . • .,P . ; 'r. . ;,Number21211Hours Used223400Total Hours : 29'vial Hcr :rs .trlstr,Ctin .ts::(jcr -‚re Goverament to the Contractor (Include narnes . reactionssVerbaland rcrnn :'s j0 Written 0NoneWork Progress t< c : : ere any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are zero any Government caused ways or potential finding of fact?Are !'ere any u-.fcreseeable or weather related delays?Yes ONo eYes 0No eYes QNo eRemarks (Include ?.' t visitors to protect a A miscellaneous remarks pertnent to work )The three connexes containing Philip's tools, materials, equipment were not cffloaded with the other containers .Northland (the shipper) was contacted and verified that they were on the barge and had neglected to offload them.Arran en,e : its were made to have the connexes delivered by the ne> t available barge .I certify thZt t ; 1.c : . : . , _' ; :s C_-1 . !_i e and cc : reel and that all rr, aterals and equiprrcnt used p.rforrned anal tests conducted during this period were In strictCompliance .s 2 - . . . _c ; p.Jr•s and sredfc3tions except as noted aboveQuality Control r. . . r . : ; .r Signaturet/rilDate.. rEnlironmcntal Quality Control;Quality Assurnncc Report(r 4!5 .1- : : :Continuation Slice[Oovernn 'nt G . 3I t, &ss~,rancc Comments., ., ,:ConcurYcNo OJ c~ rJ S i ; ~% TOCM SIgnaturcA 2Supcr. :-Cr's Initial DateEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(E]t 4I3-l. titContract Number ! Delivery Order Nianber :UPC/Project Ties:DACABS-I1.a-0O1010.0 . 0004Debris Removal and Contalnertzed Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCQC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team1 .00271719 !Garnball, AlaskaContractorHeather ConditionsTemp Low 40 Temp HIWind Speed15 knotsConditions60Ptycldy00 spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (kldude inspections, results, deficiencies observed , and Corrective action.)Preparabry 0 s.o attached anctaRInitial 0 a.m arched checklistFollow-Up 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateYes DField Sampling and TestingHas field testing beenperformedthisType of oat Method/Matrix Quantity ofdate?Yessamples Results0NoNoNoneH ave Data Quality Objecti ves been achieved? N/AY.O NoOY.sO MOMHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA Test Method/AAatrix Quantity of SamplesNoneHave required amount of OC trip darks and rinsates been achieved?NIAYs0MOOHave appropriate OC laboratory tab been ordered ? (matrix spikes. me t od blanks . surrogates , reference standards, .)etcYsONotHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity ?WAY.sp NoOHave samples bee n property labeled and packaged ?WAY.5D MOOHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date : Level A O Level 8 O Level C O Level 0 0 WADWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?YesDMOOWas "work activity conducted within an area determined to be immedo sly dangerous to life and health ?Yes0NoOWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?YsOMoOSafety Cormrera : (Include any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel . Speci fy corrective action taken.)_Emergency communications procedures were covered at the safety meeting . The radios were tested for range and blindspots. Available on-island emergency services were reviewed as well as the posted location of emergency contactnumbers.Work Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS D S/Tech Spec S)Mobilization (HAS D 0011)Activity&LocationQuantityContractorSetup of the field office for contractor and OAR, Serviced vehicles and equipmentManpower and EquipmentLaborC1asslkaeonPr>)ect tote perCOC System kAansgerSuperin .4.ntArcheologistOperbrLaborersNumberManHours1110110EquipmentTypeNumber Hours Used2201320114 wheelerCat 42e loaderArgoPlPickup kup10Total Hours :1300Total Hours : 24tnstruWons Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names. reactions , and remarks.)OAR not an siteVerbal O Written DWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or POW" fir" of fact?Are two any Government caused delays or potential finding 01 fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0Yes OYs 0Remarks (tr dude any visitor b project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work.)Started coordinated with Village of Gambell for possible location for contractor ' s operating area .I certify that the above report is complete and Carrot ! and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifcatierns except as . oted above .QualityControlManager3ignatursI/Dab7NoNoNoEnvironmental Quality Controt/Quality Assurance Report(EP 415- 1 .302)Continuation SheetGovernment Duality Assuranc e CommentsConcurs with the OCAdditional comments or exceptionsreport?Yesi/o,tee Nor a S/ -tFOAR signature 47ZIa-,-ka,14f- Oat .7~ss7Supervisor' s Initial Date0Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(FR 41S-l-)02)UPCJProject Title:Contract Number / Deliwxy Order Number :D.brrb Removal and Contaln .rtzsd Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDACASS - 97-O-00101D.0 . 0004COC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team99.003718199Gam bell . AlaskaWeir ConditionsTemp Low 40_10 krX isWind SpeedContractorTamp MConditions6oPtlv cidyOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Data (Include inspections . results, deficiencies observed, and corrective action)Preparatory 0 ... .uadnd eh .cklbt.ckaatInitial0 ..o anachad chFollow-Up0yea 0 NoWas the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed fl s date ?Type of testYes0Metuod/Matrix Quantity of samplesNoResultsNoneN/AYssO MooHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved?BeanCollectedforLaboratoryAnalysis?YssONoƒHave SamplesType of Test EPA Test MethodAItatix Quantity of SamplesNone?WAYesONo0Have required amount of QC trip blanks and rinsates been achieved.)YesOMOOHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered ? ( matrix spikes, method blanks . surrogates . reference standards, etcWAYesD1400Have QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity ?N/AYssO No0Have samples been properly labeled and packaged ?Health and safetyLevelA0LevelB0LevelC0 Level 0 ƒ wA0Worker protectionon levels this daft:Yes 0 MOOWas any work activity conducted wilts a confined space ?Yes 0 1400Was any work activity conducted wi8in an area determined b be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Yes 0 Moowere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?action taken.)Safety Comments: (hdude any inlractians of approved safety plan. and include instructions from Government personnel . Specify correctiveThe causes , effects , and preventative measures required to counter Hypothermia were discussed at the mornings safetymeeting . Specific items addressed included the need to stay dry and the effect of wind on body heat loss . Appropriatetypes of clothing for different conditions were outlined .Work Activities Pedonned This OafsReference (NAS 1) S/Tech Spec 9)Mobilization: Mobilization (NAS ID 0007 )QuantityActivity & LocationEquipment inspection and maintenance was performed on delivered equipmentField office and Communications systems setup were completed today.Manpower and EquipmentLaborCiassUlcathonManHoursType4 wheelerCat 420 loaderArgoNodwellPickup111010110Total Hours:30ArcheologistOper80%EquipmentNumberPrat ManagerCQC sysiern fWSuperimmendentContractorNumber Hours Used22003261010LaborersTotal Hours : 29Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (kclude names . reactions. and remarks .)OAR not on siteVerbal 0 wrttan 0Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contador caused delays or potential /fading of fart?Are were any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are them any untoreseeabie or weather related delays?Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks (include any vision o project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)In a survey of the access roads throughout the site it was noted that while the roads on the east and west sides ofTroutman Lake were very good , all routes through the village were over very loose gravel . It was also noted that thegravel conditions at the North Beach made the location unsuitable for contractor ' s primary operating area as proposed inthe work plan . An alternate location will have to be identified.1Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report .(1:R 41S-1-M)Continuation Sheet' certify that the above report is complete and coned and that aN materials and equipment used . wont performed and tests conducted during )his period were in strictpliance with the contract plans and spealicatlons exact as noted above .Quality Control Manager signature--_ Z&4Government Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs With the QCAdditional comments or exepbonsreport?aj,~eOAR Signature-,~~"-003Nc r7yesoNOQ~~ 9t -s-2Su perv Isors inltla1Date-Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41 S W- ) n)Contract Number / Delivery Order Number 'UPC/Prgset TitleDACASS-97-0-001t)ID.O . 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCQC Report NumberOat. or T)me PeriodLocation and Team99-004_719/99Gambefi , AlaskaWeather ConditionsTemp Low 38Wind SpeedContractorTemp HiConditions33Ptv cldvOil Split Consultants, inc.OuaOly Control Inspections Performed This Date ( include inspections . results . deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory 0 No leached checklistin"Follow-Up0 eve naach.d checkkt0Was the deficiency tracking list upd ated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been perlonned this date ?Type d testYea 0NoYes D NoMethodl?MtiixQuantity of SamplesResultsNoneHave Data Quality Objectives bee n achieved?WAYesoMooHove Samples Been Collected forLaboratoryAnalysis?Y .s0 MooTyped Test EPA Test Methodl lie ix Quantity of SamplesNoneHave required amount of QC trip blanks and riroates been achieved?NIAYeiDNODHave appropriate QC laboratory lest been ordered ? (matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates , reference standards .eke)YiDMooHave OA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity?N/AYeeDMooHave samples been prop" labeled and packaged ?NIAY0110 MooHealth and SafelyWorker prclection levels this dab : Level A D Level B 0 Level C 0 Level 0 0 WADWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yea0MooWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to fife and health ?Yes0NoDWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?Yes0MooSally Comments : ( Include any infractions of approved safety pan . and include inspections from Government person ne . Specify corrective action taken.)At the safety meeting the techniques for safe operation of ATVs over difficult terrain was discussed . Specific areasaddressed included operation on slopes, rocky terrain, and soft mud . Later in the day, hands on instruction with fourwheelers and Argos was provided to the CQC who was not and experienced ATV operator .Safety meeting covered : AN OP ERAT I ONWork Activities Performed This DateReference (HAS ID ?/Tech Spec 9)Activity&LocationQuantityContractorMobilization (NAS ID 0007 )khvestigated the local availability of rental equipment,Coordinated with shipper on delivery of missing tool/suppy containers80%Staging Area Setup ( NAS ID 0009)Started reviewing potential alternate staging areas5%Manpower and EquipmentLaborEquipmentClassUcation Number ManHours TypeProject M.n.ger4wheelerCQC System Manager 1 9 .5 Cat 426 loaderSuperintendent19.5ArgoArcheologistNumber21211NodweltOperator19 .5 PickupLaborersTotal Hours :28.5Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names , reactions . and remarks .)Hours Used193400Total Hours :26Verbal 0 Written 0OAR NOT ON SITEWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or poor" findingoffact?YesDNoAre there any Government aused delays or potential finding d tact? Yea 0 No 19Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0 NoRemarks (Ynduds any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)certiy tut the above report is complete and coo,ect andthat all materials and equipment used. work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictompliance with the contract plans and specifications except es noted above-Quality Control Manager Signature ry~ ' ',r-'/ZA-Oat,IEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 4 15-1 .302)Continuation SheetGovsmment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurswithAdditional comments or e xoeptions.theQCreport'syesOAR NOT ON SITEQAR Signature.-/.c,JDate ,- Supervisor's Initial_DateNoEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 4111-)0:(Contract Number / Delivery Order NumberDACASS-97-0-0010ID. O . 0004COC Report NumberDate or Time Period7/1019999 .005Weather ConditionsSSTamp Low 3f Temp HI$ -15 oats ConditionsSunnyWind SpeedUPC/Prolect Title :Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation and TeamGambell, AlaskaContractorOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections . results. deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Q see as dl .d ch .cktlatPreparatoryInitial 0 see attacMd checkfatFollow-up 0yes 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testingType of testNobeen performed this date? YesMethod/Matnx Quantity of samples Results0NoN/A1400NoneHave Data Quality Objectives been ac hie ved7Have Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA TestYes(YesO NoƒMethod/MatrixQuantity of SamplesNoneWAYssONoDHave required amount of QC tnp blanks and rinsates been achieved 'YesOmooHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates . reference standards . etc .)Have QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity?N/AYesDNo0WAYesD No0Hare samples been property labeled and packaged?Health and SafetyWorker protection levels this date : Level A Q Level 8 0 Level C Q Level D 0 N/AQYesQNoOWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes 0 mooWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health?Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required )Yes0MOOSafety Commen ts : (Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel. Specify corrective action taken )Safety meeting covered: WILD LFE HAZARDSWork Activities Performed This DataRettxence (HAS ID S(Tecfl Spec a)Locate waste sites (HAS ID 0011)Manpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationProject ManagerCOC System ManagerSupwwftr dartArcheologistOperatorActivity&LocationQuantityContractor40%A reconnaissance was conducted of Site 10 (the trail system) and Site 4 (the mountain top)The contaminated soil and most items of HTW and debris described in the delivery orderwere identifiedNumber111EquipmentTypeNumber4wheeler210Cat426loader110Argo2ManHours10NodwellPickupHours Used200101100LaborersTotal Hours 30Total HoursI aOvdions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names , reactions . and remarks .)OAR not on siteWodt Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact ?Are lbere any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Verbal300 Written 0Yes 0NoYes 0Yes 0NoNoRemarks (Include any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)During the reconnaissance of Site 10 and Area 4 with four wheeler and Argo it was noted that the light-duty improvedroads shown on the contract drawings as the "Air Force Trail" and the " Army Trail " were little more than commonlytraveled tracks in the tundra . The boulder field at the top of the mountain (Site 4) made many areas impossible to reachby ATV .1 certify that the above report is complete and corned and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and sexcept rhotey above/Quality Control Manager Signature:" c ~~Date iIEnvironmental Quality CoatroUQuality Assurance Report(ER 415-1 -3021Continuation SheetGovernment Ouaiky Assurance CommentsreportsConcurs , mtt eu OCAdditional comments or excepbonsYes$NoOAR NOT ON SITEDat.799-0052OAR Signature ASupervisors InMs1Oat.0Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportiER 4151-RC)Contract Number I Delivery Order Number UPC /Prgec1 TideDACA$S -97-0-00101O .O . 0004 Debra Removal and Contaln .rtzed Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removalr :QC Report Number Date or Time Period Location and Team-0067111199Gambell,Alaska.athKConditionsTemp Low 40 _Temp HI51Wind SpeedCalm knMConditionsContractorCloudyOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Perform ed This Date (k)Uude inspections, results . defic,enaes observed. and corrective action)Preparatory 0 iwe attached checklistInitial 0 see cached cMCklistFollow-Up 0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYupdatedthisWas the deficiency tracking listdateYes0NoField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of testYes 0 NoM ethod / titatnxQuantity of samples ResultsNoneHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved?Have Samples Been Collected forType of TestN/ALaboratoryEPA Test Method/AfatrixYesOAnalysis?YesOQuantity of SamplesMOOMooNoneHave required amount of QC trip blanks and rinsates been achieved?N/AYesOMooHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered ? (matrix spikes , method blanks . surrogates . reference standards . etc .)YesOMOOHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity ?N/AYesONo0Have samples been property labeled and packaged?N/AYesO MooHealth and SafetyWorker protecton levels this dateLevel A 0 Level a 0 Level C 0 Level D 0 N/AOWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0NoCWas any work activity conducted within an area determined 10 be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Yes0MOOWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?Yes0MooSafety Comments : ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )e safety meeting was used to cover the types of PPE that would be used on the project to deal with the variouspotentially hazardous conditions that might be encountered . Methods of controlling the spread of contamination werealso discussed .Work Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS ID 1t/Tech Spec a) Activity & Location QuantityContractorMobilization (NAS 10 0007) Continued investigated the local availability of rental equipment80%Continued to coordinated with shipper on delivery of missing too(/supply containersManpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationNumberEquipmentTypeManHoursProtect ManagerCOC system ManagerSuperintendent1144ArcheologistOperatorLaborers14Total Hours '12NumberHours used4 wheeler28Cat 426 loaderArgo1200Nodwell10Pickup10Total HoursInstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names reactions, and remarks)8Verbal 0 Written 0OAR NOT ON SITEWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks (k)dude any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictipliance with the contract plans and specifications except as /Rtted aboveQuality Control Manager SignatureIEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 415.1 .302)Continuation SheetGovernment Quality Assurance Comments^.oncurswithXmonal comments or exseptlonstheQCreportsYes'RNoOAR NOT ON SITEQAR Signature ALO yL_""_""'wwe 7- 1 5 ?799-0067Supervisors Initial oat .0Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41t-I-O )Contract Number / Delivery Order NumberDACAU-97 .O-0 010/D. O . 0004UPC/Project TreeDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDate or Time Period7112/99COC RepoR Number9„007Location and TamGambol! , AlaskaContractor50Foooy a .m . Sunny Porn Oil split Consultants, Inc.Weather ConditionsTamp Low 40__ Temp HIWind Speed Calm ConditionsQuality Control Inspections Performed This Date (k+dude inspections . results . deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory 0 s .. amch.d ChecklistInitial 0 see sRached ch.ckastFollow-Up 0Yes 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of test Mettwd / MatnxNoYes 0 NoQuantity of samples ResultsNoneYesoHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved ? N/AHave Samples Been Collect ed for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA Test Method/MatrixQuantity of SamplesNooY .sD NomNoneHave required amount of QC trip blanks and rinsates been achieved?N/AYesOetcHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 ( matrix spokes . method blanks , surrogates . reference standards .N/AYesDHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity?WAHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?MOOiY .sO NODNo0Ys0 MooHealth and SafetyLevel A 0 Level 8 0 Level C 0 Level 0 Cg MIA[ :)Worker protectoon levels this date:Yes0MooWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0No0Was any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and healthWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment asrequired?Ys0MOOSafety Comments : ( kldude any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )Safe work practices around operating equipment was discussed at the morning safety meeting . Specifics included theuse of one and only one spotter, correct spotter hand signals, and the need for personnel on foot to be cognizant ofequipment movement areas was also addressed .Work Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS 10 a/Tech Spec S)Setup Staging Area (NAS ID 0009)Manpower and EquipmentLaborCtassIk anonProject ManagerActivity&LocationQuantityReceived approval for use of area south of runway for staging areaRented Cat 966 loader from city Moved 9 empty connexes to staging areaNumbercoo System Manager1SuperintendentArcheologist1OperatorLaborers1ManHours101010Total HoursEquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgoNodwellPickupCat 966 LoaderContractor20%Number2Hours used2010214010730Total HoursInstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor ( Include names , reactions , and remarks )Verbal 031Written 0QAR NOT ON SITEYes 0Wok Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks ( Include any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)Persons unknown broke into Argos and siphoned gas from four wheelers during the night . No serious damage . Reportedproblem to Bert, the Village Liaison contractor . Moved two empty connexes to the lodge to use as garages .COC and Superintendent noted VASIs at both ends of the runway, as well as AWOS and other navaids . These navaidsare in debris, removal Site 8 . Contacted FAA office in Nome for utility locates underground electrical lines providingpower to naaids . Received faxed sketch (attached .)1Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 415.1-302)Continuation Sheett certify that the above report i s complete and correct and Meat all materials and equipment used , work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance win the contract plans and specifications except as notedGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with we OC report''Additional comments or exceptions .YesWio DQAR NOT ON SITEOAR Signatu& Do, 7-15 - 79Supervisors InitialDoeCUf. .CILiLa7I0\. N 5 %ftU PSt annLaLCLos~1JT,--) D-DP\`"s(, -~T0Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report,ER 411-1-MContract Number / Delivery Order Num berUPC/Pro ect TitleDACA85-97-0-001010.0. 0004Debris Removal and Contairwrtzod Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team99-ooa.9"V7- r 3Gam bell , AlaskaWeather ConditionsTamp Low39TempitContractor48Wind speed Calm ConditionsFoocv a m Sunny om . Showers ever .ng 041 Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date ( Include inspections . results , defic iencies observed. and corrective action)Preparatory 0 .. * aeacta. d ch.cUistInitial0 see amcMd checklistFollow-Up 0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYWas the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date'Type d testYes 0 No tMYes 0 NoMethod/MatrixQuantity oil samplesResultsNoneHave Data Quality Otiectives been actneved'N/AYeso NodHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA TestYesoMethod /MatnxNoƒQuantity of SamplesNoneHave required amount of OC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved ?N/AYesoNodHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes, method blanks , surrogates . reference standards . etc l Yeso NodHave OA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity?NIAYeso1400Have samples been properly labeled and packaged?N/AYesoNodHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date .Level A O Level 8 0 Level C O Level D ƒ N/AOWas arty work activity conducted within a confined space 'Yes0NodWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health?Yes 0 NodWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required?Yes0NodSe" Comments ( knctude any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corective action taken)The safety meeting addressed the definition of "Level D" PPE . The needed upgrades discussed included hearingprotection for activities where the noise reached a level that would interfere with normal conversation, full face shieldsduring use of cutoff saws and drum washing , and the various types of gloves that Would be used for different tasks .Work Activities Performed This DateReference (NASIDs/TechSpecs)ActivitydLocationQuantityContractorMobilization (NAS ID 0007) Kelly Ryan barges with missing tool connexes arrived late in the eavening Mobilization 100%Three containers offloaded and moved to the south staging areaSetup Staging Area (NAS ID 0 (09) moved 8 additional empty connexes from the north landing site to south Setup now 60% completeStaging area The Cat 980 from the barge was used to moved the previcusy deliveredtool connex from the north landing area to south staging areaManpower and EquipmentLaborEquipmentClassifcetion Number ManHoursTypeProtect Manager4 wheelerCOC System Manager113 Cat 426 loaderSuperintendent115ArgoArcheologistNodwellOperator115PickupLaborersCat966LoaderTotal Hours .43Number212111Hours Used3004007Total Hoursinstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactions . and remarks)41Verbal 0 Written 0QAR NOT ON SITEWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused decays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays'Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks ( include any visitors to protect and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)The Cat 980 Loader from barge used to move previously delivered tool connex from north beach to operating area atsouth got stuck in the soft gravel in town . The CAT 966 was used to pull the loaded machine out . The incidentunderscores the difficulty of travel and equipment operating in and around the village .1Environmental Quality Cuatrol/ Ouslity Assurance Report(ER 415 .1 7O2tContinuation SheetI certty that the above report is complete and correct and that all matenals and equa merit ruedd wont performed and tests conducted dunng this period were ~n strictcompliance with the contrail plans and specifications except as noted aboveOuallty Control Manager SignatureJ~^ rDate2z 1~ J 1Government Duality Assurance CommentsConcurs with VV DCreport'sYesrtoAdditional comments or exceptionsOAR NOT ON SITEDAR Signature99-()OR- 4z~~kDataS "1 Sup .rvlsor's Initial DateCEnvironmental Quality CoetrollQuality Assurance ReportiER 41 "- 302)Contract Number / Delnvery Order Number 'UPCIPrgect TitleDACASS-974).OO10/D .O. 0004Debris Removal and Contalnertzed Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report NumberDate or Time Period1 9-0097114/99Heather ConditionsTemp Low 43_Temp HIWind Speed I ConditionsLocation and TeamGarnbell , AlaskaContractor48Rain a m . Clear w/foo p mOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date ( include inspections . results deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory D see attached checklistfrutial 0 see aaeched checklistFollow-Up 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date?Type of testYes D No aYes C] NoMethod/Mat nxQuantity of sampleswResultsNoneHave Data Qua lity objectives been achieved'YesO No0N/AHave Samples Been Collected forLaboratoryType of Test EPA Test MethodUaianxAnalysis?YesQQuantity of SamplesNowNoneHave required amount of OC Onp blanks and nnsates been achieved ?NIAYOSO160(:]Have appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates . reference standards . etc .)Y.Q NODHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity ?N/AYesOMooHave samples been properly labeled and packaged ?WAYeiQNo0Health and SafetyWorker protection levels this date .Level A 0 Level 8 D Level C D Level D a N/AQWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes 0 NowWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health? Yes 0 NowWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as requredy Yes 0 NooSafety Comments . (Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and Include i nssn.ctions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken)The safety meeting covered the requirements for level D PPE . Hard hats , steel-toe boots , and safety glasses werenandatory when ever any persons was "on the clock ." The only exceptions were when personnel were on break indesignated break areas . Helmets and eye protection were established as mandatory while using ATVs . The prohibitionagainst carrying passengers on four wheelers was also emphasized .Wort Activities Performed This DateReference (HAS ID A/Tecn Spec e)Activity&LocationQuantitySetup Staging Area (NAS ID 0009) Started unpacking tools and setting up shop in the staging areaContractor80% CompleteManpower and EquipmentLaborEquipmentClassicationNumberManHoursTypeNumberHoursUsedProjectManager4wheeler48CQCSystemManager111Cat426loader10Superintendent111Argo26ArcheologistNodwell10Operator111Pickup10Laborers38Cat966Loader12TotalHours41instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor ( Include names . reactions . and remarks)OAR not on siteTotalHours41Verbal 0 Written 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes DYes 0Yes 0NoNoNo aRemarks ( Include arty visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to worn)Three laborers from the local- hire crew put on today and two additional operator/laborers arrived late in the dayI certify that the above report is complete and correct and flat Bit matenals and equipment used , work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as rioted above3uailty Control Manager Signatur e-ay-Date 1L ~11Environmental Quality Cototrol /Quality Assurance Report(ER 4111-702)Continuation SheetGovemm.nt Quality Assurance CommentsYes4TNo 0Concurs with the QC report?Additional comments or exeptions .OAR NOT ON SITEQAR SignatureZL _,.~/1YSGJ~ Dat.7 -4 y Supervisor ' s Initial DateOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999Time :~-~L! /Briefing Location :Activities Planned :6-k" '/.Briefer :Topic :~' tTopic :Briefer :Topic :TopicTopic :AttendeesZQCOh ~,r~ ~Site Health^and Safety Officer :j%}rDate : ~T1999Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 411.1 .'k-1Contract Number / Delivery Order Number :DACA85-97.O-001010.0 . 0004CQC Report Number010UPG'Prolect Title:Dat e or Time PeriodDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation and Team7115199low Conditions. wnp Low46Gambell , AlaskaContractorTamp HIWind Speed Calm Conditions48Cloudy a m Rain a m -Clear ;/Tog o mOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Q a1ty Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections, results . deficiencies observed , and corrective action .)Preparatory0 se. ,ttich*d ch.CktbtDebris Collection (NAS I .d . a 0013 ) Inspection e xclud e d weighing debrisIn"0 see Attached checklistFollow-Up 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated thi s dateField Sampling and TestingHas held testing beenType of testYes (7 Noperformedthisdate?YesMethod.Matrix Quantity of samples ResultsQNoNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Quality Objectives been achi eved ?N/AYp0 No0Have Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysts?YqQ NoƒType of Test EPA Test MethodMatrix Quantity of SamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYHare required amount of OC trip blanks and rinsates been achieved? N/AYaD NoDHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes, method blanks, surrogates, reference standards, etc)YesQ NoDHare QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity?N/AYeeD NoDHare samples been property labeled and packaged?WAYesO mooHealth and safetyWorker protection levels this date:Level A Q Level B Q Level C Q Level D ƒ NIAQWas "waft activity conducted within a confined space?Yes 0 NoƒWas anywork activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health? Yes 0 NoƒWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required? Yes 0NoƒSelety Comments : (Include any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel. Specify corrective action taker.)The safety meeting stressed four wheeler and Argo safety . The correct PPE for these vehicles as well as techniques foroperating them safely was discussed .or in the day, an overview of the hazards to travel posed by terrain and local traffic was given to personnel whoarrived at the site that day . The hazards peculiar to the diffent areas, village, beach, tundra , and mountain top werediscussed in detail .aM SAFETY COMMENTS :04440Vfu .5k rc r e -r-C'/' o c o )S T7"Ig- .r~TQ~E _IPryors Cc %, i .E:nsironnicntal Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41 5 -1-302)Continuation SheetWork Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS ID f,Tech Spec I) Activity S LocationQuantitySetup Staging Area(NAS 10 0009) Continued to unpack connexes and set upwork shop and break areastio% set upLocate Waste Siles(NAS ID 0011) Toured Sites 10 (the trail system and tundra)and Site 4 . (the mountain top) with the CZARCCC . Archeologst . and Contractor's Project Manager50%Manpower and EquipmentLaborEquipmentClasslfkaUon Number ManHours TypeProtectManager144wheelerCOC System Manager 1 1 Cat 428 loaderSuperintendent115ArgoArcheologist14Nodwetloperator226PickupLaborers444Cat968LoaderT otal Hours :106ContractorNumber4Hours Used5E120201I10I270Total Hours:Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor ( Include names, reactions , and remarks.)none.Verbal 0 Wrfnen OWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact-)Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?aYes ONoYes ONo aNo aYes ORemarks (Include any visitors to project and misccllaneo• .;s remarks pertinent to work)The QAR, Contractor's Project Manager and Project Archeologists arrived on site today . The QAR inspected the wontarea . In the evening a reconnaissance of Site 10 (the tundra and trail system) and Site 4 ,(the mountain top) wasperformed by the QAR, Contractor's Project Manager, the Project Archeologist, and the CQC . Difficult travel conditionswere noted with respect to wet tundra and rocks . The Project Archeologist noted a human skull fragment at Site 4B . Itwas left in place pending further coordination with local government organizations.I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used, work performed and tests conducted dining this period wets in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted above .Qratfty Control Manager SignatureGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the QC report?YesZNo OAdditional comments or exceptions :&#J'fofo~ of GQov-,v za 1-. Lt. E-r r &4=n z;),2p ira-tr .'-+-& Twits7V sr sotic-o1 c- i eLA> t.uo.-S we trM,1-4v U,-% T1T tQ.f t t.AN>~iC'G°.ftPJ~'f't Qw /~v .~1~ v t> • C cg~• .Lr~~'S F~~rr r> ; tt~fPe'OE=c'z j' 1DZsC~th c'I re+ Ptz~i~ . r %a Z .r?,~hy _ -ro Axa}gvrS -4r+t> cK5CC' 'ro ZAA C-o s fjn.n> I /V w ~7' ~ Tu, 4-A.7-)1~~ t k vG …sT 1Naez~~TbZ,Q q r ..s c'.'TO s rrvt ..-u ri 4h~AAR slg natuS t v A-ztiL.1 n . . r iNoI -or-0L~OvLaGY! p .t~ r>7a$."'J .w AS ADJQZSS~b /t-+.'t1t1cO U'aWC ()? Yr1 ESc_) - t_ r-cre c .ro`ra 4 u L %f~vC i S 4w~ art; d s C-r f .t .:6Date2SIG Z .i-/-4.1.0_ -t IV Tbt !-yw t7-W~o c utL t ,ti 7yt 4 + C .7-y$r- 97QRJ i~T r ..~T A_ e:CJCLL tf.I- TEST vE~Fr(r jTSupervisor's InRWOatsOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell, AlaskaDate : 7- 1999 Time :Activities Planned :Briefer :: C~ C'j, Zr-xBriefing Location :(rt/it/hUDTopic :Topic :Q uriBriefer Ae 'azTopic :r4 aTopic :Ia&::-Topic :Topic :Attendees214kvIS7~rl~ .~~cMiSite Healthand Safety Officer :_1~ ~/ /L 'Date :1999HOT WORK PERMITContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project : Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removalocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaType of Work :C1, t 7-2rc ,f t ~ yr_ f-(.,1- . hHeat Producing DeviceFire Guard : C•Location : tZ1a 5 T /5 A c T,,! f---7 TimeA> el,Scheduled Work Date :TheChecklistSuperintendent :BelowOZOperator :Start: /1'oo~/ /WasReviewed-Date : 7SHSO :_Time Finished :,'Date : __COMPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistNIAYesNo1 . Are all flammables and at lest 50 ft away?[]02 . Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment?†0Q04 . Has emergency communication procedures been checked?(~05 . Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?Li06 . Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?ƒ07 . Is the correct PPE being wom?ƒ0ItemHas the Fire Guard been identified and briefed to observe the area for 1 hour after work iscomplete?8. Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors? 009 . Have containers been checked for explosive! flammable residue or vapors?(drums and tanks)0010 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only)? 00011 . Are nozzles and hoses in good repair? (torches only) 0[0COMPLETE AFTER WORKTime Start: 4Ue rt 'Time Finished : r7t? r't -rSuperintendent : "~ ~/ `4 Date : 7 giHSO :- ---Fire Guard Released :Date:('4LOCAL RESIDENT HAZARD ABETEMENT PLAN FOR DEBRIS REMOVALContract : DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004'roject : Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaType of Work : Collecting metal debris and Construction Debris StockpilesHazard Description : Stockpiles of Metal create a potential hazard to area residents travelling on ATS,especially in low visibility . Some work areas are adjacent to heavily traveled roads . Stockpiles adjacent tothe road may create a hazard to ATV traffic. ATV traffic may be a hazard to work crews collecting andhandling debris .Stockpile PrecautionsThe site for each proposed stockpile will be inspected for traffic hazards prior to construction .No stockpiles will be constructed on ATV trails or within 10 yards of a regularly traveled trails .All stockpiles will be at least four feet high to provide a visible silhouette above adjacent terrain .Stockpiles shall be marked by four evenly spaced stakes minimum , of 2 .5 ft above terrain minimum, withorange or yellow flagging 2 ft . long minimum , one stake placed at each comer .Drums , planking , signage , or metal planking may be utilized as a suitable as outer warning markers along theaxis of travel if heavily flagged or painted with fluorescent marker paint .Precautions for heavily Traveled Areas .In areas adjacent to regularly traveled roads the following precautions will be implemented in addition to theabove .A warning sign will be staked on the road edge, 50 yards from the road in either direction from the nearestarea of work activity or stockpile .Personnel working within 10 yards of the road will wear fluorescent visibility vests .Personnel will be especially briefed of the hazards of passing traffic .Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .David L . ReinProject EngineerINSPECTION CHECKLISTContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, DO . 0004Project Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaFeature of Work : Debris Removal CLIN : 2Inspection : InitialRelevant Specifications : SOW 1 .3 .1, SOW Table 2, 02050, 01130, 01450Submittals : Work Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Environmental Protection PlanInspection ChecklistItemYesNotNotObsrvd1 . Is the proper PPE being worn?0'00002 . Is the work being conducted a safe manner?3 . Is metal scrap being removed to a sufficient depth?004. Are haul routes being maintained in a manner safe for vehicles?5. Are appropriate lifting and tie-down methods being used?D6 . Are excavated areas being restored?009 . Are all flammable materials kept away from hot work areas .D000Q'10 . Is refueling of saws and equipment performed in a lined area .0D11 . Is metal scrap free of dirt, wood, and other foreign matter prior to weighing .0012 . Is debris being weighed and weights recorded against the correct ledger?00Comments:0007. Are personnel on foot cognizant of vehicle haul routes?8 . Are loads being numbered and recorder as to the area originated?0SAFETY INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTCON TRACTOR :i T 'PE OF EQUIPMENT .`/EQUIPMENT ` UMBER .CONTRACT V1JMBER :7, 0DATE O~ NSPECTION :~ ~ :E'REVISION.92 , 385-1-1CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFETY AND HEALTH REOLIRE N IENTS NtANLAL . EIMREFERENCES ARE IN PARENTHESES .INDICATE ANSWERS BY PLACING "X'* IN PROPER COLUMN .YESI NIANOMOTOR VEHICLES :" ECTER 8S A \IECH.~'tC .\O FOUW TO BE M SAFE OPEItA TT`~ •iOTOt .EHiCLE SHALL BE FL .CEO ; ' SE It, ICE L'TIL ; T Ii .S BEE' .SP0GCOMOrflONI \ cnicie has ocen cncCKea 10 insure tnat the euu ipment ana accessories are in sate operating conditions andfree of aooarent damage mat could cause failure . . niie in use . t IS A 021tc1_ . Lienis : f I3 .A .041 All .enicles or combination of .enicies ooeratec crn•ecn the sunset and sunnee shallhate the following nehts :, ,a . T ..o heaaliehts. one on each side of the front :b. At least one red tatllieht and one red or ameer stoonent on eacn side of the rear :-c . Directional signal Rents - both front and back . a:.aJ. Three emergent x flares . retlectf . e markers . or eaunaient eortaole ..amine device .3rat:c a• stem : ( 13 .A .Ue i Service nraKes and manuatl . -ooeratco - a kirte =rakes I1 eacn cnicie snail have. :n working orocr :t I3 .A.UbfXa . A ,Decoometcrb . Fuel gagec . An auatble .% amine :c, ice ; hom and or aacKuo at= IJ . A \.Inusnield couippea . .Itn an aucouate .% indshicfu . .Ircrc . Defrosting and aetoeetng devicef. .adequate rear \ few mirror or mirrorse . Cabs. cab shields . and other protection to protect :he -art . er from the elements and falling--!'-yor shifting materials5.h. Nonsiip surfaces on stepsi A oower- operated starting deviceand doors ; atcr% ziass ' An . cracked or broken glass shall betilass . i IS .A .U7) Is \% indshteld . . .Inuo ..s%~---replaced .:I13 .A .u81o mailersa. Structuraily adcuuatc for the ..ei nt ura . .n `b . Loikine uevicc or double safct . s% stem pro , taco anti .% orking'Safer cnains and or caoles''J . Trailers .kith po ..cr brakes equipped with break-a•% a' oe \ ice .. With will effectively lockAuo brakes in event of separation'Dumb trucks : 118 .A .IU1a. Equipped with a holding device to prevent to pre \ ent accidental loaenne of body dunngmaintenance or inspection''b . Hoist levers can be secured to prevent accidental starting or tnopine"8 Emergenc y equipment: i I S .A . I I I Minimum for vehicles of I I : :on or o .er operates on public highways ._,hall be .khat is reautrea by state la%% but not less than :a. One rea flat not less that 12 -- square w rah stanoari aria three reflective mark ersb . Two .kneel chocks or each unit of a combination of chiclessc. At least onelOB2AC:C fire extinguisher into oroocri \ rated for flammable cargoes)REMARKSLSERE%ERSESIDEINSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY t>IGNA rURE OF MECHANIC . lSPA Form 33 (Revised I %tav 19961IF;PPROV D BY : ISI_1-\ECESSARYIlN rU OF COMPANY OFFICIALIy-t~~1\IACHINERY AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT :.D TESTED S•U \IaCi/i'ttV Oft \IEC1 U\IC LL EOi.'P'IF'T SH -LLL BE Pt ACED rv SERVICE LNTTL IT HAS BEEN M PECTED . 'k CO' (1` ETEYT PERSON.ND CERTT7M TO E*% SOE OPERA TIING CONDMO'iINDICATE .\NSW ERS BY PLACING "X" IN PROPER COLUMN .YESI cquipment rccwremcnis . , : b .A .U7)a . Seats or ecuai protection provided for each person required to floe equipmentI o When operated on ine ntgmvav- headlights . ta)IlighLs. brake lights . eacxuo tights. antium signals visible Irom Irons and rear must be providedWith winosnields%snail be equippca w ith power wiper and detoggin iv detrosting cc\icesd . Sen ice cr xc s . stem . parking brake sv stem . and emcrgencv I manually opcratea rromNO v i- i -e . At a minimum . one do cnemleal or carbon-diox ide lire extinguisher w lth a rating .o!5B :C ItaesedI chareca . and ready for use)Reverse signal (BACK-L P) alarms i 16 B U I I3 t ;uaruine t Ib B .031 s rccuired for ire foiiowlne :a . All bets . sna ;ts . pulleys. sprockets . spindles . drums . tI neeis . Chains. orother rec :crocatine . -ataune . or moving parts of equipment..aces inciuU)ng e-\naust p .pcs or other lines5 . Hot surc . Charging skip snail be provided with guards on both sides ano open epos of skip area.i . Platforms . . atwaiks . sides . handholds4 Fuci tanks iocatea not to aludw spiiis or o' crilow-s to run onto engine. exnausL or c :ectncai equipment416 B 041Eshaust or discharges uo not cnoanccr "%orxmen or obstruct view or oocrator i Ib B .U51n )catbelLs comply wrtn 49CFR 5"1 i Ib B 08)Fallingooiectorotecuvcstructures iFOPS) I1b .B .1I)(athroughc)3 Rollover Drotective structures (ROPS) I Ib B . 121 la through e)q Is glass installed in operator S Comoarimcnt safer' class' (16 B .IU)10, Points requiring lubncauon during operation shall have fittings so located or euaraed to DC accessiblewithout hazardous exposure . H6 .1313)I I . Whenever long-Ded ena-Dump trailers are usca : t 16.B . 15) provide a roll-over warning desice: the de. iceshall have a continuous monitoring disp(a% at the operator station to provide the operator with a quick andeasily-read indicator and audible warming of an unsafe condition .f_vREMARKS : LSE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY)INSPECTED A'D CERTIFIED BY . i StG`A I LRE OF MECHANICIAPPR D B JIpa rUU.RE OF COMPANY OFFICIAL~VV1--~~I\i' i Form s3 iReviscU I \Iav I9QAISAFETY INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTONTRACT NUMBER:C O NS64 STYPE OF EQUIPMENT :EQUIPMENT NUMBER :DATE 0 IN SP CTION :CONTR .,kCTOR :,~'- U) -fit, L t/ -L CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIRE`IENTS MANUAL . EM 385-I-I . REVISION 92 .REFERENCES ARE IN PARENTHESES .INDICATE ANSWERS BY PLACING "X" IN PROPER COLUMN ._YESNONIAMOTOR VEHICLES :\ 1) ')OTOa %tH1CLU S)tLLL aE ?L%CtO t`r SERVICE L'*. rr HAS BEEN M'SPLCTtO SY % NRC) l\WIC 4.O rOC$O TO It M SArt ortMTT!Q Co, vrno-41 . Vchicie has been checked to insure that the equipment and accessories are in sate operating conditions andfret of aoparent damage that could Cause failure while in use . t 1 S_A .021(c)2 . Lights (I 8 .A .04) All venicles or combination of vehicles operatea berwccn the sunset and sunrise shallhave the following Iithts :a. Two headlights . one on each side of the front :b . At least one red taillight and one red or amber stooitg_ht on each side of the rest :c . Directional signal lights - both front and back` ariad. Three emergency flares. reflective markers. or ccui%afent oortable wamtnt device.Brake S%-Stem: t I3 . . k .US i Service nr:KCs and manually-operated trsiane orv :cs4. Each tchicic shall have. in wort:ine oracrt I3 .A .ubia. A speedometerb. Fuel cagec. An audible warning device thorn and or backup aiarmid . A windshield equipped with an adequate windshield wiperc. Defrosting and dcfoeging device-rf. Adequate rear view mirror or mirrorsg . Cabs . cab shields. and other protection to protect the-driver from the elements and fallingA_At_tY_ZINCor shifting materialsh. Nonslip surfaces on stepsi . A power-operated starting device"C,S . Glass : i I8 .A .U7) Is windshield . windows . and doors gala`" glass ' .any cracked or broken glass shall bereplaced .6. Trailers: ( IS .A.U8)a. Structurally adequate for the weight drawn'_b. Locking device or double safety system provided and working'c. Safety chains and or cables'.,tomd . Trailers with power brakes equipped with break :-a%%ay device which will effectively lockup brakes in event of separation?7 . Dumo trucks : 1 I8 .A.10)a . Equipped with a holding device to prevent to prevent accidental lowering of body duringmaintenance or inspection?b. Hoist levers can be secured to prevent accidental starting or tripping?S. Emergency equipment: I l8.A . I I) Nlinimum for vehicles of 1 1 : ton or over operated on public highways .shall be what is required by state law but not less than :a . One red flag not less that 12- square with standard and three reflective markersb. Two wheel chocks or each unit of a combination of vehiclesc. At least one 2.4 : I OB :C fire extinguisher ( t%v s prooeriv rated for flammable cargoes)A)CREMARKS : i USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY)INSPECT ED A ND CERT IFIED BY : I SIGNATURE OF MECHANICINPA Form a3 (Revised I May 19961APP OWEDY : )SIA i TURE OF COMPANY OFFICIALiMACH [NERY AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT :NO II ACHNEAY OR \tECKk\IC U IOC? tEvT SH UL BE Pt.CEO IN SERVICE UNTIL IT MAS SELM INSPECTED k%D TESTED IN % CO'PETEYT PEKSON &NO CUITV (ID TO It, N S .FE OIEU TrKGCDF,DITIONINDICATE .ANSWERS BY PLACING " X" IN PROPER COL UMN .5.6.Cquipment requirements : i Ib .A .Ui). Scats or equal protection provided for each person required to ride equipmentab . When operated on tnc .highwayheadlights. taillights. brake lights. backup lights. andturn signals visible from front and rear must be providedc. With icinashicids : shall be equipped with power wiper and detogginvdefosting devicesd . Service br Eke system. parking brake system. and emergency (manually operates fromdrivers s position Ic. .at a minimum. one dn- chemical or carbon -dioxide fire extinguisher with a rating of 5 8 :C nagged . charged. and ready for userReverse stenat I BACK-LP) alarms 116 . B .011Guaraine (16 .B .03) a required for tnc toilowing .a. All belts : : ars. shahs . Pulleys. sprockets . spindles. drums tly\sheels. chains . orother rccicrocatine . rotating . or moving pans of equipmentb. Hot sunaccs including e'.haust p .pes or other linesc . Charging slap shall be provided w ith guards on both sides and ooen crass of skip aread . Platforms . : :twalks . iteos . handholdsFuel tanks tocatea not to avow spills or oscrtlows to run onto engine . exnausL or cicetncal equipmenti 16 .8 .04)Exhaust or discharges ;o not cncangcr %%orKmcn or obstruct view of oDcrafor 116 .8 .031Scatbe is comoty with 49CFR 571 f 16-B US)I.2.3.4.7.Falling obicct Orotectrs c structures i FOPS) 1S.9.10 .Rollover protective structures CROPS ) 116 .8 .13) la through it)Is glass installed in oocrator s compartment saiexv glass '? ( 16 .13 . 101It .Whenever long-bed end-oumo trailers arc used : ( 16.13 .15) provide a roll-over warning device : the dc%iceshall have a continuous monitoring display at the operator station to provide the operator with a quick andeasily-read indicator and audible warning of an unsafe condition .YESNONIA`_/I) l a through ciPoints requiring lubrication during operation shall have fittings so located or guarded to be accessiblewithout hazardous exposure . 116 .8 . 13)REMARKS : (USE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY)INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY ISIGNA FLRE OF 'MECHANIC)3`PA Furm 83 (Revised I Ua . 19961A PPROVED 8Y : iSIGN ..kTLRE OF COMPANY OFFICIALiCONTRACTOR :SAFETY INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR CON STRLCTION EQUIPMENTCONTRACT NUMBER:TYPE OF EQUIPMENT :i" 7~ oaa/•x as 1 Q sEQUIPMENT NUMBER :~r (~ tci 4C L~~ - ~JDATE OF ( SPECTION :2-79CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFETY AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS MANUAL . ELI 385-I-I . REVISION 92 .REFERENCES ARE IN PARENTHESES .INDICATE ANSWERS BY PLACING "X" IN PROPER COLUMN .MOTOR VEHICLES :tYESNONIAtM'IOTOn %EHICLE SH . LLL BE PL.+CED N SElt %ICE L"TIL IT HAS BEE`d rrSPECTE o BY a VECKANIC k"O FO4.'!+ O TO BE N SAVE OI'ERATiNGCo"o rriO'I1 . \ chicie has been cnccKC(l to insure that the equipment and accessories arc in salt operating conditions andtree of aoparent damage that could cause failure while in use . r I S . .A .0211c)2 . Lights : 118 .A .04) All venicics or comotnation of vehicles operates Denyeen me sunset and sunrise shallhave the following lights :a. T %% o headlights . one on each side of the frontb . At least one red taillight and one red or amber stoongnt on each side of the rear :c . Dirccuonai stenai lights - both front and back - a.:aJ . Three e :ncrgenc\ ; lares . reflective markers . or ccui%aicnt ooriable earning device .i3rake r stem : i 13 A .U5 i Serv ice nraKes and nar.uail% - opr :area : :rune DraKes.Each'ensue shall have . :n wonane oracr :t I3 .A .Ub)4a . A ipccoomctcrb . Fuel gage'betJt~_LA`c . An audible warning device thorn and or backup atarmid . A +vmdshield equipped with an adequate w indshield \r, toere . Dctrostine and defogging deviceekI . Adequate rear view mirror or mirrors~-_e . Cabs . cab shields . and other protection to protect the-driver from the elements and fallingor shifting materialsh . Nonslip sunaces on steps~'_i . A Dowcr-operated stantne_ device%Glass: i 18 .A .U7) Is \~indshicld . %%inaowsana doors satcry grass ' .An\ cracked or broken glass shall bereplaced .6 . Traders : t I S .A .U81a. Structurally adequate for the weight drawn'b . Locking device or double safety system provided and working?C . Safcn' chains and or cables "?d. Trailers with power brakes equipped with break - av%a\ aev'icc %%hich will effectively lockup brakes in event of separation?7.Dumb trucks. t 18 .A .101a . Equipped w i th a holding device to prevent to prevent accidental lowering of body during5.I'~Jv'-Imaintenance or inspection"b. Hoist levers can be secured to prevent accidental itanine or tnopine'8 Lmergcncv equipment: ( IS .A .I I) `linimum for vehicles of I I _ :on or over operated on public highways .shall be what is required by state law but not less than :a. One red hag not less that 12 " square with standard and three retkcave markersb . T""o wheel chocks or each unit of a combination of vehiclesc . At least one 2A :IOB : C fire extinguisher (t ..- n prooeriv rated for rlammable cargoes)ti1C;REMARKS : i LSE REVERSE SIDE IF NECESSARY)1INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY . iSIGNA CURE OF MECHANIC(SPA Form 33 ( Revised I May 1996)' r TURF OF COMPANY OFFICIAL( .APPROVED BY : SI CMACHINERY AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT :•O %1 .CH1'E0Y 01l .IECKk%IC u EOE'7%R,.T SH kIL BE Pt /CEO (rv SERVICE U T IT HAS IEEN rNSPECTED 4%D TESTED aS k CO%7ETFYT PEISON ANOCEATLFMED TO BEIN S of E OfERATTNG COKDIT10.*4INDICATE ANSWERS BY PLACING'-X" IN PROPER COL UMIN .I .2.3.Equipment recu(rcmcnts : t ib A .U71a. Scats or c=oal protection provided for each person required to ride equipmentb . When operated on the hienwav_ headlights- taillights. brake lights . backup lights . andtum s(gnais visible from front and rear must be providedc . With %%inoshiclds : shall be equipped with power wiper and deioegingidetrosung dcyucsd. Scr.tce braise system . parking brake system- and emergency ( manually opcraeca fromdnvcr s position Ie . .at a minimum. one dr.. chemical or carbon-dioxide lire extinguisher %%ith a rating of tB :C tagged . charged . and ready for userReverse signal t BAC}:-CPI alarms ( 16 .8 011Guarotne t 16 .B .031 is reauircd for the to(lowlne :a. All belts . _ :ars . shams . puileys. sprockets, spindles drums . ilh .%hcels. chains . orYESNO`/AVL_~~-!!other reC :Dr0cating . rotating . or moving parts of equipmentb Hut sunaees including c\haust p .pes or other lines.c . Charging sap shall be provided %%ith guards on both sides and open ends of skip aread . Platforms . zzovalks . iteos. handholds4.5.6.7.8.9.10 .Fuel tanks locatca not to allow spins or o%erIIowys to run onto engine. exnaustL or clcctncat equipment(16 .B .04)Exhaust or discharges uo not endanger %%orKmen or obstruct view or ooerator ( 16 .8 .01Seat belts comoty with 19CFR 571 ( 1O .B .US)Falling object protcctt'e structures I FOPS 1 ( 16 .8 .1 1) (a through ciRollover protective structures CROPS) ( 16 . ( a through e)Is glass installed in oocrator s compartment safety glass ? ( 16.B . 101Points requiring lubncatton during operation shall have fittings so located or guarded to be accessiblewithout hazardous cxcosurc . 116. B . 13 )JI1,i,ii/LWhenever Tong-bed cno -aump trailers are used : ( 16 .8 .1 S1 provide a roll-over warning device : the de' Iceshall have a continuous monitoring display at the operator station to provide the operator with a quick andcasily-read indicator and audible warning of an unsafe condition.REMARKS : (USE REVERSE SIDE IF N E CESSARY)11 .INSPECTED .ANDCERTIFIED BY : (SIG`APUREOF'MECHANIC)3'PA Form 113 (Revised I >tar 190(.1APPROV ED BV : ,SlGAtLRE OF COMPANY OFFICIALi> .aFETt 1\.SPECT ION C HECKLIST FOR CONSTRU CTION EQUIPMENTCO . TR aCT Ll RCONTRACTTYPEEQL"OFNTE0NUMBERS ENT NUMBER .I D AT OF)NSPECTION .CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFE T Y .AND HEALTH REQUIRENIENTS MANUAL . Ell 385-I-1 . REVISION 92 .REFERENCES ARE iN PARENTHESESLY ESNO IINDICATE A NSWERS BY PL .ACiNG • X•- IN PROPER COLUMN .MOTOR VEHICLES .f•-0MOTOR \EHICLE SH\L . aE PL+C‡C ;\ tEQ~'CE LNTIL IT HAS SEEN trspEC-fE0 By + \IECH .'IC %\0 r0C .D TO 6E M SAFE OPEMT1 4C COr+01110%I chine nas oeen cnecxea ;o insure .r.at :ne equipment and accessories are in sate open tine conditions andtktree of aooarent ua .:.ace :pat could cause :ailurc tt^lit ;n use _ t 13 .v02)(c)2 . Llents : I I S .A .t)4I .ati \enicies or cerloinauon of \ C .^.Ic ;es operatea centeen ine sunset and sunnse shallha\c the tollo\\ine nehtsv~] . r'.\o neaonents, one on each side of :he front :b . .At :east one rt- : ;i~iI2ni anti one rea or amoer stocltf_nt on glen side of the rear:___c D ;rec :tonal s ;er.a : tights - noth front aria back : aria.j . Three Lmvicenc . : .arcs . retlecti%e martcers . or eeui\alent oonaoie \\ arilne device.!X:~C1ke _n stem : I I S A .u ! ~Crt Ic : .- .'ax s aria r1anuall\ -rneraIea '=: x ;rat orakes"aacn \,niCie snail na'e . :n %nrkine orocr( I S .a .U0 i] . A ) : e :corncler-I-LR5 F .:ei eaorAn auoinle '% arn ;r.e Je' :cc ; ntrn a^u or r 1ckap afar ri i'\ inusnlciC cc : ;:re : : '.t iIn an a ;c,;uate tt inasr ielt a perDe :rosiinc anti :o e'nc ue\ it e.Adeauate rear '.Ie'.% mirror or mirrorsV'z . Cabs . cao snicks . ;no otncr protection to protect the-\iriver from the elements and fallingor snit tine mater :aish . Nonsilp surfaces on stees, . A oo…cr•opcratea s=ine_ device-.-Glass : 1 I S . A . U i 1 is w musnicla . .\ ;noo1\ s . aria doors safety Mass .' .an\ cracked or broken glass shall bereolaced .b r railers : I I S .A US Ia.Sir ic,urail\ auc0 ..ale ;or me ••\e :gnt- I ran 'Licking .:cvicc ir Qouoie sa ;et\" S'\ stem oro' ice- aria %%orklne1OC-j. . Sa :etn c'rains anti Jr ceoles',/ .r ra ;lers %iin power nrakc s equipped \v it h break- a\\a\ .fe\\ ice \\ n ic h \\11 1 etfectiya v lockuc orakes in event of separationDumo trucks : I13-A . IUIa. Equippea with a holding device to prevent to pre\ent accidental Io\\enne of body duringtx_maintenance or inspection"b . Hoist levers can nc secured to prevent accidental stanme or tneelne'S Emergency equipment : I IS .A . III Minimum for vcnicles of I I : : on or o%er operated on public highways .I,hall be wnat is rccuirea by state law but not less than :a. One rca flag not less that 12- iquarc \\ ith standard aria three rerlecti \ a markersb T .\o \\neel chocks or each unit of a combination of \ehicIcsc A ; least one 2 .A IUB C 1 .re ettineulsher ttx%n oroocri\ rated for flammable cargoes)REMARKS . . i" SE RE\ ERSE SIDE i s \LCES SARY iyniINSPECTED .AND CERTIFIED BY , ~, IGNA f LRE OF MECH ."aNIC I l APPROVED BY . (SIGNA rURE OF COMPANY OFFICLaL I I\PA Form 33 (Re%tsed I \13v tYdhieMACHINERY AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT :•0 %I+Lt4I RY nR \ILC 1 , VC S: c7l :T~ff~T tH -,LL BE Fl ICED rv SERVICE L"TII . IT HAS SEEN NSPECTED 4'D TESTED I~ COSPETE`rT i'E .3O d • O CEITIr:', SAFE OIER.ATT .G C0%DITTONINDIC .a i E VERS BY PLACING "X" IN PROPER COLUMN .I_rnri%cr s position)c . kt a minimum . one do cr :emtcal or cartwn-dioxide tire extinguisher %%ith a rating of 53 C :aeecd. : .'a.reed . and ready for userReverse sienat IBACn•L?I alarms , I (3 B UI1i;uaraine i to B 03) a rccutrca :or tnc tonowing .a A 1 t,- : :S . _ea:s . smarts . puilevs . sprockets. spindles, drums . 0, s.herls . cnains. orJtne : :cc :c :oca : :r.Z . -Jba inc . or moving parts of equipmentslut > r.ac~s .ac :uJ ;r.c e\ .^.aust n .pes or other lines,, Shat? ;'_ -~ :o Gall be cro'wcu %%Itn gurus on both does and open CADS 01 skin areave/b".3.910 .11 .,`-~G~_vPatterms ;_ :'.'a .~s- cs . ^anuhotds.tNIA=~sna li be equipped with po% er wiper and detog„ tneide fr ostine de' icesJ . Sen ;ce cral::c s\ stem . parking crake s._ stem . and emergency imnnually operates fromNO-% ;sicle from front ants :ear must Dc provided;in3YESLjuIpment ;cc uiremenu : ; . 0 A t1'1'cats or ecuai crotec :ion LroviUed for cacn person required to ride eawpment1 her, Jcc o :ca on tnc 'trrn\a, . ncad)Ignts . taillights. ors a lights. oaci;up lights. andTOIL-~/Fuet :a'KS peatea n0l :0 ~‚JI~ ~c :us or ,,\crtIO' S to run onto engine . -xnaubt. ur ctcCtncal equipment.16 .804)Exhaust or ,ascnarecs .:o not enuar.Fer ~%ommen or oostruct view of operator 116 3 .0:)'catbc)ts comoi% wttn 49CFR -;-I , Ib B .Us)Falling opted :rotcctr'c structures I FOPS) t 16 .8 . 11) la through c)Rollover protective st:.:aures i ROPS 1 i 16 B . i_ 1 ( a throuen e)Is glass Installed in operator s compartment satcty Class ' t I6 B .10)Points rcuulnne iuonruon Jur :ne_ operation shad have fittings so located or guarded to De accessiblewithout nazsrcous cvcosurc I h i3 I . 1Whenever ;onr cca cna-OUmO trailers arc used : t I b .B . I :) provide a roil-over wammg dev ice : tae de' ice16-11f/~-'vc r`'t/shall cave a continuous monnonne Utspia\ at the operator station to provide the operator with a quick andcast]-read indicator arc audible warring of an unsate condition .REMARKS . LSE REVERSE SIDE IF \ECESSARYIi;III\SPECTLD \ND LERT!FIED BY !)IEJ\A I LRE OF \ILCHANIC)I' .PA Furm t3 IRcvuca 1 \ta, I"V6).APPROVED B) i~iGKA F RE OF COMPANY OFFICIAL I' .AFETY INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENTCONTRACT NUMBER :CONTRACTOR .0/1TYPEtyre - ?,2 c?' 005/, c- C G A/S u e r SOFEQUIPMENTEQUIPMENTNUMBER .DATE OF NSPE TION :1 CORPS OF ENGINEERS SAFET' :' .AND HEALTH REQUIREMENTS MANUAL . ENI ;85-1-1 . REVISION 92 .REFERENCES ARE IN PARENTHESESINDICATE ANSWERS BY PLACING "N" IN PROPER COLL1N .YESNO I N/A IMOTOR VEHICLES .\t0?oR \EMCLE stall 8E PL ACED IC SER \ ICE III. IT M 4S BEEN r'SPt TED BY a'iECH+~N iC \\ 0 rol.N) To BE M SAFE OPERMNG Covomo'I \ chide nas been checked to insure that the equipment aria accessories are in sate operating conaiuons andtree of atioarent damage that could cause ,atiure \\ hilc in use . i I8 .A .A'_ltcl_ . Lients : I IS .A .U11 All \enieles or comoim.ation of \erneles operates ter\ een Inc sunset and sunrise shallha%c the folio\%inv iiChts :1a . T \\o ncaaliglts- one on each side of t he front :\t :east one reu ta :i112r ; and one red or ameer stoeng nt on cacn side of the rear:t1~ . Dirccaonai si na ; : :tints - both front aria back : a :.dI~ . Ti:mce cmergenc\ ;fares . rcaecti .e markers- or euui\aient coracle \\amine device .:irv.e ~: \ stem : 1 1 s .A .U5I Ser\ Ice :-rakes and manuatl\-\\oeratea :cit.ins :rakes- c,cn \cnie :e snail na\e . n \\on.inc order :f IS A .ubi1.~'I1v:\ speedometera . Fuel gapec . An auable \\ am ;ng ue•. Ice : horn and or oaekuo -farm iJ . .A windshield eauiopeu \%ith an adeQuate \\ ineshie :d \\ ioerc . Defrosting and Qetoee ng deviceAdequate rear \ ic\\ mirror or mirrorsvg__-ve_yCye Cabs . cao sniclds . and other protection to protect :he-driver from the elements and fallingTor sniffing materialsn . Nonsitp surfaces on steps11 A oo\\er-operated starting deviceiXitaeGlass : I IS .A .U i l is \\inQsnicld . \\inoo\\s . and doors saictr- glass' .An\ cracked or broken glass shall bereplaced .e Fraiicrs : 1 18 A .U81a.Structur\xvCa i ly adeQuale for the \vcight dra%%n'_Orb . Locking device or oouole safety s\ stem pro\-taed ana \\orkine': . Safety chains and or cables'-_-I~~J . Trailers \\tth po\\cr nraices equipped with break -d\\a\ device \\hieh \\III effectively lockt uo crakes in event at sccaration'- Dumo true KS . 118 .A .1 U ia. Equipped \\ith a holdine device to prevent to crc\ent accidental lowenne of body duringmaintenance or inspection'b . Hoist levers can rte secured to prevent accidental starting or tnopIne'S trncrgcncv equipment: ( 18 .A . I I) \linimum tar venicles of I 12 ton or o\er operated on public high w a}'s .,hall be \\ hat is rcQuircQ by state la\\ but not less than ;a . One reC Ilae not less that I_ square with stanoaro aria three rerlecu\e markersIrb T\\o \% heel chocks or each unit ola combination of 'chielesc At least one 2 .A : 108 C fire extinguisher (t\%o orocert\ rated for flammable cargoes)RE\t .AR .~,S ,LSE REVERSE SIDE IF \ECESS .ARYIiIi' : SPEC T ED AND CERTIFIED UN t SIG` A I L : RE OF \IECH .A .IC,\PA Form 3 (Re\isei I \ti ivti91APPRO\ ED BY j SIG\A f 'RE OF COMPANY OFFICt .ALi\IACHINERY AND MECHANICAL EQLIP\IENT :,o uACHNERr Olt \IECI1 X\IC LL EOi ?\CEVT SH Ut. BE PL .%CEO IT SER'SICE LNTIt IT HAS BEEN NSPEC 1D k'O TESTED IN % CONPETE`T PERSON 4,N0C`ERT%F.' SAFE OPEMTl .G CONDIT10%i\DIC .aTE .a\SIVERS BY PLACING "- X" IN PROPER COLL\ININLqulpment reuwrcmcnLs . I : o _k U-1.i . ScaLS or ecual oroicctlun crovlded for each person required to rce eouipmento \\ hen ucc ;-atca on rte nlem~av . ncaullents . tailllehts , brake ilenLS . aact: up lights . ano2.NO IYES-0 LE: ;.rn sienals'Isloic from front ana r ear must be provided1i ;ih ,% In,:snlclds . snail oc equippca with power w iper and dcioeg!n „• detrostln „ ae\ icesJ . Scn Ice craze s' stem . oaring oraxc sv stem- and emergency (manually operatea rromJnycr s : osnlonle . Al a minimum . one an chemical or carbon -dioxide tire extineuisne '%Ith a rating of =3 :C Itaeecd . cnareca . and read s for userReverse signal I BACK- i: P` alarms I I It) B J1 1_L>'-Guaralne (16 B .03 ) is recuirca for the totlowing :> ;i beats . _ :ars . snatts . cutlcss . sprockets . spindles. drums t1''- to s. cnatnS. or"tncr r, . .croca :Ine . ru :aung . or moving parts of couipmentHuts aC :Suotne a\nauSt o .,^us or other lines:KID ; .1111 CC : rOvIUCU '. %Itn guaras on ooth sides arlu corn ,nas ell skip areahlatiorms1X.1~nanuhotusFuel tanks Ioca :ca not :o a :,u' ~ct1U or o erllo\ss to run onto engine , e .xnau L or : : rcnCa1 eoulcment1163011Exhaust or Ulscnarees :o rot cncanecr \%orKmcn or uostruet View of operator 1 It) 3 U :1h . Scatbclts comply satin 49CFR 5 71 I Ib B .U81Falling object orolectnc structures I FOPS) 1 16 .13 . I I ) (a throueh ci8. Rollover protective structures IROPSI I Ib . B .12) ( a through e)Is class tnstailea in operator s comoanment safety etass' 1 16-B . 101910 . Points requiring Iubnrrton dur ing operation shall have linings so located or euaraea to oe accessiblewithout hazardous e\eosure 1 16 3 I : I11 . Wheneser lone-OCa eno-oumD trailers are used : t 16 -B- 15 t provide a roll-over s .amine aesice: the de . iceshall have a continuous monitoring utspia% at the operator station to provide the ocerator with a quick andeasily-reaa Inaicator ana audible ""amine of an unsafe condition .'~;~~eREMARKS : (USE REVERSE SIDE IF \ECESSARY)INSPECTED .AD CERTIFIED B's ISIGNAILRE OF MECHANIC)\PA form 83 1Revtscu I \fa% 1Y1 61APPRO%EJBl iiGNATLRE OF COMPANY OFFICIALiSAFETY i\SPECTION CHECKLIST FOR CONSTRU CTION EQUIPMENTCONTRACT NUMBER--CON TR-, C TORC 5,C/V 5- LTl• PE Or E'1L I PMENIZ- /I V FSEQUIPMENTi` UMBERDATE OF I_/ 9CORPS OF ENGINEERS S .AI-ET':* ADD HEALTH REQLIREEIENTS MANUAL . EM 385-I-I . RE VISION 92 .REFERENCES .ARE 1N P .ARENT-iESES .INDIC .A T E .AN'S\ti ERS BY PL .ACiNG "X" IN PROPER COLLMti YES;NO I \ A IMOTOR VEHICLES .I ttOT00. YEHICL E SH LLL 3E PL kCED IN SERVICE t-'TIL IT HAS BEE". r'SPSC :ED Br A ttECit 'ic A'D FOUND TO SE IN SAFE OPEIL~AI NG CONDETtO'1Cmc :c nas oe r. cnC :1:eu to insure :nat :ne equipment ana accesones are in safe operating conditions andtree Of aDDarent Jamacc :nal cOUla Cause failure ttniie in use . i IS .A .Q2I(c)A Ul t ~ . tc- e es r .emeiflation of veniclcs opcratr :et"een : ne sunset and sunnse shall-ate :rc :oilo•tiri : ,,tsone or: : : n Side dl the fron t :.A : :east o c r : .. :atiiien : ara one red or ameer $:ODtient on eicn s ize 01 the rear :noin front.r_ano back . a: '.Xd . Tnrce c :^c :ce ct : :arc~_ ;Caeeti c markers- or coonatom Dortaolc %%arnine device .I _ -44 .~t stem : i f d .A 'J : I Scrt ;C . -rai .es ano manuaut -oreratco -~ . :ne : far cs~'I s =_-n t :Dic :e snail nave . :n t%orK : it: ordcri I3 . .A .u i1..k iCCeccmc :cr'OrD FUCi fa2cAn a uci bie 't arrt,ne act i c_ :horn and or Daexuo a :arrn tA •t inusnieid cculppcu •.t nn an adeuuate %%. inas ietu tt tocri . Oe :r. .IjI-e?C--~--_os :inc ir, ., . :Ul' IOC de% Ice.AOCOu'ate rear \ : ., mirror or mirrorsg . Cabs. cao sh ;c :us . and other protection to protect :he-onver from the elements and falling.)r sniriine ma :cr :aish . `onsiip surfaces on SICDSi._IKA cover-operated star.ine_ device_v(d . l ;iass : i 13 A .u'1 is t%indsmcId . itlruo s . ano doors Safe . „ISS$' ant cracked or broken glass shall bereDiaced .6 T .arrsi i td A .US)io~.i ocJraliv adCCJale : it the ttcient dra%%nh . Lone uct,cc or cnuc .c sate :\ system oro'iaeo ana ttorlang .'..-- I4'Z .iS 1 lea - C i a .n$ ar) .: Jr Cables'd . I-ratiers t% in,uucr nrakes equipped tt ith break-a%% a% uevicc tt nicn vvIII effectiv ely lockup orakcs in evcnt of ceparauon'-II\jDumo trucks i l S .A . I U )a. Equipped with a noldine device to prevent to orc'ent accidental lovvenne of body during-maintenance or nspcct :on"'b . Hoist levers can De secured to prevent acciecntat starting or tnootne8 . tmtree^ct equipment : t I S .A . I I i Minimum for vcnicies of I I : :on or of er occratcu on public highways .An a i be anal is rcuuirca by state ;a•.t nut not less than :a . One .'cc ilag not loss that 12 square with stanciara ano three retlecttve markersib . T ,%o tt necl chocks or each unit of a computation of t chicles,:.At least one _2 .A IOB C : .re extinguisher ( ttto oroocrn rated for tlarnmable cargoes)RENT. ;R:-,S LSE REVERSE SIDE :F \ECESS ..RY)!II\SPEL'ED AND LLR 1 ;FlED [r LITRE UI \IECH_X\IC, a?PRO \ ED B1 /SIGH RE OF COMPANY OFFICL i i\PA Form a) tRevisei I \Iav 1 Y106 i\I .ACHINERY AND MECHANICAL EQLIP'.',1ENT .• 0 ./ACHI\ERY O0. .TECH k'IC . . :UL :7` F .T 91 /L, bE P' %CEU I' SERVICE L`TIL IT HAS SEEN IM1SPECTED . .D TESTED 0 . . CO•tTETENT PERSON .n0 CEATIF:• SAFE OFEMTn.G CO .DITION`DICA 71E .1NS'•VERS BY PLACING `X" IN PROPER COLLMIV .I.YESTO BENO I N ALquipmect recuiremeaa : , ; o .A .U7I1. Seas or c :uai p rotection provided for eacn person required to ride ecuipment~\ hcn Jt:c :-zitea on : nc ; ;ten .. ; . - headlienis. taillights . brake Itghts . oacKup tights . ana.m sl2ras side ; :om ;rort and rear must be provided.rah oc equipoco .% ith power wiper and detoegtn2,detrosting aes ices_~cr !ce or 2.kc s . stem . parking DraKc s% stem . and erncr-eeric .' I manuail operate ; rrOm:osittonl3orecr. Crcm :Cai or ca:non-dioxide fire extinguisher %% ith a rating or' ; ._2L3'C :a22eO . Chareru . a:.u read% for userRe%erse s :ena ) IB .ALK-i. Pt alarms ~ io 8 UI )3Guaruire I lo B .U3 ) i5 r,C'.: ;rco for the tOiiowine :a. .a ;l belts . Snar.s . ewle .s . sprockets . spindles . drums. t1%%%hcc :s . C hains orother rcc : :rocatine . rotating . or mo v ing parts of equipmentc Hut sur.aees including exnaust p .pes or other linesl_, . C`a :2 :rt SXio snail be pro'. toed .% tin guarOs on both sides ana 0Dcr. :r. as Of skiD area_Zae :s- nanuhoiu!' 1F ue : t :rKsia"..z : :0 : : .J . . ~_ . .~ or o• c : :io .% s :o : :. :-, onto engine . c .'nausL Or e :C.tr1CaI equipment16804E6.-.hausit or oisc arses oo r:ei cruan_c : I .ort,mcn or oostruct vie .% of operator 116 B .U :)Scatbcits eomoly .\ tin 49CFR 5 1 I b .B .U8)Falling ooicct crotccti %c structures FOPS) 1 Ib .B I I) is through c)YYS.9.10 .Rollover protective stractu: es t RUT'S) 1 16 B . I .) 1 a through it)11 .Whenever tone-ocd ono -u uma trailers are uscu : i I b .B . 15) provide a roll-o . cr . .arnine desice: Utc desiceshall have a continuous monuerino displa- at tnc operator station to provide the operator with a quic k andIs glass installeu in ooclator s comoa -tment safety e)ass ' 1 16 B . IU)Points re q uiring lubncauon ;urine operation shall have titunes so located or guaraeo to be accessiblewithout ha ardous cs cosurc 1 16 B . 13, 17`-seasily-read : r,alcator ,rtu auo :ble . .aging of an unsafe condition .REMARKS iLSE REVERSE SiDF iF \ECESS RY)INSPECTED .\ 'D LERT : ; IE :.` B't t i L RL OF MECHANIC)NQ\PA Furm s IRe .iseu 1 \1a . .'.APPROVED BY t~,iG\ .A rLRE OF COMPANY OFFICIAL ISAFETY INSPECTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENTU .S . Army Engineer District, AlaskaDate of Inspection :Contractor or Unit 0~ L - ' `Contract No . or ActivityInspected by (Signature)Witness ( Signature)RUBBER TIRED FARM TRACTORS, BACKHOES, FRONT END LOADERSYesNoNOTE : Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM385-1-1 ) references inccrentheses .1 Is protection (grills . canopies, screens) provided to shield operator from falling orflying objects? (163 . 10 and 16 .8 .1 1)2 Is adequate roil-over protection provided? (16 .8 .12)./3 Are seat belts provided? (i63 .08)~/4 Are only designated qualifies operators Deing assigned to operate mechanizedequipment? (16 .A .04)~/5 Does the unit have a suitable fire extinguisher? 5 BC (16 .A .26)6 is there an effective , working, reverse alarm? ( 16 .8 .01)7 Are moving parts, snafts . sprockets, belts . etc . . guarded? (16 .13 .03 (a) andv~16 .B.07 and 16 .5 .13)8 Is protection(1 6 .B .03 (6) )against contact with hot surfaces . exhaust . etc ., provided?9 Are all screens , guards, shields in place and effective?v(16 .8 .03)10 Is a safe means of access to the cab provided ( steps , grab bars, non-slipsurfaces )? (16 .8 .03 (d) )`~11 Are pressurized cylinders . outriggers, etc ., equipped with a pilot check valve?(20 .A .17)12 Are sufficient lights erovicea for night operators? (1 6 .A .1 1)~/13 Are there initial inspections ana scneduled inspections of the equipment atregular intervals? (16 .A .02 (a) and (b) )14 Are fuel tanks located in a manner to prevent spills or overflows from runningonto engine exhaust or electrical equipment? (16 .8 .04)15 Are exhaust discharges from equipment so directed that they do not endangerpersons or obstruct the view of the operator? (16 .6 .05)16 Has the equipment been inspected and tested by a competentperson?(16 .A .01)17 Are inspection records kept available as a part of the official(16 .A .01 (b) )Remarks: ~GY c•~ .1 l'` tW-1l; cclC (G' e L ~--project file?`~N/ASAFETY INSPECTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENTU .S . Army Engineer District, AlaskaDate, of Inspection :71i-l)?ContractororUnit~'i_Inspected by (Signature)Contract No . or Activityr- ~ r rWitness ( Signature)SCRAPERS, MOTOR GRADERS, HEAVY HAULING UNITSNOTE : Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM385-1-1) references in parentheses .YesNoN/A1 Is the unit equipped with a ;uitabie fire extingusher (5 BC)? (16 .A .26)2 Is a safe means of access to the cco previaed (steps . grab bars, non-slip surfaces)?(16 .B .03 (d) )3 Is the operator protected against weather, failing or flying objects?'~(16 .8 .10 and 16 .8 .11)4 Are seat belts and adequate rollover protection provided where applicable? ( 16 .8 .08 &16 .8 .12)‚5 Are adequate head and tail lignts provided? (16 .A .07 (b))6 Have brakes been tested and found satisfactory? (16 .A .07 (d))Y7 Does the unit have an emergency brake system? (16 .A .07 (d))8 Can the emergency system oe activated from cab? (16 .A .07 (d))9 Does the emergency brake work automatically when regular brakes fail? (16 .A .07 (d))~-10 Have air tanks been tested and certified? (20 .A .01 (b)),~11 Is an air pressure gage in working condition installed on the unit? (20 .A .12)v12 Does the air tank have an accessible drain valve? (20 .8 .17)v13 Are the units equippej •v :in v--Andshieid wipers . defrosting and defogging equipment thatare in good operating condition? (16 .A .07)`/1/14 Is there an effective reverse signal where applicable? (I 6 .B .01)15 Has the unit been inspected ana certified mechanically safe bybefore being placed in use? (16 .A .01)a qualified personI/16 Is the record of the test available? (I 6 .A .01 (b) )17 Is the unit shut down for servicing, tueiing . etc .? (16 .A .14)18 Are only designates quaiifiea operators being assignedequipment? (16 .A .04)to operate mechanizedr/19 Are fuel tanks located in a manner to prevent spills or overflowsengine , exhause, or electrical equipment? (16 .6 .04)from running ontoy/20 Are exhaust discharges from equipment so directed that they do not endanger personsor obstruct the view of the operator? (16 .8 .05)21 Are seats provided for each person required to ride on equipment? (16 .A .07 (a))REMARKS :]-c c h r~'u-c)/r :rA.r' C)CA)C /JC, 1, leLLMNC: P1 ? C- riFoIn385-32-Rd v7-/A-,•,,-s__i Proponent CELN N -S CIEnvironmental Quality ControUQuality Assurance Report(ER 415. 1 . 10:1Contract Number I Delivery Order NumberUPC/Project TitleDACASS _ 97-D-OOIOID .O . 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removal'QC Report Number012Oat, or Time Period7117199ether Condlt onsemp Low 43_ Tamp HI10-33 Knots ConditionsWind SpeedLocation and TeamGambell , AlaskaContractor48CloudyOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Oat . (Include inspections . results . deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory 0 s." aeach.d checklistIVubal0 a .e attached ch.ckltstFollow-Up0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYWasthedeficiencytrackinglistField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of test MethodMtatnxupdatedthisdateYesQNoYes Q NoQuantity of samples ResultsNoneHave Data Quality objectives been achieved ?N /AYesoHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysts?Type of Test EPA Test Method/Matrix Quantity of Samples1400Yest] NooNoneHave required amount of OC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved ?N/AYesONoDHave appropriate QC laborabry tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks , surrogates , reference standards , etc .)YesONoDHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity?N/AYesONoDHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?N/AYesO MooHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date :Level A Q Level B Q Level C Q Level D 0 WAOYes 0 MooWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0NoƒWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required 'Yes 0 No 0Safety Commerft : (Include any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken .)ety meeting covered :Hazards to and from area trafficI he potential for eye injury from blowing grit was stressed at the safety meeting . It was also determined that the ATVtrailers could be used for crew transportation if they had sufficient seating and hand holds . The passengers must alsowear the same PPE as the AN operator. The AN must not travel faster than 20 mph on improved roads and 10 mphoff road while carrying passengers in the trailer .Repairs were completed on the Nodwell . A safety inspection was accomplished and the machine put back into service .A live power cable supporting FAA navaids was discovered , on the surface of the soil , on east side of runway in Area 8 .Personnel from the project had been collecting and stockpiling matting on foot and with heavy machinery in the area .The area was also a runway shoulder improvement project for Alaska DOT under construction by another contractor .The area was immediately marked and work suspend at that location . The contractor's Project Engineer reviewed theDOT project drawings indicating the presence of the of buried utilities . The route of the cable was marked , and allpersonnel were briefed to keep clear of the area .GAR SAFETY COMMENTS:j j uo w var'~-< ~~1°h v ~ S t9 ~ .'G-st t O # t; CC ,1'Y)EC r~ IV rv lam.1 t - C /t.. . 5 r i> .a'KaG'?~ ..4 o Tfib,-nvc r- C n~ ~t ~ioP/~ ci~ t=I A c .t~ + .vooP~rz'+-: I b f 5 T -~ . •v G . lei (e r e-/4fQ" TX(-1_1 kTi t4. Q '' A ' ,. f ~c 7t .a: 8Z CA---, LC/Q.4 c X c)'~ G/1 .~,'Sc~2'J7P~t c K .rt > c r crv 2 e' Q . . ,~~ .C " ~~J1-5I0'-~cr36~3>c•/t~ flIt-vi-i> O e'jnGtL C.r •v ~7 .7-&Ywo'= treeEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41S-t -302)Continuation Sheet"'-At Activities Performed This Daterence (NAS ID //Tech Spec 0)Activity&LocationQuantityContractor_,.*m Removal (NAS ID 0020 . 02050) Stockpiled metal debris from Area 8 50% of metal stockpiled(the runway and west beach area)none yet weighedSpecific areas worked include thesouth overrun for the runway andthe area between the runway andTroutman LakeManpower and EquipmentLaborpesa1flcatlonProtect ManagerCOC System ManagersuperintendentArcheologistoperatorLaborersNumber111ManHours131313110EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgoNodwellPickupCat 966 Loader16Total Hours .Number3121273134kssiruetlons Given by the Government to the Contractor ( Include names . reactions . and remarks .)none.Hours Used12018181103Total Hours :41Verbal Q Written 0work Progress rte there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact';Am there any unforeseeable or weather related delays ?Yes 0Yes 0Yes QNoNoNoRemarks (Mdude any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Scheduled fuel barge did not arrive . Village store out of fuel . Now using limited drummed fuel brought out duringmobilization .Site reconnaissance of Area 12 conducted by Project Manager, COC Systems manager, QAR and Archeologist .tial inspection on HTW removal requested for 7/19/99 .Initial inspection requested on weighing procedures requested for 7/19/99 .Archeologist researching past studies and preparing field reports-I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications a as noted above/ll/_'_i Z1_.C/ ___ ,Quality Control Manager SignatureDateGovemment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the OC report?Additional comment or ehreptions :Pcsti02_ CA - r•s a'T rf-Wl A'f7t rV C.L.L'SISYes, No Q~h r tiv~1-~ -1,t_r- Cv , a :el cxir=t<7 Z) b° EZ re ( S~~I~ 20 L P OR )'VA CCAd-" .,rro Or, t S tft JtL2 . Fit 6*4V- L.T~1 ~ .r. 17 ~<1 1 ' -r- Kt~aw wthc")QAR Signature1.7"%j -J-P.4C-3~c?5 r~tt .~Date27f /7, 1 9Supervisors Inttal DateTˆcOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate : /' ~~1999 Time :Briefing Location :,,Activities Planned :Briefer :~J'~~ tTopic :2-"A'Topic :Topic :Briefer:Topic:,N( : c( fn v . r_5Topic :Topic :AttendeesSite Healthand Safety Officer :Date :1999HOT WORK PERMITContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project : Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation: Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaType of Work :Heat Producing DeviceLocation-1p -Operator: (~_' Id" ~~Fire Guard :_L!ol % /,;may J ~L~s O~Scheduled Work Date :TimeStart: Time Finished :The Checklist Below Was ReviewedSu eri de 1~~ / C CC/Date : ISHSO :, i 0C MPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistN/AItem1 . Are all flammables and at lest 50 ftaway?Yes No[]2 . Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment? fa []3 . Has the Fire Guard bean identified and briefed to observe the area for 1 hour atter work is f, Dcomplete?4 . Has emergency commjnication procedures been checked?5 . Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?6.Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?7. Is the correct PPE being wom?8 . Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors?9 . Have containers been checked for explosive/ flammable residue or vapors?(drums and tanks)10 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only)?11 . Are nozzles and hose:s in good repair? (torches only)COMPLETE AFTER WORKTime StartC ?"'^Time Finished :Superintendent :; r ~.;Fire Guard Released :/Date//_BHSO:: 4V lDate :i ~LSAFETY INSPECTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENTU .S . Army Engineer District , AlaskaDate of Insp ction :-711Contractor or UnitContract No . or ActivityInspected by (Signature)Witness ( Signature)SCRAPERS, MOTOR GRADERS, HEAVY HAULING UNITSNOTE : Safety and Health Requirements Manual (tM385- 1-1) references in parentheses .YesNo1 Is the unit equipped with a suitable fire extinguisher (5 BC)? (16 .A .26)2 is a safe means of access to the cab provided (steps, grab bars . non-slip surfaces)?(16 .B .03(d))3 Is the operator protected against weather, falling or flying objects? ( 16 .8 .10 and 16 .8 .11)4 Are seat belts and adequate rollover protection provided where applicable? (16 .8 .08 &16 .8 .12)5 Are adequate head and tail nights provided? (16 .A .07 (b) J6 Have brakes been tested and found satisfactory? (16 .A .07 (d))7Does the unit have an emergency brake system? (16 .A .07 (d))8 Can the emergency system be activated from cab? (16 .A .07 (d) )9 Does the emergency brake work automatically when regular brakes fail? (16 .A .07 (d) )10 Have air tanks been tested and certified? (20x4 .01 (b) )11 Is an air pressure gage in working condition installed on the unit? (20 .A .12)12 Does the air tank have an accessible drain valve? (20 .8 .17)13 Are the units equipped with windshield wipers, defrosting and defogging equipment thatare in good operating condition? (16 .A .07)kIL14 Is there an effective reverse signal where applicable? (16 .8 .01)15 Has the unit been inspected and certified mechanically safe by a qualified personbefore being placed in use? (16 .A .01)16 Is the record of the test available? (16 .A .01 (b))r17 Is the unit shut down for servicing, fueling , etc .? (16 .A .14)18 Are only designated qualified operators being assignedequipment? (16 .A .04)to operatemechanized19 Are fuel tanks located in a manner to prevent spills or overflows from running ontoengine , exhause . or electrical equipment? ( 16 .8 .04)20 Are exhaust discharges from equipment so directed that they do not endanger personsor obstruct the view of the operator? (16 .8 .05)Y21 Are seats provided for each person required to ride on equipment? (16 .A .07 (a) )REMARKS: vcL. S >S ~ ~ %" LNGr42EL1~Form 385-32-RLr2vzc`t1~FLProponent : CELM ttEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportI ER 415-1 .30-)Corgract Number / Delivery Order Number UPCIPro/ect TitleDACASS- 97-0d0101D. O. 0004 Debris Removal and Containertzed Hazardous and To xic Waste Removal"4C Report Number Date or Time Period Location and Team0137f18l99Gambell, Alaskaiath.rConditionsContractor47Temp Low Q_ Temp HiConditionsVend Speed17 .28 KnotsCloudyOil Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections, results . deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory0 s.. aaache d checklistInitial 0 a.. aaach.d checklist 1Folk w-up 0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYWas the de6cien y tracking list updated this dateYesField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of test0NoYes 0 NoMethod/Matrix Quantity of samples ResultsNoneHave Data Qualify Otifectives been ach ieved?WAYesDHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis ?Type of Test EPA Test Method/MatrixMOOYesO N00Quantity of SamplesNoneHave required amount of QC trip blanks and rinsates been achieved ?NIAYes( :] NOC3Have appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered) ( matnx spikes, method blanks . surrogates , reference standards . etc .)YesONo0Have QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity?WAYs0MoOHave samples been property labeled and packaged'N/AYssO MooHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date:Level A 0 Level B 0 Level C O Level D 0 wAOWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes 0 MooWas airy work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Yes 0 NoƒWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required? Yes 0 MooSafety Cortumerlts : (Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken .)he correct procedures for chop saw use were discussed at the safety meeting . Specifics includes rotation of personnelto avoid fatigue, correct PPE , and safe work distances . Crews were also briefed on the hazards caused by high winds.Handling sheet metal, flying debris, and potential grit in eyes were discussed .A crew break shelter with hot drinks and a rest area was set up in a connex . The was implemented to prevent crewfatigue or hypothermia as winds increase and temperatures drop .Heavy truck traffic was noticed along the road that parallels the runway . This transects our current work area . Thesuperintended briefed all personnel to use extra caution .Extra overburden was place in area of the buried electrical line discovered 7/17/99 to provide protection from equipmenttraffic along major haul routes .GAR SAFETY COMMENTS :1,1 JlOo C IC .. 't`'t soE) wtf 4Ze,thr 13,,JPor. t,/e--, ., -r lie,- -T~ . ti t. ~.,-syS4A2.,/L. erGS st l~/ > ticyest vwr r+t o‚`~ 5~'~ .n &) .IEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 415 .1302)Continuation Sheetft ActivitIes Performed This Datemice ( NAS 10 &Tech Spec8)AcUNty&LocationQuantity.,reins Removal (NAS ID 0020. 02050) Stockpiled Metal . Area 8 area between eastside of runway and parallel road Trimmedexposed end of partially timed metal matContractornot yet weighed .Scale hung on gantry Tare weightstaken in preparation for debris weighingHTRW Removal (NAS ID 0022 . 02050) Staked proposed area of Area 12Drum Dump south of Troutman LakeManpower and EquipmentEquipmentLaborCtasalicatlon Number ManHoursTypeNumber Hours UsedProjectmanager1124wheeler33017Cat426loaderttCDC System ManagerSAt :f a in gistoperatorLaborers'dent113Argo213110Nodwell10110Pwkup10550Cat966Loader13Total Hours .102TotalHoursYts*iuctfons Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactions . and remarks)noneVerbal 047Written 0Wort Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of tact )Yes Q NoAre there any Government caused delays or potential finding of tact' Yes Q NoAre there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes Q NoRemarks (include any w3dors b project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)Fuel barge still not in due to high winds . Less than two days of fuel on hand .n attempt was made to deal with the exposed end of partially buried metal matting . Dirt was removed exposingIroximately one to two addition feet of buried mat . A cut was made with a chop saw along the dirt line . 1/10 of a miler ut. The new cut edge was inspected by the QAR . He stated that the approach tried would not be acceptable .Cat 426 had major hydraulic leak . Was removed from service .Archeologist researching past studies and preparing field reportsArcheologist Consulted with Mayor Winnie James and Sivuqaq Inc . President Job Koonooka about artifact/burialprocedures. They agreed that relics were to be turned over to Sivuqaq Inc, and indicated preference for human bones tobe reburied at the place of discovery , with the Project Liaison Burt Ooozevasouk witnessing . Consulted with OAR SteveLeClerc about follow-through , and decided Corps will draft letter based on Mobley draft reviewed by James andKoonooka . The USAFCE will submit the letter to City of Gambell, Sivugaq, Inc ., and Gambell IRA council .I certify tat the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted above .Quality Control Manager Signature-z.42 4')-/2Date 7 ! `iGovernment quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with We OCreport'YesAddbonalla No 0commentsorexceptions-`.r RS-e- .Q-2 -t%;-~ 3= ''3 - too'" w.C .>`,ed - A>1Ew=A 3, `f, S IaVT-e- - •4s Y ,eCTh h ) r.,>=>C 7L%rk v.j Or- ~~Utvv4Tt~v r ll . tawˆS rL X t,Mend i) rl , Cs.71. V ev I '1>~"•c,4 , t5 F,?~.m.r'A-sLL l fix. r' ort_M a .~a .. c -)T A'% A-r- C-VPJtC SA-+t,v -'rt ,El17Datey2 -2V 'Y9SupervisoesInitialDataf2 .a e"D .OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999Activities Planned :Briefer :Time :Briefing Location :'/?~Topic :Topic :6,1.fYhhfTopic :Briefer :Topic :Topic :Topic :Attendees i-Site Healthand Safety Officer : ' 2 , i5A- -4Date: i!J _ 1999HOT WORK PERMITContract: DACA95 - 97-D-0010 , 0 .0. 0004eject: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removalration : Gambell , Saint Lawrence Island , AlaskaType of Work: _C-V \ )~-\ CHeat Producing DeviceOperator :Location :Fire Guard :Scheduled Work Date :i I ~ ITime Start:The Checklist Below Was Reviewed'Date :Superintendent :Jl C,^Time Finished :/_'~ 1 ' SHSO :Date: _CMPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistN/AItemYes1 . Are all flammables and at lest 50 ft away ?2.Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment?Has the Fire Guard been identified and briefed to observe the area for 1 hour after work is LVjcomplete?4 . Has emergency communication procedures been checked?†Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?Q5.6. Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?Q7.Is the correct PPE being worn?~.J8.Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors? a~QHave containers been checked for explosive/ flammable residue or vapors?Q9.(drums and tanks)10 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only )?11 . Are nozzles and hoses in good repair ?Time Start : Time Finished :Superintendent:iN,a(torches? •Ponly)QQQFire Guard Released : 3 . 3C>Date : j'' 0 /' SHSO:-Date : ~/qEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 4111•)( _)Contact Number / Delivery Order Number UPC/Project TitleDACAOS- 97-O-d010/D.O. 0004 Debris Removal and Contalne ized Hazardous and Toxic Wast e RemovalCQC Report Number Data or Time Period Location and Team1147/ 19/99Gambell , AlaskaherConditionsContractorp Low 43 Temp HI47Wind Speed17-2t KnotsConditions Light Rain.Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (include inspections, results . deficiencies observed . and corrective action.)Preparatory ƒ .. e attached chacklbt Waghing, HTW Removal, SanrVlinqInitial 0 We attached checkup SanpltnqFollow-Up 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateYes 0 NoField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performedthisdate?Yes0Type of testMetod/Matns Quantity of samples ResultsNoHave DataN/AQualityObjectivesbeenachieved?Have Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA Test Method/Matrix Quantity of Samples0YesOMoDYesDMooSee Chain of Custody Form and Field notes AttachedHave required amount of QC trap blanks and rinsates been achieved? WASYesDNoDHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered ? (mat x spikes , method blanks , surrogates. reference standards . etc.)WADYesƒNODHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery Order N/AƒYesDHO(]Have samples been properly labeled and packaged ?N/ADYesƒNoDHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date :Level A 0 Level B 0 Level C 0 Level D 0 WADWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0NoƒWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health? Yes 0MooWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required?Yes 0 MOOSafety Comments: (Include any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken .)the safety meeting the presence of truck traffic from another contractor in the area was discussed and crews Weresited to yield to these vehicles and use extra caution . The presence of the underground electrical cable east of therunway and protective measures taken was briefed to the crew . All personnel were alerted to new excavations made bylocal residents in the road used to travel from the lodge to the lay down area . An alternate route was identified .Later in day the a suspension of work for cutting, heavy debris removal, and equipment movement was given in the areaof the buried electrical cable east of the runway .(see "directions" block)QAR SAFETY COMMENTS :Ltvb_ 34tC4F Vote .- too,_,,, ZIC, CA PS 4_GJw. c4..-, yZ~ I, A_, 2Z_@,4 +~ .:M Lt1r~: ~4 rAlvST4~~ of s~ryr+si r•va .VS r. ~j .Lh -tLaw 3 J,e tS SEAC4-, Fo rC~* 1%- p vT ~ c/~r‡S • 1.i1 ~ L V A-' r v .y,t ~. '~ 2~C .v .?L c t~ - -~. ~ . 4ttr.lrzd~7~ZJt ~ZL79~. ht ~2ow -t-v fF Ao A-fl .,,I c; Imo; M~ .,-y,C4L Z2>.-'tit.v. ..+Jrr• .ycJ C5C Z4I (.4ChE-=:- ~YC .~ - rr t~~, ~4PP 7,rN r°be c ctao Pi G. ,~. . ~c~ A-t>1u w, t,, t r t - - -,- W'V~r .J . .v cCc~ c4 c S i r .~ +yy . ,v f ` :'c'Y/l-+t: G S • 6J '~, t ou.. / t + t S A,0 ana, u , M t S zD ,f't' TN-~i~ DtGc~ NGS .td-et 6p M ET q - rT1r t - GP). uC1' E7L C,Rw,,"OOL6UA3vPIPat,A .Ytltlr cvt, .C- ATt t'1-Nlr1!oT" GA,ky\-f Yt'S k= 1 Vt~ C)ar - 1 C~ l3 Y 1°~u., ~.GL.LtTbd 1roX IC -leifvu H As`72 BtcA .~s~t~ wt~A c.D Ey , q , tT• a.) Q R E X C 4.,.Kt avV . My F> -' 4ol~ p l~,R-3 ,~e D av D'D%: c ^- st S t'rA'LL .4-vW/tS ttor Nt-r- fit! B v.T COULD% VC }/ISa4.h S t-4cT loo/'j E 4 4lv1'1 G d .KY C.hJM'R tTIVI14, Noj A)-7-44 D 1C1?Z b t t-Cow-, r-.4--Environmental Quality Control Quality Assurance Report(ER 415 .1-302)Continuation Sheet%ctlvltles Pedomsed This Oat*nce (NAS 10 lFTech spec s) Activity &LocationQuantityDebits Removal (NAS 10 9003, 02050 Weighed previously stockpiled Metal . Area 8,west beads. Continued to collect and stockpilefor area between runway and Troutman lake .Manpower and EquipmentLaborClassttlcatJonProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSuperintendentArcheologistOperatorLaborersNumber11ManHours131311131016Total Hoes :1272102Contractor10,768 lb weighed to date50% d area 6 completedEquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgoNodwellPickupCat 966 LoaderHour Used364Number3121120110056Total Hours :instructions Given by the Govemrnent to the Contractor (Irldude names , reactions . and remarks .)Verbal0Mhfttan 0QAR Directed suspension heavy debris removal, cutting, and equipment operations in the area of the undergroundelectrical buried electrical cable between the runway and Troutman Lake . The area was marked with stakes andflagging, and all work in the area was suspended except for removal of light surface debris by personnel on foot . Allproject personnel were briefed of the hazard .QAR directed suspension of work on the partially buried metal matting along the east side of the runway where ashoulder improvement contract was underway by another contractor . Personnel had been trimming the exposed edge ofthe mat to reduce the visible area (see remarks, below) .QAR directed that if human remains were encountered, they should not be disturbed in any way . The Archeologistshould be alerted . The contractor would be responsible for interring the remains . This would be done only after theA^rheologist had approved the action . The interment must be done in the presence of the Archeologist and the Projectson from the Village of Gambell .The OAR informed the Project Manager and the CQC that it may be permissible to use non -HazWOPR-trained local-hirepersonnel for debris removal with special stipulations . This issue is being coordinated between the contractor and theFairbanks Resident Office of the USACE .Work Progress Are ewe any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or polenbal finding of fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks (Indkde any visitor's to protect and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Fuel barge finally arrived . The pickup trick will be able to be used for crew transport once gasoline is available for saleby the village store .An attempt was made to deal with the exposed end of buried metal matting . Dirt was removed exposing approximatelyone to two addition feet of buried mat . A cut was made with a chop saw along the dirt line . 1/10 of a mile cut . The newcut edge was inspected by the QAR . He stated that the approach tried would not be acceptable . A direction to suspendthis work was subsequently given (see directions above) .The starter on the Nodwell failed and the unit was rev eweo°~ from service .Cat 426 which had been removed from service for major hydraulic leak was repaired and returned to service .Archeologist, the developer of the project archaeology/burial SOP for eventual USACE letter reviewed his latest draftwith QAR, USACE Steve LeClerc .sfy tut the above report is complete and coned and that all matenals and equipment used . work performed and lists conduced during this period were in strictplience with tha contract plans and speofications ela e ( asDate2; ;~Za J'OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title: Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, Alaska1999 Time: I')-7Date : -7/ "Briefing Location : L ~_,GUActivities Planned :Briefer:Ch ()Topic: ~I,rtl~~rcu11 I CTopic : L)Xk L. L lc t1 ii lncdBriefer :Topic :L-it'k'-Z-e'1(fATopic :161 1~ /_ ~c dTopic :Topic :AttendeesN1112 /X~I~1yLSite Healthand Safety Officer.i-~Date : / a1999Chain of CusProject' 1 ofDebris Removal & Containerized Hazardous & Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, AlaskaCo ntr act No: DACA8S-97-D-001 0, Delivery Order #4Authorization Number.Clientamplers :4.1OSCI Purchase Order No . 913yEf~~~/Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .The Environmental Cleanup Company(SignatureWitness:209 E . 51st . Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99503Tel : (907) 562-7169 Fax : (907) 562-7225r19SInature/Analysis Required by :~"Anal sis RequiredOraN,wmM 00) ti^NO-eldSampleOM,ScreenSample Number Date Time PID Reading-fRM-OD -•fr- - S1Relinquished by: (Printed)(SignaturesRelinquished by: (Printed)(Signature)Dispatched by : (Printed)7-/c/-Type# ofCont .aOOOd~$~adE °vapcoU ° ^vSorrv~/7/9-9'Soiv v rr7-/9t ; DDso,/v vADateTime••tlo00C ga° aN,OQ O(000NE --d=° °0) c U)wcmQedm01CoC13N. a° < <~/~/w'C:^Ow ooReceived by: ( Printed)(S nature)Received by : (Printed)(Signature)Received at Laboratory by :(Signature)Method of ShlpmenCondition of ContainersComments:Good Fair PoorReceived Temp/ acRequiredlNo . Icle•7 /1;1 04 7~io.~S afe,Js /e%. .qea o19em ripf ion2,ys,*M/ 99-GAM-00/-SL ‡7-/9-99 4.0, / :l oi ..t W S. . / from fief// j-, or3 99 - GAN/ -Oe .? - S! /27-/9-9.9/ .o "V ed7-/?-f7D./ S'/' .ned .r0 °/Q99- GAM-OOf -S1 2T,./ d.. ,ff*1/!!~p/'JNIfo / O ~!/0f l, .a/IIf/)X J Jy/,r too-'Or/ IoJ /v4 ,, ‰~ 'Itil~f'i 4,/ d-' Ii rrf p,%4 f av..//,O k f JJ/f/ /It,/'fs.l••tt#.~/% . f .' h e 1~ to Or .111/ • wfg,r /+ .Vr ., r, o-v ,y/ .~ r y/ •/I f f~!l.rl f Al yr,'~ ,,D 4 Jcw,,1d2i -w5 -P° ZV Pj/ y' ~~ ~/.. ..~ rw/16.V./p // .• •f ...nipf4/s/t L'Q; Jf If fir / j7 f off//9~' 'I (' ti IfJ/Jdrs/Q/ !..ivod . rJ ; / i'V/0,wI, ii547 - .9- 9 79pl,, /, /y o/ t~. . .irc/ SOi /,,,cf7%r,•7/e0Si ~C 2 /S /sled Ne /4e'•r f 0/ 6• .•., ell41#"/ /SO y~r~ frer+ //T d f~ oirli~e.xs, .4 tf • rs1 /oC~'.9r : 7r', = 1./9C/O/r)2 7kso HZ• 4/ 1i 71y o` ,f~c ~ .r ~IleJ So . lINSPECTION CHECKLISTContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, O.O. 0004act: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removalation : Gambell , Saint Lawrence Island , AlaskaFeature of Work : Drum Removal/HTW CLIN : 3 Inspection : PreparatoryRelevant Specifications : SOW 1 .3 .1, SOW Table 2, 02050, 01130Submittals : Work Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Environmental Protection PlanInspection ChecklistItemYes NoNotObsrvd001 . Have all required submittals been approved?2 . Have the applicable section of the statement of work and specifications been 0 0reviewed?3 . Has a safety meeting beenheld?024. Have equipment and tools received a safety inspection?"5. Has the hazard analysis been reviewed?00000Have PPE requirements for the activity been established? ~~ 0 07 Has the area of work been defined?8 . Have the drums been located ?Z'Z]i'0009 . Are required materials for spill containment available?00010. Have staging areas , access routes , and collection points been established? 0 011 . Have procedures for handling drum liquids been reviewed? El 012 . Have procedures for cleaning and crushing drums been reviewed?Comments:--00&2zr-. e> c6(/ZVv/CQC System ManagerDateIeLe^ 1A,e4/SAFETY INSPECTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENTDate of Inspection :U .S . Army Engineer District , AlaskaContractor or Unit'-/2Inspected by ( Signature )Contract No . or Activity160C KX o(17 /5~r4Witness (Signature) ~~RUBBER TIRED FARM TRACTORS, BACKHOES, FRONT END LOADERSNOTE : Safety and Health Requirements Manual (EM385- 1-1) references inparentheses .1 Is protection (grills, canopies, screens ) provided to shield operator from falling orflying objects? (16 .8 .10 and 16 . B .1 1)YesNoN/A`'2 Is adequate roll-over protection provided? (16 .8.12)3Are seat belts provided? (16 .B.08).i4 Are only designated qualified operators being assigned to operate mechanizedequipment? (16 .A .04)5 Does the unit have a suitable fire extinguisher? 5 BC (16 .A .26)~/6 is there an effective . working, reverse alarm ? ( 16.8 .01)~'7 Are moving parts . shafts, sprockets . belts, etc .. guarded? ( 16 .8.03 (a) and16.B.07 and 16 .13.13)`~8 Is protectionagainst contact with hot surfaces . exhaust, etc ., provided?(16 .8.03(6))9 Are all screens , guards . shields in place and effective? (1 6 .B .03)10 Is a safe means of access to the cab provided ( steps , grab bars . non-slipsurfaces)? (16 .8 .03 (d) )`~11 Are pressurized cylinders, outriggers . etc ., equipped with a pilot check valve?(20 .A .17)v12 Are sufficient lights provided for night operators? (16 .A .11)13 Are there initial inspections and scheduled inspections of the equipment atregular intervals? (16 .A .02 (a) and (b) )14 Are fuel tanks located in a manner to prevent spills or overflows from runningonto engine exhaust or electrical equipment? (16 .8 .04)`~15 Are exhaust discharges from equipment so directed that they do not endangerpersons or obstruct the view of the operator? (16 .11 .05)16 Has the equipment been inspected and`~tested by a competent person?(16 .A .01)17 Are inspection records kept available as a part of the official project file?(16 .A .01 (b) )Remarks:ifv~fac~/ /l~ 6E P.~~a '0/M-vContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O. 0004Project: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, Alaskat ire of Work : Sampling CLIN : 4, and 5Inspection : PreparatoryRelevant Specifications : 1450Submittals : Sampling and Analysis PlanInspection ChecklistItemYes No1 . Have all required submittals been approved?M0NotObsrvd02 . Have the applicable section of the statement of work and specifications beenQ' 0 0reviewed?3 . Has a safety meeting been held?4 . Have equipment and tools received a safety inspection?5 . Has the hazard analysis been reviewed?6 . Have PPE requirements for the activity been established?-las the area of work been defined?8 . Has stained soil been located?9 . Are required materials for spill containment available?10 . Have sampling locations been established?11 . Have procedures for handling IDW been defined?12 . Have procedures for cleaning and decontamination been established?Comments :_C ys m MafiageDateContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, Alaskaure of Work : Debris Removal CLIN : 2Inspection : PreparatoryRelevant Specifications : SOW 1 .3.1, SOW Table 2, 02050, 01130, 01450Submittals : Work Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Environmental Protection PlanInspection ChecklistNotObsrvdItemYes No1 . Have all required submittals been approved?0002. Have the applicable section of the statement of work and specifications beenreviewed?0003 . Has a safety meeting been held?4 . Have equipment and tools received a safety inspection?5 . Has the hazard analysis been reviewed?6 . Have PPE requirements for the activity been established?las the area of work been delineated?Has the scrap to be removed been identified?9 . Are personnel operating cutting equipment fully trained?10. Have staging areas , haul routes, and collection points been established?11 . Have hot work procedures and areas been identified?12 . Have weighing procedures been established?13 . Has site control been established?14. Have procedures for cutting , loading , transporting , and off-loading metal debrisbeen reviewed?Comments:CQCste4,ManagerDatec Jk (/Weigh TicketDebris Removal and Containerized HTW Removal , Gambell AlaskaTicket #SiteDateCollectedDateLoadedDateWeighedCount:Description_BDRSSOtherHTWCSGrossWeightTare WeightNet WeightNetWeightTare toConnexGross toTicket #DateCollectedDateWeighedSiteConnexInitialsConnex#DateLoadedBDRSSCount :DescriptionHTWCSOtherGrossWeightTare WeightNet WeightNetWeightTare toConnexGross toConnexDateCollectedDateWeighedTicket #SiteInitialsConnex#DateLoadedCount :DescriptionBDRSsOtherGrosslWeightTare WeightNet WeightNetWeightTare toConnexGross toConnexInitialsConnex#HTWCSCONTRACT LINE ITEM , TRACKING SHEETAREA 8DebrisContract Line item 2total WtinconnexDateNet Wt loadedTare inConnex # connexDateNet Wt loadedtotal WtTare in inconnexConnex# connexDateCount Net Wt loadedtotal WtTare In InConnex # connex connexDate DateWt Ticket # Collected Weighed D escription CountCurrent TotalHTWContract Line item 3Date DateWt Ticket # Collected WeighedCountDescriptionurrent TotalStained Soil Contract Line item 4Date DateWt Ticket # Collected WeighedDescriptionCurrent TotalPage 1Weight maryDebris removal and Co, arized HTW Removal~~ Debris-TaWaI Weight toSites Weight DateHTWTable 2 Weight toWeight DateSite 2160020Site 3770600Site 4/Area 4A5410i2140 jSite 4/Area 4B9052230Site4/Area 4D10000Site 53150site 5 and 355100Site 63500Site 71500Site 81150006200Site 1013002300 1Site 1210012550Site 13300,~, __-0 .Stained soil Contaminated SoilWeight to Weight toDateDateArea betweenTotals 127255Percent of Weight00%1614000%194990'0140000v4L't i01', 0%Page1As00%of :7/18/99,10:19 PMContract DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, Alaska.ure of Work : Sampling CLIN : 4, and 5Inspection : InitialRelevant Specifications : 1450Submittals : Sampling and Analysis PlanInspection ChecklistItemesootObsrvd1 . Are sample points correctly located and marked?(ElEl2 . Do collection methods meet requirements of analysis ordered?•0El3 . Has a safety meeting been held?Q'El04 . Are proper precautions to prevent cross contamination being followed?i005 . Are field notes documenting sampling locations being made?Q'006 . Is the proper PPE being worn?Q007 Are clean sampling tools being used?Q'0Elb . is only Stained soil being sampled?15009 . Are measurements of sample locations being made?QEl010. Is the proper sample i .d. used?L10El11 . Area procedures for handling IDW being followed?L 'El0El012 . Is the COC form being filled out with all the proper data fields?Comments :iAgolfftemManagertoEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(EA AISI)2)Contract Number I Delivery Order Number UPC / Pro1ect TitleOACASS- 97-D-00101 0.0. 0004 Debris Removal and Contalnertzed Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCQC Report Number Date or Time Period Location and Team99-0157120199Gambell,AlaskaWeatherConditionsContractorTemp Low 47 Temp HI $2Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.Conditions Cloudy a m Sunny . o.m10-21 KnotsWind SpeedQuality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections . results. deficiencies observed, and corrective action)Preparatory 0 se" attached checktlstInitial a se* attached checklist HTW RemovalFollow-UpaSamplingYes OWas the deficiency tracking list updated this dateNoField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of test Method/MatnxHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved'Have Samples BeenType of TestN/AYes a No 0Quantity of samples ResultsYesONo0Collected for Laboratory Analysis?EPA Test Method/Matrix Quantity of SamplesYesOMooSee Chain of Custody Form and Field notes AttachedN/A°YesONo0Have required amount of ac trip blanks and nnsates been achieved ?Have appropnate QC laboratory tests been ordered ? ( matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates , reference standards . etc .) NIAOYesaNoON/A°YesDNoOHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery OrderIAO YesONoONHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?Health and SafetyLevel A 0 Level B 0 Level C a Level O a NIAOWorker protection levels this date:Yes 0 NoeWas any work activity conducted within a confined space 'Yes O NoeWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health 'Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required' Yes 0 MooSafety Comments : ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan , and include instructions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken )The safety meeting addressed the hazards of handling landing mat . Workers loading landing mat into connexes whilestanding in dose proximity to each other must exercise caution to avoid striking each other with the jagged metal . Thecorrect PPE and material collection procedures for drums and batteries was also discussed . This was in preparation forthe removal of HTW from Area 12 that would start that day .QAR SAFETY COMMENTS:P 2tC r+,~0rv P +`t_C0-fe,e r3GT - !},~`^^'s TS( - 4 .iS . I`to , 1e--BL .cy . < 0r35c-`rt ..C T2)L "e-rr rv -r7t X . - EYLIEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 4 tS .1 . 3021Continuation Sheet3 k Activities Performed This Date,eference (HAS 10 INrech Spec s)QuantityActivity & LocationHTRW Removal (HAS t0 0022 . 02050) initial HTW removal on Area 12 . drum dumpsouth of Troutman Lake . Drums and batteriesremoved .ofdrums at this site collected35 % of drums at this site weighed . 4 .448 lb b dateStained soil associated with drums and batteries 75% of stained soil at this site collectedat Area 12 excavated . containerized and weighed 50 % of stained soil at this site weighed . 2.594 lb to dateStained Sod Removal ( NAS ID 0019 . 02050)Debris Removal (HAS ID 0020 . 02050)75%ContractorArea . 12 . small amounts of non-HTW metal not yet weigheddebris segregated from drumsManpower and EquipmentLaborCtassmcadonPry ManagerCOC System ManagerSuperintendentArcheologistNumber11ManHours1313EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loader111310ArgoNodwell21160Laborers18Total Hours1272133PickupCat 966 Loader100056OpalNumber31Hours Used364Total Hours .hstrucUons Given by the Government to the Contractor ( Include names, reactions , and remarks .)Verbal° Written QQAR approved the substitute of an Argo for the Archeologists sole use in lieu of the four -wheeler identified by themodification extending the archeologists time on site .QAR directed that the cans of solidified paint found during the cleanup of Area 12 (the drum dump south of TroutmanLake) were to be left on site .Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?NoNoNoRemarks ( Include any wsitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)With only approximately 50% of the drums in Area 12 weighed, the recorded weight to date of 4,484 lb already exceedsthe Delivery Order estimate of 2,550 lb for that site . Visual estimates of non-hazardous metal debris exceed the 100 lbestimate in the delivery order .The Archeologist coordinated with Suzanne Beauchamp, Project Manager for the Corps of Engineers, concerning detailsof artifact/burial Standard Operating Procedure to be agreed upon between the Corps and the to City of Gambell .Sivuqaq Inc, and Gambell IRA . Later that day he briefed the contractor's Project Manager, Randy Easley .During a Reconnaissance of Area 4, (the mountain top) conducted later that evening by the Archeologist , the OAR andthe Contractor ' s Project manager, several graves, one rockshelter with a hearth , were discovered along with militaryfeatures . The contractor's Argo mechanic also noticed one burial at which the bones had scattered .I certify Chat the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictwnpliarlce with ft contract plans and specifications ezcept,as noted above .JtLality Control Manager SynatureGovernment Quality Assurance Commentstheconcurs withAdditional comments or exceptionst)( 3hfi Lr/NY!~L7Date/~4QCfitc"to`fDreport?YesRJ1 0 .J C ct - f- c '\ jwX ‚ r>W LL_l_1 .n+~`EbIL./N+'T1-QNo 0Pk ‚ N C4 4cC Nyc-h,W, H+o35 L '-'C'. 4& ct4,azttC~S :$ + TZ ao01CoC<QwmM'= ~~Uin .. aamMQƒa Nw.o/ QCi7RequiredAll~~‚C - -S!7-19JSoiSd- M-ooc- SzRelinquished by : (Printed)(S nature)Relinquished by : (Printed)(Signature)Dispatched by : (Printed)(Signature)Method of ShipmentComments:7110 y9it' 3oDateTimeReceived b : (Printed)(Signature)Received by: (Printed)S nature )Received at laboratory by:Condition of ContainersGood Fair Pooreceived Temp :OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999Activities Planned :Briefer:Time :C~ZG L`'Briefing Location :L- - ~- ?~Topic :r ,-Ir, ; ; 2~plc,Topic: Tr (n ) P G~ Ov 4Topic:Briefer :Topic :Topic :Topic :AttendeesJhfSite4 Ithand Safety Officer :,Date: / / 1999,e /C/ /Ylc nn 470-0,,off, .r/we Jefo,07 :~s ,y/--//o 70~- /~yG/ir~H'7PContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island , AlaskaFeature of Work : Drum Removal/HTW CLIN : 3Inspection : InitialRelevant Specifications : SOW 1 .3.1, SOW Table 2, 02050, 01130Submittals : Work Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Environmental Protection PlanInspection ChecklistYes NoItemNotObsrvd1 . Is the proper PPE being wom?2 . Is the work being conducted a safe manner?3 . Is spill containment being place correctly?4 . Are drum inspected for liquids before the drums are disturbed?5 . Are haul routes being maintained in a manner safe for vehicles?6 . Are appropriate lifting and tie-down methods being used?1PMR7 . Are staging areas fully-lined and liquid tight?8 . Are generators grounded?D9. Is all fuel -powered equipment within lined areas?10 . Are GFI' s in use?DD11 . Are drum liquids and solids removed before rinsing?E'DD12 . Are drum solids and liquids properly contained?0'DD13. Are drums being triple rinsed?D0014 . Is hot water being used for drum washing?DEl.4015. Is drum washing area fully contained and liquid tight?DDEr16. Are washed drums free of any residue?Ga'DD17. Are rinsates being properly collected for treatment .DDEn18 . Are drums fully crushed?El19. Are drum weights being entered on the correct ledger?_: ~ /7OW CQC System ManagerDea' DDEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 41 .I‚kT_1SUPC/Prolect TitleContract Number / Delivery Order NumberDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removal^ACA8S.97 -O-00101 D.0 . 0004Data or Time Period7121199C Report Number.016Weather ConditionsTemp Low 43 Temp HI 49wind Speed3- 10 KnotsLocation and TeamGambell , AlaskaContractorOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Conditions SunnyQuality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections results deficiencies observed . and corrective action )Preparatory 0 s . attach.d checklisttinitial 0 s .. attach ed checklistFollow-Up0Yes 0 NoWas the deficiency tracking list updated this daleField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date?TypeoftestMethod/Matrix Quantity of samplesYes 0 NoResultsHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved ? N/AHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of TestesOo0YesONoOQuantity of SamplesEPA Test Method/MatnxWAOYesONoDHave required amount of QC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved )N/AOYesONoDHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates . reference standards . etc.)N/ADYesDNoDHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery OrderN/ADYesONoDHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?Health and SafetyLevel A 0 Level B 0 Level C 0 Level D ° WADWorker protection levels this date :Yes0NoOWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0No°Was any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Yes0MooWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required?,fety Comments : ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan , and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken .)ne safety meeting addressed the continuing hazards of the large earth moving trucks on the roads throughout theproject area . All personnel were instructed to yield right of way to these vehicles at all times . Drivers were cautioned tomaintain a safe travel speed while transporting debris . Debris falling from the vehicles while hauling must be avoided .The superintendent directed that chocks be made for ATV-drawn trailers . These trailers must be chocked while parkedon sloped terrain .A water heater was identified in west beach area (Area 8) . The item was listed in the Delivery Order table as a "metaldebris" item . Workers observed crumbling refractory material spilling from the unit . The CQC contacted the QAR todetermine if the item had been previously been examined for asbestos . The OAR directed that the water heater be left inplace pending a determination of asbestos content .QAR SAFETY COMMENTS :T&~ArV isATDG-v'cC- tAleiE lp Awf .v G C4 ._M v _ s L ;J_0 T 4*_~C1P~Uitor`'1/oT130r NLock(_' A-D-A~~c .NG,c71e A55 v Jc1 r. il-N-c v e r D Th C-1} 5 6 rp-4t+ t C-i4 5 eC-ZV I . Tu t2 JOt_; S H A t/C Br~V,,L,ESr , cAD5 .'5v- 1-14AT 5o4 .7t' lt?1r.JO . 1 'C4 5 AeC- Nt L _7C-ID 110Ft~ T`~CPcf~`TJC t iw ',N‚4gtS wA5'INur) F-t 5 wCR/Q-Rcr04')4DWc1ST LNO-7-Acve-.J ntg CA - -,A-t. 4Iofk-"hEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 413 .1 .302)Continuation SheetWork Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS ID s/Tech Spec !) Activity & locationQuantityHTRW Removal (HAS ID 0022 . 02050) HTW removal on Area 12 . drum dumpsouth of Troutman Lake . was completed today100% of drums and other HTW at this site coltcted100 % of drums and KTE . 6 .873 lb lo dateStained Soil Removal (NAS ID 0019 . 02050)Debris Removal ( HAS 10 0020 , 02050)Exavation of Stained soil associated with drumsat Area 12 was completed todayArea , 12 . small amounts of non-HTW metal100% of stained soil at this site collected100 % of stained Sol at this site weighed . 5 .754 tb to date100 % of metal debris at this site collecteddebris segregated from drums was completed todayManpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSuperintendentArcheologistOperatorLaborersContractor100% of metal debris at this site weighed . 798 lb to dateNumber111ManHours31213EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgo112Nodwell101272124PickupCat 966 Loader101266816Total HoursNumber312Hours Used36212Total HoursVerbal ° Written 0Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names, reactions, and remarks .)The QAR directed that the water heater found on Area 8 be left in place pending a determination of Asbestoscontent .(see safety remarks)Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays 'Yes 0NoNONoRemarks (Include any visitor to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)HTW removed from Area 12 totaled 6,873 lbs . Most of this was drums and batteries . This exceeds the Delivery Orderestimate for that site of 2,550 lb . 798 lbs of non-hazardous metal debris was also removed, exceeding the 100 lbestimate in the delivery order .Mr . Easley, the Contractors Project Manager left the site today .The Archeologist spent most of the day in Area 4 (the mountain top) with the, USACE village liaison Bert Oozevasouk .The Archeologist recorded : 1) human skull fragment within military dump at burned radar dish site on edge of cliff aboveold village well, along with military debris, and reburied it, 2) closed grave box with associated wood sled (first reported itDaily Report of 7/20/99) and nearby human phalange, reburied phalange ; 3) open grave box with associated wood sledand ice probe (first reported in Daily Report of 7/20/99) ; 4) open grave box with associated wood sled and widelyscattered human bones ; 5) two isolated human phalanges .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and Mists conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications er*ept as noted aboveDateQuality Control Manager Signature2T ,QzEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReporttER 415 - 1 .302)Continuation SheetGovernment Quality Assurance Comm.ntsConcswltftAdditional comments or exeptions .the. Co+~T.+-.vt1t- C-tom r r ,ALU t--'t-C'5 SS EA- (- A-report?' Y A- : c t ~.t R Z" , t'V!3;>t')7 I t_ )754- oytc r. ..cv2 tG.r 5 $c't2~ biz ' c ;`-~~; t ctiv S ‚t/h ct/ECT tS(,U LJ h/lh CM-v,h~ :7cY2 ƒir4v~6 wN ., --r- rv r> -> -Tl S w .Pts.LI GA- r vzC,5 1hn ,K- ~,'M v (,,g t-7,->bs L. '<w r,-70-,.'k g4t ~_ t1 f. LLz t -rr- A=z3.2 SI-T A,2-,F Yt S t'.TE{t~cy` .,--_LI rU s /~ ~ .~'T c: C Z .A rC l.. ..-'7 ` >~A-,A---> TH r SpvL .tT trt'T4fiec,/ s A ) vz/t Y / r-~Wf .aDatei/ -a,;I. C. K .Supervisor's Initial Date;3 1,Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalHTWDebrisMContaminated SoilStained soilUUAActualWeight toDateMSitesActualWeight toDateActualWeight toDateVActualWeight toDateSite 2160020Site 3770600Site 4/Area 4A54102140Site 4/Area 4B9052230Site4/Area 4D10000Site 53150esite 5 and 355100Site 63500Site 71500Site 811500025419620040251259Site 101300023007170Site 12100798255078296302Site 13300343000104000Totals 127255 26560 1614021%Percent of Contract Wt12571 40000 7561 104000 078%19%0%Page 1As of 7/ 22/99 .9*35 PMOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage, Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title :Debris RemovalRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , AlaskaDate:1999Time :,.' /-1and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicBriefing Location :Activities Planned :Briefer:Topic :Topic :Topic :-Briefer:Topic :Topic :"t~I. .Topic :AttendeestI &AA/I,Site Health/and Safety Officer : /1 J/ E ~~ /11Date :1999HOT WORK PERMITContract : DACA95-97-D-0010 . D . 0 . 0004Project: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island , AlaskaAType of Work :HeatProducingLocation :A / tDevice(-Operator :IFire Guard :Scheduled Work Date :ZTime Start: / ' '- ` 1 %Time Finished :The Checklist Below Was Reviewedr .' _z Y- -'Date : //‚_ / S HSO :SuperintendentDate :'COMPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistItemN /A Yes No1 . Are all flammables and at lest 50 ft away?2 . Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment?3 . Has the Fire Guard been identified and briefed to observe the area for 1 hour after work is Zcomplete?04 . Has emergency communication procedures been0checked?95 . Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?6 . Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?7. Is the correct PPE being worn?8 . Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors?Have containers been checked for explosive/ flammable residue or vapors?(drums and tanks)10 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only)?n11 . Are nozzles and hoses in good repair? (torches only)lf-' 0 00 uCOMPLETE AFTER WORKTime Start :t-Superintendent :[Time Finished :~~Ll C' Pl'"Date :Ar L Z /___ -Z,15HSO :Fire Guard Released :/ ~C ;' .! '~ 1~'10,Date : 'Environmental Quality ControUQuality Assurance ReportII C i t- i 4,' tContract Number / DeliveryOrderNumberUPC /Protect TineDACABS- 97.O-00101D . O. 0004 Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report Number Date or Time Period Location and Team99-0187/23199WeatherConditionsTemp Low 45 Temp Ht 47Wind Speed27 .36 KnotsGambell , AlaskaContractorConditions Cloudy . Blowing RainOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date !Include inspections results deficiencies observed and corrective action 1Preparatory0 we attached checklistInitial0seeattach .d checklistFollow-up 0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYYes 0 No 0Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas fieldType of testtestingbeen performed this date? Yes 0Mettiod/Matnx Quantity of samples ResultsNoISNO FIELD TESTING TODAYH a ve Data Qua lity Objectives been achieved'N/AYesOHave Samples Been Collected forLaboratoryType of Test EPA Test Method/ MatrixNo0Analysis?YesOQuantity of SamplesNooNO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of QC trip blanks and rtnsates beenachieved)N/AOYeSONoDHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks . surrogates . reference standards . etc i N/AOYesONOOHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required byDeliveryOrderWAOYeSONOOH ave samples been properly labeled andpackaged?N/AOYes0No0Health and SafetyWorker protection leveis this date Level A 0 Level B 0 Level C 0 Level 0 ° WAOWas any work activity conducted within a confinedspace')Yes0No°Was any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health Yes 0 NoOWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as reguired7 Yes 0 NosSafety Comments (Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken ,At the safety meeting, the Argo operators video was shown to the crew . The superintendent address the importance ofoperating these machines within their designed performance limits . The difference between Argos and four wheelersincluding the wider stance and lower ground clearance was emphasized .A high wind warning was issued later in the day as peak gusts approached 40 knots . Personnel were advised to useextra caution and be prepared to seek shelter if necessary .GAR SAFETY COMMENTS :14, 0 q-A-IEnvironmental Q uality C'untroUQuality Assurance ReporttER 4'5 r Jc:Continuation ShcctWork Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS ID #/Tech Spec a)Activity & LocationQuantityContractorLocate S ites(NAS 10 0011)The archeological site added to Site 8 was surveyed stakedand reviewed by the OAR100.6 of sites surveyed and one new site addedHTRW Removal (NAS ID 0022 02050)6 Tar barrels were removed from Sited the west beach6 235 ;b removed to dale from this sireDrums and 2 Tanks removec from Site 3 at the mountain base653Ibs of HTW removed This site r96%Drum removal was completed on Sree 6 North of the High School100% complete 2 418 lb of debris removedStained Soil Removal ( NAS ID 0019. 02050)Debris Removal (NAS ID 0020 . 02050 )Stained Soil removal continued on Site 8 the west beach6.235 lbs of stained soil at this site collectediweighedDebris removal was completed except for final pickupon Site 3 at the base of the mountain95% of metal debris . 159 lbs at this site collectedDebris removal was completed except for final pickup95% complete Debris was weighed with Site 3 Debrison Site 2 east of the mountain on the gravel MatsDebris removal was completed except for final pickupon Site 6 North of the High School95'4 complete 7897 lb of debris removedDebris removal was completed except for final pickupon Site 7 west of the High School95% complete No measurable debris recoveredManpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerNumber11ManHours312EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderSuperintendentArcheologistOperator111131212ArgoNodwel lPickup4113604Laborers784Cat 966 Loader110Total Hours124Number31Hours Used363Total Hours89Instructions Given by the Govemment to the Contractor (Include names . reactions, and remarks) Verbal 0 Written 0After a tour of the historic site between the north end of the runway and the village , and west of the village road, by theQAR, Superintendent , and Project Archeologist , the Archeologist determined that the surface debris could be recoveredwithout significant archeological impact . The QAR directed that the boundaries of Site 8 ( the West Beach ) be expandedto incorporate the historic site . The QAR furhter directed that work must be performed by local labor and theArcheologist would supervise . Mechanical excavation would not be permitted , with all debris collection being performedby hand .Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential lending of fact?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of tact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0NoYes 0Yes 0NoNoRemarks ( Include any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)High cross winds kept planes from landing . This prevented a USACE staff visit .The CQC requested a preparatory inspection for debris , soil, and HTW removal. in Sites 10 (the trail system and tundra)and Site 4 (the mountain top) for the morning of 7/26 .The archeologist coordinated grave protection and archeology procedures with USAGE Project Manager SuzanneBeauchamp via telephone . Later in the day he monitored debris clean-up in Area 3 and reburied six human bones withProject Liaison Bert Oozevaseuk as villager witness .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted aboveQuality Control Manager SI nature7fI,oat*'iEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReporttER 415 t 30: ;Continuation SheetGovernment Quality Aeaurance CommentsConcurs with the OC report/Yes61No0Additional comments or exceptionsME7 4-La` -C.>CfOAR SignatureQ-% SSCt ‡~:"~~N;,, A-M r-~- l trz . . -dry' T.. A Q U L t iAP irr-z-~~1' sG~ti~~c`'c :~_ , PS4 - t` CiwVde J~rtc 1 la :&T1t- Ai t ri.r~~~r~a)-Date /`' J7Supervisor' s Initial DateWeight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalHTWDebrisuAVctualWeight toNSitesUAUA0 3DateUctualWeight toL0 3CContaminated SoilStained soilVA03DateU ..Site 21600Site 3770Site 4/Area 4A54102140Site 4/Area 489052230Site4/Area 4D10000Site 53150Area betweensite 5 and 355100Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500025419Site 101300Site 12Site 130-UActual(aWeight toDateUo 3ctualWeight toDate20159241860006530104000789706200623524700230071701007982550782963023003430000Totals 127255 29137 16140 23331 40000 8772 104000 0Percent of Contract Wt23%145%22%0%n‚,, . .,In- r if7/7/O 454 PMOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage . Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , AlaskaDate : 3 1999 Time : OC/ Briefing Location :lActivities Planned :Briefer :Topic:alioAN All'Topic :Topic :Briefer :Topic :Topic:Topic :0Site Healthand Safety Officer :Date :t1999HOT WORK PERMITContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004Project : Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazarc!ous and Toxic Waste RemovalLocation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaType of Work :HeatProducingLocation :49&kDeviceiOperator : --~Fire Guard :1~I~~/,21 -7?" P/I Time Finished :Tire Start :S-.}!Scheduled Work Date :The Checklist Below Was ReviewedDate :7 / Z HSO :Superintendent:Date: 4YCOMPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistNIAItem1.Are all flammables and at lest 50 ft away?2.Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment?3.Has the Fire Guard been identified and briefed tocomplete?4.Has emergency communication procedures been checked?5.Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?6.Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?7.Is the correct PPE being worn?8.Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors? ,09.Have containers been checked for explosive/ flan mable residue or vapors? [~(drums and tanks)~J=-:a for t hoi it aft‡ r work is I~011 . Are nozzles and hoses in good repair? (torches oily)COMPLETE AFTER WORKTime Finished:_Superintendent :VIZ,Date :Du10 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only)?Time Start:Yes No\ Fire Guard Released :__SgO:O1Environmental Quality Control/ Quality Assurance ReportI rit J1tt -w‚,Contrail Number / Delivery Order NumberUPC/Project TitleDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalOACA85- 97 .O`O010/O .O . 0004CQC Report Number99-019Date or Time Period7124/99Weather ConditionsTemp Low 42 Temp HI 47Wind Speed10-21KnotsLocation and TeamGambell , AlaskaContractorConditions Ctoudv . intermittent rainOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include inspections results deficiencies observed and corrective action IPreparatory C) S" attached chocALWIInitial 0 s.. .sacred ch.ckllstFollow-Up 0NO INSPECTIONS TODAYWas the defic iency becking list updated this dateYes 0Field Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?TypeoftestNoYes 0 NoMethod ,tl4atrix Quantity of samplesResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYH a ve Data Qua lity Obj ectives been achieved'N/AHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis ?Type of Test EPA Test Method/MatrixYesONODYesDNo°Quantity of SamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of OC trip blanks and rinsates beenachieved?N/AOY .sDNoOHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered' (matrix spikes , method blanks surrogates . reference standards etc i WAQYSDNODHave OA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity ? Not required by Delivery Order WAQYesDNoOH a v e samples been properly label ed and packaged ?N/ADYesONoDHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date .Level A D Level B D Level C D Level D ° WADWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes 0 NowWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health? Yes D NoeWere approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required) Yes 0 NomSafety Comments (Include any infractions of approved safety plan , and include instructions from Government Personnel Specify corrective action taken )The dangers of high winds were discussed at the safety meeting . The potential for serious injury from wind-blown objectswas emphasized . The Superintendent also stress precautionary steps to take in the event of high winds These includedlimiting activities that involved sheet metal and other material that could create hazardous conditions during high winds .The Need to stay dry while working and the dangers of hypothermia was also discussed .OAR SAFETY COMMENTS :tit m S l+tititZ-~C ~~ . l'L A -Cnr' ^t )' ? (St;c-TV C7 L d'Q 16 tLZ~y& It-Pl'~ .i7 rA A-rS dt-4C-X..IRiuu7SOI .N^gr1 e~Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 415-1 -302)Continuation Sheet'Nor* Activities Performird This DabReference (NAS 10 a(Tech Spec a)HTRW Removal (HAS ID 0022 . 02050)Stained Soil Removal (NAS ID 0019 .02050)QuantityActivity 6 LocationDrums and 2 Tanks removed from Site 3 at the mountain baseStained Soil removal started at oil spill site in Site 2Contractor1 150 ib of HTW removed This site 100%24 .985 lb of stained soil at this site OolleCledtw"he(lWork halted when extensive Contamination was discoveredDebris Removal (HAS ID 0020. 02050)Contaminated Soil (HAS ID 0016 , 02220)Manpower and EquipmentLaborClassMcationDebris removal was completedon Site 3 at the base of the mountain100% of metal debris removedDebris removal was completedon Site 2 east of the mountain on the gravel flats100% completeDebris was weighed with Site 3 DebrisDebris removal was completed except for final pickupon Site 6 North of the High School100% complete7897 lb of debris removedDebris removal was completed except for final pickupon Site 7 west of the High School100 % completeNo measurable debris recoveredDebris removal started on Site 5 the cable areaup the slope east of the High School2,418 lbs removed to date 20 % completeA trail was blazed through the tundra to the MountainTop and through the boulder field to Site 48 Trailimprovements made and field survey made for possiblestaging areasManHoursEquipmentType111117014131212844 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgoNodwellPickupCat 966 LoaderTotal Hours135NumberProject ManagerCOC System ManagerSuperintendentArcheologistOperatorLaborersinstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactions . and remarks)NumberHours Used314ttt365360010Total HoursVerbal7° Written 0Excavation of stained soil was initiated at the oil spill site near the base of the mountain in Site 3 . It soon was discoveredthat significant amounts of product had penetrated deeper then 3 ft . and laterally greater than 30 ft . An inspection of theexcavation of the site was made by CQC Dave Rein . He suspend the work as it appeared to be beyond the contractintent to removed stained soil associated with drums and other debris . The CQC contacted the OAR Steve LeClerc andwho concurred with the interpretation of the contract and decision to suspend work in that area .Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential landing of fact'Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact'Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0NoNoNoRemarks (Include any visitors to protect and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work )Richard Jackson, of the Environmental Engineering section of the USACE Alaska District arrived on site today . He andOAR Steve LeClerc coordinated on technical issues and toured the cleanup sites .The Project Archeologists received a copy of USACE letter to three Gambell government . entities regarding artifact andburial protection protocols . Later in the day he interviewed Cheryl Koonooka about her 1997 4-wheeler accident onmilitary debris . This type of information will be used for project context in the final report .I certify that the above report is Complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted aboveQuality Control Manager SignatureDate a~ 1Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(EP 41 5 .1 302)Continuation SheetGov .mm.nt Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs wrth the DC report?&ddit ;onat comments or exceptions4V tG.c~YesX No 09r _ j/- Si /4.‚4T1 wU (~ c .k t_ h *~ ' / i~cw-~~~7] ' i ttt SLLt`Ir-rt 7OAR Signature~ytit4w''fix: t_ L L.A, A ~'r `> EIL. kS1l.:i.~ 1L rtr, C- rt ~.10Dateb- J A S /1o-) o t.L S r~53c'-*-) -'2h.j CitJ ~ 4q-,l A,iC--"Supervisors InitialDateWeight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalSitesStained soilHTWDebrisuuco0c -0 3UActualWeight toDateContaminated SoilUMuAActualbc ~-Weight toUDate4-o 3UActualWeight toDateUSite 21600020024985Site 377015960011500Site 4/Area 4A54102140Site 4/Area 4B9052230Site4/Area 4D10000Site 5Area betweensite 5 and 3315Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500025419Site 101300Site 12Site 131040007897574006200623524700230071701007982550782963023003430002418550ActualWeight toDate4c0100000Totals 127255 29137 16140 23828 40000 34331 104000 0Percent of Contract Wt23%148%86%0%Page 1Asof7/25/991254AMOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title :Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous WasteRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , Alaska199 9Date :and ToxicTime : Briefing Location :Activities Planned :Topic :Briefer:'N/Topic :Topic :Topic :Briefer :Topic:Topic :rAttendees~IIZ~ l "~~Lti .`~-1 1Site Healthand Safety Officer :Date :1999Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 41S.1-10:1Contract Number I Delivery Order Number UPC/Pro1ect TideDACASS -97-O-001 WO . O. 0004 Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and To xic Waste Removal'QC Report Number Date or Time Period Location and TeamGambell , Alaska9-0207/25199WeatherConditionsContractorTemp Low 45 Temp Hi 47Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .Wind Speedcalm-3 KnotsConditions Cloudy.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Incude inspections results deficiencies observed, and corrective action )PreparatoryInitialD she attached checklist0seeattached checklistFollow-Up a Follow up inspection of drum processing and loading identified incompletely washed drtms(See deficiency tracking form 001)Was the deficiency tracking listupdatedField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of testthisdateYesaNo0Yes0NoMethod/AAatnxQuantity of samples ResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved ?HaveYesOWASamples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPA Test Method /Matnx Quantity of SamplesYesOMooNoONO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of OC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved 'N/AOYesONOOHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered ? ( matrix spikes . method blanks , surrogates . reference standards. etc I WAOYesDNoOHave OA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery Order WAQYesONoOHave samples been property labeled and packaged )WAOYesONoDHealth and SafetyLevel A 0 Level B 0 Level C O Level D a WADWorker protection levels this date .Was any wortt activity conducted within a confined space? Yes 0 NoaYes 0 NoaWas any work activity, conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?Yes 0 No°Safety Comments ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )The superintendent addressed the need for extreme caution while operating ATVs near the cliff edge at the top of thenountain . This was in connection with the preparations that were being made for the work in Site 4 at the top of themountain . Safe speeds and loading of ATV trailers while transporting debris was also discussed .QAR SAFETY COMMENTS :c)A ;L_l~w t t L "l tC/~ ct~ CJ r\ .5..1 7W"OV;, r L tS1r716.;I rt.} tv(S~y t: (._r)t, it ~y~5* ti4.(e r-STEL}3v' :,-'~ h-4'_t St~ , F'~Zl vyv i d4Y1h. t r. . .t i7 tlLL_t:~I-z Cƒ ~-l~L i1~Ry)tS i‚ 4 D ~~ t3AT Y ateL3~~~ r F~ ;v< .~P t.= jIEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 415- 1 .3021Continuation ShirtWork Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS 0 s/Tech Spec 6) ActivityHTRW Removal ( NAS 0 0022 . 02050 )&LocationQuantityDrums removed from Site 10 . off the roads near the 5 .990 lb of HTW removed to date This site 20%south end of Troutman LakeDebris Removal ( NAS 10 0020-02050) Previously-stockpiled debris from Site 8 ( the west beach )was weighed and loadedContaminated Sod (NAS ID 0016. 02220)Contractor39 .621 lb of HTW removed to date This site 60%A trail work continued onn trail improvements to the MountainTop and through the boulder field to Site 48Manpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationProtect ManagerCQC System ManagerSuperintendentArcheologistOperatorLaborersNumber11ManHours012EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loader111312ArgoNodwell4136011284Pickup1127Cat 966 Loader110Total Hours .133Number31Hours Used360Total HoursInstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names , reactions . and remarks )Verbal94° Written 0The government officially removed the soil dumping area site near the base of the mountain in Site 3 from the project .The QAR confirmed that it was beyond the contract intent of removing stained soil associated with drums and otherdebris . The QAR further confirmed that this was a major spill area that had only been included in the contract because ofgovernment error.Yes 0Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fact)Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact)Are (here any unforeseeable or weather related delays?NoNoNoRemarks ( Induce any visitors, to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work .)Richard Jackson, of the Environmental Engineering section of the USACE Alaska District departed site today .The Project Archeologist gather taped interviews for background material associated with the final report .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this penod were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted aboveQ uality Control Manager SignatureDateGovernment Quality Assurance Commentsconcurs with Ox OC report?Yes ~( No 0Additional comments or exceptions'rub `'tP~gk12‚(-- ) 4 J4 ctt fl r- l e =--,? 7~,- v r-i TZL,/VOW, G c> Tt-i,< e-;~,t,`)vrc,4,N~+4 > t,tSGt-5UT=Nprcw~("-Ay--)Gtr,‚ M ?h-t-s 1h,4 C.7) t~,J-s na/G,^ Fr~~/cIFkL Lt-t->4 t > .'ra 6, .,c ‚r i3 F-~top,>.l ~-c>~ 11~ . pi d,'Y7' c . ~c~CK CYO)+-7-kit : 1 be 'jruQs'iC .TP tf, C-J-::> !qstPQ~Srit .PtJGSfX'\.L . N r i-9-0 P.c;K t ,A u P kC *t f,,JQAR SignatureZZe U,-4_2ct $~.,vrjDate~‚95supervisors IntUalDateJ.Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalHTWDebrisUAUActualWeight toDateCSitesStained soil3U ,,,Contaminated SoilutoUeoao 3ctualWeight to0 ..Date0MS0Uctuali`ƒMo0 3U ..Weight toDateSite 21600020024985Site 377015960011500Site 4/Area 4A54102140Site 4/Area 4B9052230S i te4/Area 4D10000Site 5Area betweensite 5 and 3315Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500039621Site 101300Site 12Site 130006200749412110230059900100798255078296302300343000550Date10400078972992ctualWeight to100000Totals 127255 43913L 16140 30360PercentofContractWt40000 3249835%188%104000 081%0%7 1')r/00 11) 7'1 DAADeficiency Tracking ReportContract Number I Delivery Order NumberDACA8S97-a-0o1010.O. 0004OTL001UPCIPro eat TideDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDate or Time PeriodLocation and TeamGambell , Alaska7/25199Description of deficiency :Inspection of processed drums in connexes 201291 and 205563 noted the following deficiencies1 . A petroleum odor indicated that at least one drum in each connex had been insufficiently cleaned .2 . A bent and perforated but otherwise intact drum indicated that drums had not been deheaded .3 . Excessive dirt on the surfaces of some drum remnants indicated that soil was not being removed before processing .Corrective Action :1 . Connexes to be unpacked .2 . Processed drums to be inspected .3 . Drums requiring deheading and washing to be processed accordingly .4 . Connexes to be decontaminated .5 . Contaminated soil from floor of connex to be containerized for disposal .6 . Connexes to be reinspected .COC SignatureDate L' ;'Government Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the corrective action ?Additional comments or exceptions-Ys0No0CQAR Signatu re/_e -?- ') .5-4iRelnspectlon of Corrected DeficiencyCQCSignatureDateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected?Yes 0 No 0Additional comments or exceptionsGARSignatureDateIOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and Toxic RemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999Time : 1 i22iBriefing Location :7 /VActivities Planned :1111ilkr rTopic-Briefer :L/TopicTopic :Briefer:Topic-.Topic :Topic :Attendees,C-!tQSite Healthand Safety Officer :Date1999Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportiLR 41%4- 30]1Contract Number / Oehvsry Order NumberUPC/ Protect TitleDACA5S97-Q00101D . O. 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team99-0217/26/99Gambell, AlaskaWeth. r ConditionsTemp HI 1~Temp Low 45Wind Speedcalm-S KnotsContractorConditions Cloudy, intermittent Ight rain011 Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Oat . (Include inspections . results . deficiencies observedd and corrective action)Preparatory ° ii. .each.d ch .ckaatPreparatory inspection for debris, HTW, and contaminated soil removal from Site 4 . the mountain toptuba)O a.e amch.d ctwctJiaFollow-Up ° Fellow up inspectron of drum processing and loading identified open seam in staging area liner(See deficiency DTL 001)Follow up inspection of drum processing showed corrected deficiencies(See deficiencies OIL 001, and DTL 002)Was the deficiency tracking list updated this dateYes ° No 0Field Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this date ?Type of testYes 0 NoMethod/Matnx Quantity of samplesResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved ? NIAesDHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Mafysls?Type of TestYes0EPA Test MethodmilnxooNOQuantity of SamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYWAOYesONoDHave required amount of OC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved)Have appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered ? ( matrix spikes . method blanks. surrogates . reference standards . etc I N/AOYesONOOHave QA and QC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery OrderN/AOYasONoOHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?NIAOYes0NoDHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this date Level A O Level B 0 Level C O Level 0 0 WA0Was any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes O NooWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health Yes 0 No°Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required'Yes 0 No°Safety Comments : ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )The superintendent addressed the need to work with the new local-hire personnel that were added to the project today .These people needed to be integrated into the buddy system , and assisted to insure that they were fully aware of therequired safety practices . The need to use caution while operating around equipment was addressed . The requirementfor only one spotter as well as the need for personnel on the ground to be cognizant of the equipment movement areawas emphasized . Other potential hazards addressed at the meeting included the safe use of portable generators andloading metal into connexesQAR SAFETY COMMENTS:i'c(> RA, .~ pg~Pi rc ,Ct--T"Aye_~) ~-rD\ N ` tom' 1,j-'e-pr--Pr Y .I~;;~r-c c: L; ,-t-t-~- .SeNzLH i SEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report1Ee 415 r 302Continuation SheetWork Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS 10 SJTechSpeca)Activity&LocationQuantityContractorHTRW Removal (NAS 10 0022, 02050) Prewously removed drums from Site 10 . were sorted and processed 5.990 lb of HTW removed b date This site 20%.621 lb of Debris removed to date Thus site 60%Debris Removal (NAS 10 0020, 02050) Sweeps by personnel on foot were conducted in 8 . (the west beach) 39along the west shore of Troutman LakeContaminated Soil (NAS 10 0016. 02220) Trail work continued on trail improvements to the MountainTop and through the boulder field to Site 48 Argos were modified tocarry loads over the Tundra. and emergency equipment was prepared fortransport to the mountain topManpower and EquipmentLaborclasslfkation1111113ManHours212131212127Total Hours .178NumberProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSuipenntendentArcheologistOperatorLaborersEquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaderArgoNodwellPickupCat 966 LoaderNumber314111Hours Used364360124Total Hours92Verbal a Written 0Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor ( k elude names reactions . and remarks )The OAR informed the CQC and Superintendent that he wish to be present for the operating load test of the Argoscrossing the tundra .Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fad ?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?NoNoNoYes 0Remarks (Include any visitors to protect and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Four new local-hire personnel were added to the project today .The Contractor ' s Project manager arrived on site today .The Project Archeologist delivered an archaeology and human bone protection briefing to the field crew at morningsafety meeting . He coordinated with the QAR on the potential use of additional Native liaisons . He also collected moreverbal histories to use as contextual material in the final report .The QAR informed the CQC that the water heater with suspect asbestos had been previously sampled . It had beendetermined to contain no asbestos .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specifications s noted abovey'r ` r~ t-f rduality Control Manager SignatureGovernmentConcurs with the oC report ?Additional Comments or exceptionsQualityAssuranceCommentsYes(,No4t,rX}nlG w l-jC TJ2o .'~Date4 J -) t.:u rf %&`~ ,c7 pC~ 2 cac L J l~ L_U M t T`j'% . t>!Eb-D 4,~'J4OAR Signature~ ~,,0~o ftjt, ~'pktmt')vt A t t! 1 .* ~~ .Date7-97Supervisoes Initial Oats~3Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalDebrisActualWeight to0ActualUAR0DateU ..Weight toDate0 ..UAbSites0 3U0Contaminated SoilStained soilHTWUA00UAAActualWeight toDate0 30Site 21600020024985Site 377015960011500Site 4/Area 4A54102140Site 4/Area 4B9052230Site4/Area 4D10000Site 5Area betweensite 5 and 3315Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500039621Site 101300Site 12Site 1307897062007494121102300599054010079825507829783030034300055010400000ActualWeight toDate100299200Totals 127255 43913Percent of Contract Wt 35%16140 30360 40000 34566 104000 0188%86%0%Page 1As of 7/26/99 .9 01 PMDeficiency Tracking ReportContract Number / Delivery Order NumberUPCIProlect TitleOACA8S97-O-0OIOID.O . 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalOTLOate or Tim. PeriodLocation and Team0017123199Gambell , AlaskaDescription of deficiency :Inspection of processed drums in connexes 201291 and 205563 noted the following deficiencies :1 . A petroleum odor indicated that at least one drum in each connex had been insufficiently cleaned .2 . A bent and perforated but otherwise intact drum indicated that drums had not been deheaded .3 . Excessive dirt on the surfaces of some drum remnants indicated that soil was not being removed before processing .Corrective Action :1 . Connexes to be unpacked .2 . Processed drums to be inspected .3 . Drums requiring deheading and washing to be processed accordingly .4 . Connexes to be decontaminated .5 . Contaminated soil from floor of connex to be containerized for disposal .6 . Connexes to be rein ed .CCCSignatur-DateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the corrective action?Yes gNoDAdditional comments or ex ceptons'(zRZ e2k &'F't, ,er'~Ar-CIQ0 ce . ~, .C,4,r‚CAR SignatureReinspection of Corrected DeficiencyPartial reinspection of connex 201291, 0900 hrs, 7/26/99 :Results : Connex fully decontamitated ( clean of dint, no diesel smell suspect drums segreated . Clean drumsrepacked into new connex . No diesel smell , minimal dirt residue.Final reinspection of connex 205563 , 1800 hrs, 7/26/99 :Results: Connex fully decontaminated (clean of dirt , no diesel smell) suspect drums segreated . Clean drumsrepacked into new connex . No diesel smell , minimal dirt residue .A suspect ms taped in ermed and lined area , heads c open for inspection and cleaning .CCC S1ynawrsOateGDericency corrected-) Ys 0 No [7Government Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected' Yes gNo t]Additional comments or exceptionsCAR Signature "i,"~U-'Date -2 , -2I/ YDeficiency Tracking ReportContract Number I Delivery Order NumberUPC/Protect TitleDACAtS-97-OM100.0 . 0004OTL002Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalData or Time P.rlod7/26/99Location and TeamGambell , AlaskaDescription of deficiency :Inspection of the lined area where incoming drums are opened and inspected reveal an unsealed seam across the centerof the containment area . The created the potential for leaks .Corrective Action :1 . Improved the integrity of the lined area to prevent the potential for leaksW99CQC Signature_Government Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the corrective action?YjNo QAdditional comments or eweptions .OAR Slgnatu`DateLReinspectlon of Corrected DeficiencyReinspection of the lined area at 1800 hrs . on 7/26/99 revealed that an additional layer of liner had been placed over thecenter section restoring the integrity of the seamed area . Plywood had been added on top of the liner to protect the linerfrom puncture from the staged drums .COC Sl9natureDateDetiuencY corrected? Yes °No 0Government Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected? Yes0Additional comments or exceptionsOAR SignatureOat .I7'OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate : 7 /6 1999 Time :. G Briefing Location :L 0 d G CActivities Planned :Topic : /l/Z-_7 4 S a ~-'--'Location:Scheduled Work Date :7 - 2' - ' /Operator:< CAR Signature.ra?Lt'sDate~~ dCRelnspection of Corrected DeficiencyReinspection at 1630 hrs on 7/29 /99 revealed that the ground Wire had been satisfactorily installedCQCSignatureDateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected ' Yes 0 No 0Additional comments or exceptionsOARSignatureDateIDeficiency corrected? Yes 0 No 00Deficiency Tracking ReportContract Number , Delivery Order NumberUPGProlect TitleDACA8S-97-0-0010/0.0 . 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovaloTL006Date or Time PeriodLocation and Team7129/99Gambell , AlaskaDescription of deficiency :SAFETY DEFFICIENCYInspection of the generator at the site 4 top camp revealed that the ground wire was loosely connected to the generator .The wing nut intended to insure a positive connection was backed off greater than 1/Z inch . Consequently a positiveconnection was not made .Note : The CQC finger -tightened the connection before leaving the site .Corrective Action :1 . Tighten the grounding wired connection at the generator .2. Check for similar unsafe conditions throughout the project .COC Signature _ d[~J l=T!-1 Lfr'Date r%Government Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the corrective action?Additional comments or exceptionsCAR Signatu_DateYesXNO0'T 3& -' ' GReinspection of Corrected DeficiencyCOCSignatureDateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected? Yes 0 No 0Additional Comments or eieptonsOARSignatureDateIDeficiency corrected' Yes ° No 0Deficiency Tracking ReportContract Number / Delivery Order Number UPC/Proiect TitleOACASS-97-D001010 .0. 0004Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalttLDateorTim. PeriodLocation and Team005712 9/99Gambell,AlaskaDescription of deficiency :Inspection of drum staging and processing at the main staging area revealed that staged drums were being placeddirectly on the ground . Temporary liner was available, but not being used . This practice risks staining additional soilNote : This issue had been brought to the attention of the superintendent on not less than two previous occasions .Corrective Action :1 . Use Temporary liner while staging HTW items.2 . Check for similar conditions at HTW staging points throughout the project .JcoC Signature-,1-•1DateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with theAdditional comments or exceptions :11tNt72w X >t , F A ;GAR Signaturew`'~'Date+"Reinspect)on of Corrected DeficiencyReinspection at 1630 on 729/99 revealed that liner was being used to stage drums during processing to avoid thepotential for staini soil .,cOC signaturelLDateDeficiency corrected? Yes a No 0IGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected? Yes 0 No 0Additional comments or exceptionsQM Signature1Deficiency Tracking ReportContract Number / Delivery Order NumberUPC/Pro ect TitleDACA85-97-O-0010 / D .O. 0004Debris Removal and Contain e rized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDate or Time Period7/2 9199)TL.J7Location and TeamGam bell , AlaskaDescription of deficiency :Inspection of the generator at the Site 4 staging area revealed that there was no spill containment under the generator asrequired by the work plan . This condition creates the potential for soil contamination should an inadvertent spill occurduring refueling .Note : This condition had been brought to the attention of the Superintendent on not less than three separate occasionsat a different location in the project .Corrective Action :1 . Place spill containment under the generator2 . Check for similar conditions elsewhere throughout the project .COCSignaturepaleGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with the corrective action?Additional comments or exceptionsLUAUOARS nature~~Yes 0 No 0J-Ltt L~1DateRelnspectlon of Corrected DeficiencyCQCSignatureDateDeficiencyGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsDeficiency corrected? Yes 0 No 0Additional comments or exceptionsOARSignatureDate1corrected ? Yes 0 No 0OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :~'1999Time : Briefing Location :Activities Planned :Briefer.Topic :Topic :Topic :Briefer:Topic:Topic :Topic :AttendeesSite Healthand Safety Officer :LHOT WORK PERMITContract: DACA95-97-D-0010, D .O . 0004roject: Debris Removal and Containerized and Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removalecation : Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island . AlaskaType of Work :Heat Producing DeviceOperator :Location :Fire Guard :Scheduled Work Date :TimeThe Checklist Below WasSuperintendent :StartTimeReviewed~`Date :,_Finished:4fiDate :SHSO :LICOMPLETE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO WORKHot Work ChecklistItemNIA YesNo1 . Are all flammables and at lest 50 ft away?2.Is the operator fully qualified to operate the equipment?3.Has the Fire Guard been identified and briefed to observe the area for 1hour after work is0complete?4.Has emergency communication procedures been checked?Q5.Is and ABC extinguisher present and is it in working order?Q6. Have the tools and equipment been inspected for safety?Q7.IsthecorrectPPEbeingwom?°Qr8.Has the area been checked for flammable or explosive vapors?..QQ9.Have containers been checked for explosive/ flammable residue or vapors? Q(drums and tanks)Q10 . Are torch hoses purged before lighting (torches only)? Q011 . Are nozzles and hoses in good repair? (torches only) QQCOMPLETE AFTER WORKTime Start Time Finished :Superintendent:J'SC3Date :Fire Guard Released :SHSO:t/-,,Date :Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportILK .Iii . WaContract Number / Delivery Order NumberUPCiProl .U TitleDACAIILS-97-) OM`1 0 D .O . 0004Debris Removal and Contaln . riz .d Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report Numberpate or Time Period99-0257130199Weather ConditionsTemp Low 42Temp HI MWind Speed3-17KnobLocation and TeamGambeil . AlaskaContractorConditions Cloudy . windy . toe , intermittent boy" rainOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Ouatlty Control Inspections Performed This Date (houde inspections results deficiencies observed . and corrective action)Preparatory O s.. atbcMd ctwilli tin".cUht Cannminat.d Soil Excav .don° s. . aaacMd chFollwwUp 0W as the deficiency tracing fist updated Rks dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testu+p been performed the dale-)Type of lest Metttod/MatnxYes 0 NoYes 0 No aQuantityofsamplesResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Q uality Objectives been adtieved ?N/AYesD NODHave Samples Beers Coll ected for Laboratory Matysis?Type of Test EPA Test MethodMlabuY.sDNO°Quantity of SamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of OC trip banks and rinsates been achievedHave appropriate QC Laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks . surrogates . reference standards .Have QA and OC samples been collected n the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery OrderHave samples been property labeled and packaged ?etcIwAOrsONoON/AOYuDNoOIYAOYsONoON/AOYssONoDHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels this dateLevel A O Level B O Level C O Level D °Was any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Ys OWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health ?Yes 0Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required'Yes 0Safety Comments (hdude any infractions of approved safety plan, and include instructions from Government Personnel Specify corrective action taker l)WA( :)No°Nom160 CaThe Crew Foreman, a local resident , highlighted the hazards posed by wildlife . Of special concern were foxes . Thenormally-shy animals could carry rabies . Any fox that approached closer than 50 yards was not behaving in a normalmanner should be assumed to be diseased . Steps should be taken to avoid coming in contact with the animal . TheSuperintendent repeated his cautions of the previous day for personnel to use extreme care while travelling on foot overthe boulder field . The rain-slick boulders present the potential for slips and falls . The need for care while travelling thefoot trail to the mountain top was also discussed .After the safety meeting the CQC and the Superintendent reviewed the results of the previous day's safety inspection .Possible improvements in generator grounding , spill containment , and fuel storage were discussed .In the evening the Site Safety and Health Officer reviewed with work crew the results of the samples of the Area 4Bcontaminated soil taken during previous study . The origins of the contaminants found, their effects, and appropriate PPEwas discussed .OAR SAFETY COMMENTS :L'1(CL,eii,~j~. t -, P ' eR'GZ~`~i isA--.t L Pp C 1 NIP tJf cEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER4ty 1 3021Continuation Sheet•rk Activities Performed This Deberence (NAS IO WTed+ Spec 9) Activity & LocationOetxks Removal ( NAS ID 0020 02050)ContiadorOuantrtyStained Soil Removal (NAS b 0019 . 02050) Stained sod was collected from Area 4A at MW top of Mmountain but not yet weighed35.614 lb of Stained soil removed to date protect-wideAt Site 4• Areas 40 . 48 . and 4A . the mountain top personnel 54 .477 Ib of peons removed to date protect-wdecollected and stockpled. None yet weighedways weighedContaminated Sod (NAS ID 0016 . 02220)Site control was established and eacavaeon started AN digging byby hand Appro xmately 1 c y dug and containerizedManpower and EquipmentLaborCta*sNk4 tlonProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSuperintendentArrlleoiogkstOpeabrLabormsNumberEquipmentTypeManHoursNumber Hours Used124wheeler312112Cat426loader10113Argo624112Nodwd/10112Pickup11210116Cat966Loader10TotalHours167Total Hours 48lnstn cUons Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reacbdns . and remarks)Verbal 0 Wrttten 0NONEWork Progress Are mere any Contractor caused delays or potential findutg offact'YesAre there any Government caused delays or potential finding offact'YesAre there any unforeseeable or we~ related delays'00YesNoNo0 160Remarks ( Include any wsrtors to protect and miscellaneous remarks pert rent to work )o new Argos were delivered to the project today .The Contractor's Project Manager left the site today .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictmpsance with the contract plans and specifications except as noted aboveQuality Control Manager Signature~' / 'rte JDateGovernment Quality Assurance CommentsComers with the OC reports/Yes NZNo 0Addibonai comments or Seepbons..-S ;i-ic K'kCtLMk,j .n,!CTC--'Iv?- l ' ~oF fit: pri4 Or t--7C CA v .tTr~I .roes:O' - 6'Yi~ C ~ e~rz . ra F=rLrut .Fot_f la - I )r z •., AT . d . ~t ;', Su~~ t,1~rkl~ warms .A> F~~- 1 f3'~ ~rtrf .Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER 415-1 .302)Continuation Sheet4cttvltles Performed This Dateonce (NAS ID & Tech Spec 8)Activity & LocationQuantityStained Soil Removal (NAS ID 0019 . 02050) No Activities Involving stained sod todayContracior35 .619 tb of Stained soil removed to date props-wdeHTW Removal (NAS ID 0022 . 02050)Sites . 2. 3 . 5. 8, 7. 12, and 13 completeAll HTW at site 4 stockpiled awaiting transportation32.631 lb of HTW removed to date prated-wideDebris Removal (NAS ID 0020 . 02050)Sites, 2. 3 . 5. 6 . 7 . 12, and 13 complete8 .803 Ibs of debris at Site 8 weighed and loaded63.380 lb of Debris removed to date project-wdeAll debris at Site 4 collectedContaminated Sod (NAS ID 0018 . 02220)E*avated soil was transported the staging area and10 .117 lb of contaminated Soil removed to dateWeighed . 10 .117 Ibs weighed today . more stockadedManpower and EquipmentLaborCfasslflcat/onProtect ManagerCOC System managerSupenntendentAro-wologistoperatorLaborersNumber011ManHours0121311211012116Total Hours.165EquipmentType4 wtieeterCat 428 loaderArgoNodwellPicJupCat 966 LoaderHours Used24380Number31810111210Total HoursItstructlons Given by the Government to the Contractor (include names , reactions , and remarks)109Versaf 0 Written QNONEWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of ract7Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Ve there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes QYes 0Yes 0NoNoNone.narks ( Include any visitors to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Two new Argos with bad clutches were repaired today and returned to service . The Cat 973 track -loader was repairedtoday .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tests conducted during this period were rn stnctcompliance with the contract plans and speurica~s except as doted aboveOualtty Control Manager Slg natumGovernment OuaIIty Assurance Comm.ntaCancans with the OC report?Yes(3No0Additional comments or exceptionsk-L>L'Ci r' Tj .F?ut'.,NGcrjQ k t ' r :-'S O 2Dv~7bl' ~L*T r~- li3 5rt"LLt rr . , r* rt c7yt JS , 5~f~ Yrul.fi0-• iz i U >`' rfo~ 'T FF .S v--~r•'~K PLo -JGG1-FtIEnvironmental Quality Control /Quality Assurance Report(ER 415.1 .3022)Continuation Sheet`work Activates Psrfonme This bats*once ( HAS 10 s(Tech Spec 6)AdMty & LocationQuantity,,tamed Sod Removal (HAS b 0019 . 02050 ) NO stained soil collected todayContractor35.695 Ib of Stained sod removed to date protect-wide14TW Removal (HAS 10 0022.02050)Previously, collected HTW from Sim S . was we.phed todev470 lbs processed today35 .877 lb of HTW removed b date prged-wideDebris Removal (HAS ID 0020. 02050)Previously sl x*pded debris at Sits 8 was processedAnd Debris from Sots 4A was transported o6 the mountainand processed . 13.993 weighed and loaded today72 .626 1b of Dews removed b date protect-wideContaminated Soil (HAS b 0016 . 02220)E=avated sad was transported b the staging areaNo additional $od excavated or weighed16 .932 lb of contaminated Sod weighed 10 dateManpower and EquipmentLaborClasslfcattonProtect Managercot system ManagerSuperintendentOperatorLaborersEqulpenentNumber ManHours Type004wheeler112Cal426Numb"3loader113Argo112Nodws!112Pickup9 106 Cat 966 LoaderCat 973 Trade LoaderTotal Hours :157Hours Used24163861111012103ToW Hours 116Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names , reactions . and remarts .)Verbal0 Written 0NONEYes 0Yes 0Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Conraclor caused delays or potential finding d tact?Are there any Goverrrnent caused decays or potential finding at tact ?Are there any un*xeseeable or weather related delays ?NoNoNosmarts ( include any wsibrs to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent b work .)The COC and a facilities technician from the FAA used test equipment to locate and mark the live electric cable that hadbeen discovered between the east side of the runway and the road in Site 8 . The live cable was found to be buried lessthan one foot deep along the run from the power enclosure at the mid -point of the runway to the junction box at the southend of the runway . In all other areas it was buried 6 to 10 feet below grade .The Project Archeologist called SHPO representative Tim Smith and asked him (he agreed ) to call Suzanne Beauchampto confirm no problem with cleanup in archaeological site XSL-005, at end of airstrip adjacent to Area 8 . This area is acandidate for inclusion in the project .Later he met with Sivuqaq Inc . President Job Koonooka and Native Liaison Bert Oozevaseuk regarding disposition ofrockshelter with hearth in Area 4. Koonooka favors protection if site proves to be archaeologically significant .Koonooka' s decision was to : a) confer privately with elder Conrad Oozeva rather than whole Board ; b) depending on thatconversation , he would request that the Archeologist and Bert test site to determine age (not outside the usualcompliance parameters for a project such as this ) ; and c) depending on that conversation , the full Board would decide theCorporation 's protection strategy (protection from villagers , not from our cleanup work ) . Also delivered Artifact #1 andobtained signed receipt .I certify MM t e above reports compete and correct and that ON materials and equipment used. work performed and tests conducted during this period were in strictcompliance with the eoneract plans and specfir ltions;- reas noted above00-1-17Quality Control Manager Signature99-028lkDate2Environmental Quali ty Costrol/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41St Jp2lContinuation SheetGovernment Quality A .wranc. commentsConcurs wdh ft QCreport?Additional comments or acepbons:r'9 wGGf~OrI~c~ J~ Ci•f c, Jk-i t;-,-, L 0 (A-r'Tv1a,2a-ar:c~ `r ~C` t5 .*4Lsv vYsdNOCh"~G~YaL)~-~~~~7YV/~rti JCwt1~h~) TLSt ~rS~ ~Ni~GM 3lgnaturat --~-.e~49 .22~;~_ kr . .'E~t i ~~r T) ~•v A U a r A-y 540-%4-)- U"-"Ac~f t 6 L YtMk5 AZIP A'cFc~; cImo(-s$VA C-r- Sk-A, t-C 4s- c>0Lvc AINt?st.3`3yj.L rv 3N .r,,j L G c1,-- t Eti..1 l. :c $1.sup .rvlsof s Initial lateOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999 Time :r.• ! CA ~ .•JBriefing Location :*-LActivities Planned :Briefer:~-C1:c,-0. hJ CA~Topic :..mod~h 0 &G5L/Topic: LTopic:Topic :Briefer:Topic :Topic :AttendeesL4OSite Healthand Safety Officer :Date :O1999Weight a .. . .imaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalDebrisf0Actual†umcWeight tocDate0uSitesHTW0†uActualWeight toDateContaminated SoilStained soilf†C0 -U†uL‡†C0ActualWeight toDateUSite 21600020024985Site 377015960011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214022780Site 4/Area 48905022301688526Site4/Area 4D10002948021570Site 5315113104700site 5 and 355Site 635078970Site 7150Site 811500073936620074941814Site 101300023007071540Site 12100798255078297830Site 13300343000Totals 127255Percent of Contract Wt9465574%16140†104000ActualWeight toDate16932AreaWEEKWEEK10029920038034 40000236%Page35695 104000, 1693289%16%1Asof : 8/3/99, 6 :48 PMEnvironmental Quality Control/Qnslity Assurance Report(ER 415-1-302)Contract Number I Delivery Order Number :UPCIPrgec TileDACA8S-97-O-O0101D .O. 0004Debris Re noval and Contain rtz .d Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removal'OC Report NumberData or Time PeriodLocation and TeamM30114199Gaanb.ll, AlaskaWeather ConditionsTemp Low a4 Temp M 4,1Wind Speed15.35 KnQtaCo.tractorConditions windy and ravro.Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Pedorm.d This Oate ( Include inspections. results. defiaenaes Deserved . and corrective action .)Preparatory 0 on saw" clockftknbal 0 w a acMO ch.ckFmiFollow-up0Was the deficiency tracking list updated INS dataField Sampling and TestingHas field testing been performed this da e?Type of testYes 0 NoYes 0 NoMedhod/littnxQuantity of samplesResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Oats Quality Ob} ectives teen acheved?N/AY .sOHave Samples 8..n Collected forLaboratoryType of Test EPA Test Medhod/ MatrucAnalysis?Quantity of SamplesYsOMooMOONO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of QC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved?WAOYesONOOHave appropriate OC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes, method blanks, surrogates, reference standards . etc.)WAOYesONOOHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quantity? Not required by Delivery OrderN/AOYasONoDHave samples been properly Labeled and packaged?WAOY.s0NOOHealth and SafetyWorker protection levels This date :Level A O Level B O Level C O Level O 0 NYACWas any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes0MooYes0MooWas any work activity conducted within an arom determined to be immediately dangerous b life and health ?Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as required ?Yes0MooSafety Comments : (include any irtfrsctions of approved safety plan . and include instnrctiona from Government personnel . Specify corrective action taken)The Superintendent addressed importance of wearing the minimum level of PPE during all activities . This includes hardhats , steel-toed boots , and safety glasses . The PPE upgrades for ATV use were also stressed as was the general safetypractices for operating ATVs . These practices included safe travel speed , awareness of terrain , and proper cargoloading . The need for the buddy system , during periods of low visibility, was also stressed .OAR SAFETY COMMENTS:~t G•frv.7 ~ , rtR, .. ,.v ,?~, lC .x~XC r~c~ .C`jIo,. _' Sr~trvg.T' "-t u,v' 1Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report.(ER 4 15.1-3021Continuation SheetWort ActivltIes Performed This DataReference (HAS D I/T.cn Spec6)Acbwity&LocationQuantityContractorCREW ON STANDBY DUE TO WEATHER ALL DAYStained Soul Removal (HAS 0 0019 .02050)HTW Removal (HAS D 0022 . 02050)NoscrimtodayNO ac" todayDebris Removal ( HAS D 0020 . 02)50)Contaminated Soil (HAS D 0016 . 02220)NoNo35 .695 lb of Stained soil removed to date proiecl .wooe38 .034 lb of HTW removed to date protect-wideactiMtytoday94 .655 lb of Debris removed to dais protect-wideactivitytoday16 .932 Ib of contaminated Soil weighed to dateManpower and EquipmentLaborClassification NumberProject Manager 0coC system Manager15uperimene"I1ArChe06091l1Operator1Laborers13EquipmentTypeManHours0ee8ewheeler3Cal 426 loader1Argo6Nodwell1Pickup1104Total Hours:Number Hours Used4Cat 968LoaderCat 973 Track Loader136TotalInstructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (kldude names . reactions . and remarks .)Haas60600110012verbal l7 Written 0NONEWok Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays a potential finding of fad?Are there any Government caused delays or potential finding of fact?Are there any utoreseea )le or weather related delays?Yes 0 NoYes 0 HoYes 0 No I&Remarks (kuciude any visitors 10 project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Severe weather, (cold temperatures, strong winds, blowing rain) forced a cessation of all cleanup activities for the entireday . Crew on standby for 8 hours .One additional HazWopr laborer arrived on the project today .A four-man USCG helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) team led by Lt . Orin Rush arrive on sight today . Their missionwas to search for skiffs and people missing at sea from the flotilla of Russian natives that had left Gambell for Russia onthe previous day . Contractor-provided support to the SAR team included evening meals, ground transportation, andphone and fax support .I Certify Vial the above report is complete and Correct and that all materials and equipment used . work performed and tats conducted during thus period were n strictcompliance with the contract plans and spedagpome e.cept as noted above .Government Quality Assurance CommentsConcurs with th QC report?Yes 10No0Additional comments or exceptions .( ,y-r,r1 c rE 4d 7` F e n :'+ }3t' v T 4 '5 v f7pui c i X ` X_K c.1.1>c fviK"4,- `5 --71SL t?t~ >pIS1~ ~ZZ~$`r4r~. Ge..., n:`0-AC17 L .Lic> k 1L7T 13r- je.' vi t tI(S C 4 , !+L_ Aal_y • ST --CEQAR Signature99-030Date2(,vim-ti~~c(oa r , L rv-CD-- fort V=T- Lo L LC) A rv 1 t.> > & 6 rv t PC nevi,-- N' -41 V ,1 Supervisor' s Initial Date.OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , AlaskaDate: -041- 1999Time :7.'ao 4/y1Briefing Location :L GG'~~Activities Planned :Briefer:Ck06K Y4-747-1-1Topic: A64 RIO R4 7STopic: -4 T VTopic:Briefer :Topic :S4 Fc r YPP!"xcavc f'f~•~ ~4rcSG -Fc 7 G 10 5 STopic : •-ra 'e, or ITopic :AttendeeseL ~4Z4ZSite Healthand Safety Officer.tI B 14 r5 CEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Reportiu 415.1 -t0C9Contract Number / DeliveryOrderNumberUPC /Prgect Ties.OACASS97-O4010dD.O . 0004Debris Removal and Contalnertzed Hazardous and Toxic Waste Removal7C Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team1-031list"Gamb.fl, AlaskaWeather ConditionsContractorTemp Lour 46 Tamp K RWind Speed1535 KnotaConditions windy and ram,ON Spill Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspections Performed This Data pndude mspecbons. results . oelt '- CvPz u.~+tf + let C. 14 ~ut~ slet ,. AArj, uG~v a~t-1- 41000' 9 k : t.44"V"z •G S ~I.k tom .. ft 4 aEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportMR 415.1-)Continuation Sheetforte Act vItfes Performed This Oateeferet a (NAS 10 ?(Tech Spec 0)Acbrty & LocationQuantityContractorStained Soil Removal ( HAS t0 0019 . 02050) No stained soil collected today36 .158 rb of Staurd sod removed o date D( o -wideHTW Remove) ( HAS ID 0022. 02050)Prewously.odtecfed drums kom Site 10 (Rte lundrs )and SiM 4 (tn mountain top) were weighed 1 .294 Ib44 .943 lb of HTW removed to dale prgect-wideDebris Removal (NAS ID 0020 , 02050)No debris was processed today94 .655 lb of Debris removed lo date protect-wideContaminated Soil (NAS 10 0016 . 02220)21,294 lbs of soil was weighed and lorded today7.663 to of rail .46.069 lo of contaminated So l weighed to dateManpower and EquipmentLaborClassNtcationProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSupennter dervArcheologistoperatorlaborersNumber0111111Total Hours :EquipmentManHours Type04 wheeler12Cat 425 loader14ArgoNumber Hours Used33014666Nodwell1012 Pickup132Cat 966 LoaderCat 973 Track Loader1111210012182instrvctlons Given by the Government to the Contractor (hdude names. reactions, and remarks .)Total Hours128Verbal 0 Written 0The OAR provided direction to the CQC to expand the cleanup effort in Site 8 (the west beach area ) to incorporate thearcheological site north of the runway and west of the road to the runway . Work must be done under the supervision ofthe Project Archeologist and focal personnel will perform the work .It was brought to the OAR's attention that earth work by another contractor was uncovering drums , previously buried, inthe southeast comer of Site 8 . This was increasing the amount of HTW material projected to be in the area . The OARdirected that no new drums be picked up in these areas .Yes 0Work Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or polenbai 6n6ng of fact?No aAre there any Government caused delays or potential tUtding of fact?Yes 0No aM there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes 0NoRemarks (Include any visitor$ to project and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)Native Liaison Bert Oozevaseuk , identified a sled frame in Site 5 , east of the High School . that had not been previouslycatalogued for removal . The OAR was informed . The item will be considered for possible inclusion in the cleanupprogram .The CQC and the OAR conducted a survey of the Air Force and Army Trails in the Tundra portion of Site 10 . The OARtook GPS readings and plotted the location of the trails (Map attached). Approximately 600 If of 6 ft galvanized chainlink fence was found near the north end of the Air Force trail . The Native Liaison , Bert Oozevaseuk , identified this fenceas the remains of a reindeer coral , not from previous military activities .The USCG SAR Team stationed at Gambell left today .I certify M at the above report is complete and coned and that as maMv ˆls and equp .nent used . work performed and tests conducted during ttws period were in strictcompliance with the contract plans and specs icstions except as nosed aboveQuality Control Manager Signature99 .032f '4'o. .Environmental Quality Cwtrol/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41 .133Continuation SheetGov.mm.nt Quality Assurance Comm .ntsConcur "Oh to QC report?Additional commerw or eacsptiorn :- A) Gn r-, E. iYes&No Qv1 4V/4/9? (? 'rP Mi'd.-L 7~. 1t3fl-~A .r-, !~,Efh $Cc 'tomcc-b-t-U-Ls)lV."~JtiGc S Qom . kl.f 1 C S e=vc"-/t'~ ~tye~S'1 ~l JOo`JrS . m--r::- S• rL-t~.~r~ 1.e/ t~ .~K c P C ~J1 '7f--• /1.~ r W4. ~ L.& - /{gyp Fr .T--DQ^R SignatureQ9-032C .~ ,(,~t(X`StA-5 ~ l ` . r•/fYPArc~Tv +r)P 'y`o p %-; r~,& .S Lttd- SQkqeL w-,&-W P-r c0SSup .rvlsor s Initial Date37 - ~~-iOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907)!562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title: Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell . AlaskaDate :1999Briefing Location : __L1Time :Activities Planned :Topic :Topic :Topic :Topic :Briefer:Topic :Topic :Attendees'11)c l''I•(2~L is ' lJ l~JSite Health J~r~ :'~ L~?~ -~ rand Safety Officer :Date : ~' 1999Weight . _ . ,imaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalActualWeight toDateSitesStained soilHTWDebrisContaminated SoilActualWeight toDateActualWeight toDateActualWeight toDateSite 21600020024985Site 377015960011500Site 4/Area 4A5.41012348214022780Site 4/Area 4B905022301688526Site4/Area 4D100029480596946311310470078970Site 5315Area Derweensite 5 and 355Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500073936620074941814Site 1013000230010168540Site 12100798255078297830Site 1330034300010400046089100299200Totals 12725594655 16140Percent of Contract Wt74%44943 40000278%Page36158 104000 4608990%44%1Asof 8/6/99,8 :01 PMEnvironmental Quality ContrC4VQuality Assurance ReportContract thsnber I D.lwy Order Humber :UPC1Proj.ct TII sDebate R .movd and Contaln.rtzsd Hazardous and Toxk West. RemovalDACASS-I7-O-O01WO 0.0004Defft or nme PedoddRf91sport Number.3Location end TeamGarnbo ll, AhsaContractorYW.tisr CordklonsTemp Loa 44 Temp 14Wind Spiedcalm - i KnobOn spm Consultant.. Ire.Conditions da,Cr_Oualty Control inspections Pertomm .d This Des ( tiduds Inspections. refits. den denrles observed, and conrecta action .)Pneparatcxy a e† srdwd eh .eldtabredFoltow.Upass. ties ant owk"°Debts loading: 10 roars e- Iropected and reed, for movement to barge loading ares .(r pectlon lit attad+ed)Was t e defkfency b-addnq IM updated era dal.Yen o NoField Sampan aid TwangHas Nest tssang been paormed era.?dalYesaNoType d fast Method %Itrbc Ousnetp d sample, ResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Dets Qt y Obfeceves been sd*wed7WAY090MOOMe" Samples Seen Collected for Laboratory Analysis? YeeD mooType d Test EPA Test Meetod / M.bbc Quantity d SamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYHave req *ed .mount d QC tip blanks and dmates beat actread7WAOYssONoeHave appnopAab QC laboratory tests been ordered ? (mat tt spiksa, method blanks, surogates, rererenc. standards , eti) WAOYasONoaHave QA and QC samples been od ecled ln tine spedlted quenetl? Not nqub .d by Dmvery Order IYAOY.(JNoaHave samples been txvperty labeled and packaged? NIAOYesONOOHealth and SafetyWonrsrr prasc a lava s this cle tr Level A D Level S a Level C 0 Level 0 0 WADWas any work ac" aonducled within a oonfned spec.?YesaNo°Was aq wok aeevfgr conducted wMi an are . determined lo be lmmedlalefy dangerous lo We and beam? Yes C3 1400Was approved dscanUmin.eon procedures used an workers and equlpmers n rsqAed7Yes C3 1400Safety Conxmergs ( 4nclude arty inA aetlorri d approved safety plan, end indude Instructions tram Oo%ernment persomet. Spedly corrective aeon taken .)--,9 Superintendent addressed the need to adhere to Hard hats, steel-toed boots, and safety glasses as the minimum' PPE for all activities and the wear of helmets while riding four-wheelers . The Site Safety and Health Officer.ianphasized the need to avoid 'going home syndrome .' This Is the condition where caution, attentiveness, and safetypractices tend to lapse as field work nears completion . With no accidents or injuries on the project to date . personnelneed to maintain the same level of safety awareness all the way through to the end of the projectQAR SAFETY COMMENrs :.%, A -CAe,L,.Jl e*7 t7tcr`f~aF 'a'>^,<tA~t/9s L/''Zb~l .) rOfm !JE'if•Lc L ,? (J r n, %r5I.~ ttEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIER 418-1-302)Continuation Sheetvoril Ac!lvRfe. Performed This Dabefereno. ( NAS D *fT.dh Sb.c 0)AdvRy & LOCaanOust"Sts ned So0 Remove (HAS D 0019 . 02050)216 D d prevft*-W~ a9Ued son proc.ased belay*6,M tb d Stained so t rsnwM d b dab proj. el-wW .MTW Remoal (HAS D 0022, 02030)Pre+busfroobxled Qtma Rum She 10 Mw tundra)and Sft 4 (1M matx+tin to were *Wifilned 2,761 lb47,704 lb d HTW removed b das p coed-w4d .Debris R.mo614 e d prtvbustf co6ected debris was proc e ssed bdey93,1691b d Debris removed b daW Pled-wide16.611 fare d can n kneel sad was wsI led ")r-11 todayAppro mateq 1 .375 lb d ad b.gped but not weighed64,900 d oontamknaled Sob we" b date.(t4AS D 0020, 02050)Canlanikrod Son (HAS D 0016 . 02220)Manpower and EquipmentLaborclassiflcadcePru)ed wMarCOC Stem flrYr"WNumber0EquipmentTypeManHours0121comradorNumber4 of*"Cat 426 beder313Argo6Hours Used304661ArcJheo/ogbt112Nodwel10operaw112Ptdaq112Labours12144Cat 966 loaderCat 973 Track Loader1110STOHoes:193Tow/ Hours:I %*thICnons div an by the Go..rnrn .nt 101} 1 . Con1Ml Dr (Rldude name, reacU. -, and rlnM127Vetted 0 Wrltten ONONEWork Progress Are there any Contractor = used deIs s or potmisai Mdrq d fact?Are tiara any Govemmere = used deterr or poisn4at &, ng d acnAm twe any lydbrese nwe or weather raf=ted detare?Yes OYle DNoNoYes ONoRemarks (Rrhrde arty vls1bxs b project and rtlta areas remarlrs pertinernt b wOIL)The Cat 973 was repaired and returned to service today . tt moved 4 connexes from the staging area to the north Beachbarge loading site .During and Inspection of Site 12 It was noted that persons unknown had been digging In the area and unearthed aditlonaldebits. The OAR was Informed.The Superintendent reported the following sites complete and ready for CQC Inspection : 2, 3, 6, 7 , 12, 13 .i oerey Qua Q1e above report is aompleis and Correct and 9ha at matatws arvd equlpm er* used, work peAommd and lssa Conducted dlrkq 91b perld wars ti =tactoompba a with the Contract plm and speefteftru New s$ rested above.DGovernment t]ua ty Assurance CommentsConcurs with t1. CC report?Addt5onai co-w-w Or ., ;N .YesANO. P-A- -1 S . 'flits, C G r-o c*-t- P/t G Avx)4-S4,r-r'St ‰ E %'-'- (,r .,, ' 'JP.-6 7tT -P*e .' Part rT- au ~oZLA, c, .01 " uvtl'tY'b-Lk ,i-.7- >1^- Z Gs' e 7-t e,-,S .iN 5 oa~7 cJrv S W I L LS F" bfj1WOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate :1999Time : Briefing Location : 04l1~f Or'/~/f1O1~~xL~ VQ,fivn A f 1v.Activities Planned :•flsiBriefer.Topic : L (Y$f 0PPLTopic:Topic :BrieferC//2Topic:/Id/Y.JI!7Topic :Topic:AttendeesDate:1999LOADED CONNEX INSPECTION SHEETConnexes CompleteConnex # Wt ticket Collected Whelghed20567661537/30/997 /31/9920567661547/30/997/31/ 9920567661557/30/997/31/9920567661567/ 30/997/ 31/9920567661577/30/997/31/9920567661587/30/997/31/9920567661597/301997/31/9920567661607/31/997/31/9920567661617/31/997/31/9920567661627/31/997/31/9920567661637/31/997/31/9920567661847/31/997/31/99DescripitionContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated Soilnet Wt.LoadedTare Gross Wt Total WL61849181379384186797110206269537385757/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/997131/997/31/997131/997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/997777777777776254988208008488749781027633960745582205676620567661651697/31/997/31/997/31/99811/99Contaminated SoilContaminated Soil8118697/31/998/1/997781887620667661707/31/99811/99Contaminated Soil8838/1/997890,8/1/998/1/99778308658/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/9977777750006227524892922415025000,205676620567661711727131/997/31/998/1/998/1/99Contaminated SoilContaminated Soil8238582056766205676620567662056766205676620567661731741751761771787/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/998/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/998/1/99Contaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilConnexConnex Gross weight615745482285234495Inspection date , 8/7/9916567500021567LOADED CONNEX INSPECTION SHEETConnexes CompleteConnex #Wt ticketCollected WheighedDescripitionnet Wt . Loaded Tare Gross Wt Total Wt.1006851827/28/998/1/99Drum Pieces9048/1/9909041006851006851006851006851006851832102142172207/281998/2/998/3/998/5/998/3/998/1/998/3/998/5/998/5/998/5/99Drum PiecesDrum partsDrum PiecesDrum PiecesDrum parts791964888118411518/1/998/3/998/5/998/5/998/519900000791964888118411511006852218/31998/5/99Drum Pieces10018/5/9901001014350122695445000 , 50005000145441006852228/3/991006852238/5/998/5/991007161007161951967/25/997/26/99Drum partsDrum parts8/6/99ConnexConnex Gross weight8/2/99Landing Mat8/2/99 Landing Mat, Weasel Track, Misc14358/5/9912268/6/9979311318/2/998/2/990079311311007162008 / 2/998/2/99Misc Metal17328/2/99017321007162018/2/998/2/99MIsc Metal7888/2/9907688/3/9901430100716202811/99813/99Quonset Hut Debris14301007162038/1/998/3/99Quonset Hut Debris12768/3/99012761007161007161007162042062068/1/99812/99812/998/3/998/31998/3/99Quonset Hut DebrisMisc Metal debrisMisc Metal139210929908/3/998/3/998/3/99000139210929901007161007162072088/2/998/2/998/3/998/3/9910508068/3/998/3/990050001050,806500020112420112468697/17/997/17/997/22/997/22/99166214487/22/997/22/990016621448201124707/17/997/22/9916497/22/990164920112420112420112420112420112420112471721471481491507/17/997/17/997/20/997/20/997/20/997/20/997/22/997/22/997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/99Misc MetalMisc MetalConnexConnex Gross weightLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatConnexConnex Gross weight1769135612091253106310567/22/997/221997/31/997/31/997/31/997/31/9900000050001769135612091253106310565000Inspection date , 817/9912460500017460,12465500017465LOADED CONNEX INSPECTION SHEETConnexes CompleteConn ex #201153201153201153201153201153201153201153201153201153201153201153Wt ticket Collected Whelghed1117/17/9971251991127/17/997/25/991137/17/997/25/991147/17/997/251991157/17/997/25/991167/17/997/251991177/17/997/25/991187/17/997/251991197/17/997/251991207/17/997/251991467/20/997/31/992012161247/25/992012161257/25/992012162012162012162012162012162012162012162012162012162012162012161261271281291391401411811972092387/25/997/25/997/25/997/25/997/29/997/28/997/28/997/221997/261998/2/998/6/992012782012782012782012782012781511521661671687/20/997/20/997/20/997/20/997/20/99/27/25/99DescripitionLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatWeasel TrackLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLoaded Tare Gross Wt Total WLnet Wt.8347/22199083411487/22/9901148159115917/22/990166116617/22/990193319337/22/99017467/22/99017468587/22/99085811497/22/990114912517/22/990125120317/22/99020318097/31/99080915011Connex5000500020011Connex Gross weightrum Feces1081901081Drum Pieces75171251990751982999895565136128740110814701193247/25/997/25/997/25/997/25/997/29/997/29/997/29/99811/99812/998/3/998/6/99000000000005000982999895565136128740110814701193245000127811661881173016707/31/997/31/99811/998/1/998/1/990000050001278116618811730 ,167050007/25199Drum Pieces7/25/99Drum PiecesDrum Pieces7/25/997/25/99Drum Pieces7/29199Generator7/29/99 nerators 1 10 kw enerator , 17/29/99Engine Block8/1/99Drum Pieces812/99Drum Parts813199Drum partsDrum Pieces8/6199ConnexConnex Gross weight7/31/99Landing Mat7/31/99Landing Mat8/1/99Landing Mat811/99Landing Mat811/99Landing MatConnexConnex Gross weightInspection date, 8/7/995000A-198655000148657725500012725LOADED CONNEX INSPECTION SHEETConnexes CompleteConnex #201448201448201448201448201448201448201448201448Wt ticket Collected Whelghed1317/26/997129/991327/26/997/29/991337/26/997129/9913771261997/29/991427/26/997/29/991437/26/997/29/991447/20/997/29/991457/201997/31/99DescripitionMisc Metal debrisMisc Metal debrisMisc Metal debrisLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatConnexnet Wt. Loaded Tare G ross Wt Total Wt.18797/29/99716868988917/29/99712087/29/997121516897/29/9901689771, 7/29/99077111307/29/990113014017/29/99014019697/ 31/9909699759500050005000147592592322268/6/998/6199Connex Gross weightContaminated Soil14348/6/9972592322278/6/998/6/99Contaminated Soil16098/6/99716162592322288/6/998/6199Contaminated Soil14318/6/99714382592322298/8/998/6/99Contaminated Soil11898/6/9971196269232230816/998/6/99Contaminated Soil14348/6/99714412592322592322592322592322592322592322312322332342352368/6/998/6/99816/998/6/998/6/998/6/998/6/ 998/6/998/6/998/6/998/61998/6/991538142110181386148614968/6/998/6/998/6/998/6/998/6/998/6/997777775000,15451428102513931493150350002610682610682610682610682610682610682610682610681891901911921931941981997/ 25/997125/997/251997/25/997/25/997/25/997/28/998/1/998/2/998/2/998/2/998/2/998/2/998/2/99812/998/2/99Contaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilContaminated SoilConnexConnex Gross weightLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatLanding MatQuonset Hut DebrisQuonset Hut DebrisConnexConnex Gross weight122912441755745101412367617948/2/998/2/998/2/996/2/998/21998/2/998/2/998/2/99000000005000122912441755745101412367617945000Inspection date , 817/991441155195000205198778500013778Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalHTWDebrisActualc Weight toDate()ActualWeight toDateSitesStained soilContaminated SoilActual T ActualWeight to c Weight toDateuDatesSite 21600020024985Site 377067360011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214024240Site 4/Area 46905022301764225Site4/Area 4D1000294807418463Site 5315113104700resite 5 and 355Site 635078970Site 7150Site 811500073936620085842340Site 1013000230010168540Site 12100798255078297830Site 1330034300010400064900100299200Totals 12725595169 16140Percent of Contract Wt75%47704 40000296%Page36383 104000 6490091%62%1Asof :811/99,8 :00 PMEnvironmental Quality Control/Qu ality Assurance ReportEll 415. 1 . )02)Cantrw Number / Defnery Order Number,UPCJProfecl Ti0&DACAUS. IJ-0-OQIWD. O. 0004Debris R .rtwval and Con talnortz .d Hazardous and Toxic Wash RemovalCQC Report Numb ..Date or Time P.rioaLocation and Team99-034Nd91Oaenbell. AlaskaW.atfNr CondflonsTemp Low 46 Temp M 44Wind speedF AIM .11 KnotsContractorConditions poly dougy_041 spin Consuftanb, ktc.a .Uty Control inspections Performed This Del . (Yndude wnpectorns . resurb, defiuencies observed . and corrSCbve .ceon .)Prapa,lpryr 0 ee. ae.ched dieca .eMal0dncMNFolbwdlpa Debris and HTW remove)CCD performed final inspection on Sites 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, and 13 . One item of debris found and flagged in Site 2 . All sitesready for OAR inspection .was the deeaency backing list updated this daisField Sampling and TesdnpHas field Mating been performed this date ?Type of testYes 0 NoYes 0 NoL4e0wd/MWmQuantity of srnplesResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHare Data Ouelity Objecli res been achieved? WAYsO NoQHer . S.mples Been Collected for Laboratory Analysis?Ya0Toe of Teat EPA Test McRwd .tatnxQuantity of SamplesMooNO SAMPLING TODAYHave r.gLwvd amount of OC trip blanks and rirtsates been adweved ?WACY.QN0OHem appropnab OC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes, method Banks, surragafes. reference standards. M)WAQYssGNoDHave QA and OC samples been collected in the specified qu nbtyrt Not required by Delivery OrderWADYesQMo0Have samples been properly labeled and packaged ?NAQYesONOQHeat and SafetyWorker prolecs an levels Tim data :LevelA0Level B 0 Level C 0 Level D ° WA(3Was any work acclivity conducted within a confined spew? Yes 0 NoWas "workwork activity conducted within an area detain ined b be immediately dangerous to life and heal h?Yes 0 MooWere approved decontamination procedures used on worturs and egiApment as required ?Yes 0 MooSafety conxnee: (rndude any infractions of approved safety plan . and include in actions b&n Government personnel. specify conectrw action tak n .)The Superintendent addressed the need to pay attention to your working environment . Awareness of the conditions andactivities in your work site was emphasized as the foundation of 'Safety Awareness .' Examples of specific hazards inthe working environment were discussed . These included heavy equipment operating nearby, slippery conditions whileclimbing over rocks, and sharp pieces of heavy metal debris .OAR SAFETY COMMENTS :. r n/ l'>1 rS -1-b ShJeI L< cti MdtAr .'f~N ChJ~7"~ .v..~'SE,4-, M- a,K-,ctVN i ti ,Atyr id 'L-5 .For- 5c`cY.,..-S 'rte C o---,C-?-T th 5p 0-R ~Wevl-r-N <p..Js d F- L4pj .}D> n'.l,. Ld ~I51 rW M c-+r'" %W6 7-1," &5.., C S,rt' mar .-~- s r. 2a-s cf O&-OL.~J w~ o af .,Td LSEnvironmental Quality Coutrol/Quality Assurance Report(ER 413.1-02)Continuation Sheett ActhIbes Perforn" This Oftonce (NAS D NTech Spec 5)Adtvity 4 LxcatianOuantrStrrvsd Sad Remove! ( W\S D 0019. 02030)1 .977 b of prsvbusly- ao4scfsd stau+s0 soil processed today,34 .260 b of StsmW sal rsnwvs0 b dab props-AwigHTW Removal (WAS D 0022 .02030)No HTW was p ssed way47 .704 b of HTW removed t0 dote prc ed-wideDews Remove/ (NAS D 0020 . 02030)9.531 b 01 doWs from snsa S. and /or was proWSed bela yT hts mcfudal ttw trst sectors ot the Navy sonar note95.169 Ib d Oebns removed b daft proled .wrdeContaminated Sod (HAS D 0016 . 02220)9.655 bed contaminated soil was weighed and badsd todayAgproamately 5 .390 lb of soil bagged but not weighed74555 of contaminated Soil weighed 10 daftManpower and EqutpmsrtLaborcusslticadaProject MV49WCQC System Manager54gennilenawtOPWOWLaborwaContractorEQUIP-Number01111Mant1 ouvs1213SType4w1wie ra12Cat 426 bans1312NodwesPickupCat 966 LoaderCat 973 Track Loader12Total Hours:Number Hours Used330136W101121103183Total Hours : 106kˆwcttons Given by the Govern wnt to the Contractor (kldude names , rtac0orts, and remain .)Verbal Q WAtten QNONEWork Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or poterrbal ftndirlg of bet?M tier any Cvam wnt caused decays or potentia l Ending of tact?Are twrs any wftreseegbpe or wwtw related delays?Yes QYee QYes QNoNoNoRamaArs (Y+dude any visitors b p" W and rtwscallaneas remarks pertinent b work)NONE .I csrtity that 9w strove report is complete and c0l, and that 80 materials and eQu/pmen t used . wart performed and tests conducted during dlis period were n strictcompliance with the contract plans and axoept s, n oted bove,_r .A . .nN P~ .M..d Yin .n .r lL.n .h~ 'w/~~~ C/~. rGovernment OuaUty Assurance CommentsConcurs with tin OC rspoi?Addibonal conifers or exceptions :?'1MS .M, .4iCYes IS No Q(a- roc P . T I rir 5 a M . . .ateo~ TES s rv ]-~. .~ L O ~- ( A t e' `T O r= -St+ t Pub, rv ~s'_ I'~14 JA TT'1G .-rUC- A PPi - K t .ve G t+r'5 N tr- a r~la~ G u(- 5 .McEV 7 ~G`TTarY u~u' !Z~ o c.o -td .C. Lort/,7~ i4> - ~-u Š t c 4 fTsib b T‡:>A-T-&Ct~vt~.~.-zc 1E S.1 tc_i C- tf c~*A4-.DA,-t'-ySe f1a-)>Z 1s w oe-ic% .v G. lrvto)03-, M o r> QOOAR Sig99 .034Supsrvfton' s lnmal bet .+&,FOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage . Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate : ,'Activities Planned :1999Time : 7'. U yBriefing Location :04L] r : / k Gcc ~• C-11[411Briefer: (-0g(1 C X k,'~T H'Topic :Topic :Topic :BrieferTopic :Topic :Topic :Attendees_;&~711r~77Site Healthand Safety Officer :Date : 9--M1999Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalUActualWeight toDatecSites0UoUContaminated SoilStained soilHTWDebrisActualWeight toDateActualWeight toDate00Site 21600020024985Site 377067360011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214024241877Site 4/Area 4B90560122301764225Site4/Area 4D1000636107418463Site 5Area Derween315257204700site 5 and 355Site 635078970Site 7150Site 811500077791620085842340Site 101300221230010168540Site 12100798255078297830Site 13300343000ActualWeight toDate1040007455547704 40000 38260 104000Wt82%296%96%7455572%100299200Totals 127255 104700 16140PercentofContractPage 1Asof : 8/8/99 , 8 :05 PMEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report{ER 4I -I-)4 nUPCJPrq .d TdContract keumb.r f Delivery Order NumberOACA$Sg7-0-M O10.O. 0004Debris Removal and container z .d Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCOC Report NumberDote or Time PeriodLocation and To"9"35S19r9!Oamb.ll, Alaskawe~ Co wodoruTemp Low M Tamp M 444Wind SpeedContractorCond*lons osrtiv dandy .16 - 31 KnotsOil Spill Consultants, Ire .Q+aOty Control Inspections PerormW This Date (include rrapectfons . resurb . degaenoes obserred, are correctve acaon )Prep aratory D w a$eclsd doctaalD a.a ae chi d cS5ck tVitalFollow-up•mate"' M'eipht trsckfn9The CQC completed an internal audit of weight tickets and the tracking data base . Several duplicate entries and oneomitted data entry were found . The data base was corrected, and the audit routine rerun . No errors were then found .Was 9ne deiloenc tacking sst updated th is daleY ea OFleid Sanp$ng and Too"Has Mid lesbng been performed this deb?Type of 00NoYes(:] NoMadnodAAMnxQuantity of samples ResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYWAY.. NoDHave Dets Qwkty Objecfhes been achieved ?YesD No•Have Sw Ies 9 .en Collected for Laboratory MalysIs?EPA Test MethodVm xOuanbty d SamplesType of TestNO SAA42LM TODAYHave reamed amount of OC IV Marts and finales been adWAd?,Have approprtste OC laboratory less been ordered ? ( matbc sprint, method blanks , surtogates reference standards . at)Have oil aid QC samples been coSecied h vie spe i6ed amntM Not required by D.Nvery OrderHave samples been properly labeled and packaged ?WACYesONoaWAOYs.ONoONiADYesONOONIACYesQNoOLevel A O Lev el 5 D Level C O Lave 0 • WADWorker protedfon levels leis dole:Was any sat activity concluded wi9m a confined specs? Yes l7 No•Was any .ak activity eandudsd wi iin an wee determined b be immerhatety dangerous to life and health? Yes O No•Yes 0 No•Were approved deoontamrsa0orn procedures used on workers and equipmera as required ?Sty Corrrnans: (include any infractions d approved eddy plan and include instructions from GovermneM personnel. Specify corrective action taken .)The Superintendent addressed reemphasized the need to adhere to level D PPE . He stressed the importance of notletting wear of hard hats, steel -toed shoes, and safety glasses get lax in the closing days of the project. TheSuperintendent also cautioned personnel to use care While working on foot on rocky terrain . It was emphasized that slips,trips and falls were one of the most common causes of site injuries industry-wide .CAR SAFETY COMMENTS :fN t-~-t.~ C ovv D t Y--o -.- r ~s~S~-C i~ a"C--n,- / A'c' Lade, S. Er4-N f-:-S A'F_ hJc~LT'S rtre ..~y1 es'4x J~tif r e~'S °'~-' E2 ove- rl)'An e r.AQ ", A' G 'Ti't wcY-5 F .LArx+ r,c ~Lc lG/?-o CK 'FLa e 5-1 r"‚hr-~Dw-t -YOLtiCc CZ5 .15,Wart Activities Performed This DateR.terenoe (14AS D $I Teth Spec 0)Activity & LocationQuantity ContactorStained So l Removel (NAS D 0019, 02050) No stained sod was processed today38.035 lb of stained soil removed b date posed-wipeHTW Removet (HAS D 0022, 02050)No I TW was processed today48.642 b of HTW removed b date protect-wideDebris RamoW (HAS ID 0020.02050)No debris processed today104,700 b of Debris removed to date protect-wideConfaninabd Soil (HAS D 0016 , 02220)9,655 ft of contaminated sod wee weighed and ceded today$1,247 b of contaminated Soil weighed b date .MOM sod bagged tut awaiting Pansportabon1Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER °t s°h 4Rt)Continuation SheetManpow e r and EquipmentLaborCfue+Ncadonprgect MWM9WNumber0tCOC Systarn Managerswerve andenlArcth.akgVttMan*ours012131212121351OperabrLaborersTom Hours:EquipmentTypeNumber34 wthee/erCat 426 ioedartNodwMletHours Used303480aidanpCM 966 LoaderCat 973 Track LoeGr12103ttaiTom HoursInstructions GIv .n by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactions . and reworks )106Vwtai Q Written QNONEWork progress Are there any Con acbr caused delays or potential &v *V of tootAre thre arty Government csu"d delfts or po Ending of Awt?Are there any tAoreseeable or weaQher relaeed delays?Yes proe pnee pNoNoNo •Ramnerks (b duds arty asias lo pr*ct and macearleatq re-rim perbnartt io work)Preliminary results of samples taken earlier in the project were received to for the contractor's anchorage office andprovided to the OAR.A number of mechanical failures in the Argo fleet slowed production on stained soil excavation .I certify that the above report is comp/ft and caned and 1hW all materials and equipment wed . wor k perbmed and tests conducted during this penod were in stricxComplianCt with the ctxib hx plarhs and apedllca0orhs emmtxpl as nole0 aboh) ..control Manager SignatureL/L+r27V'/1Government Quality Assurance ComrnenfaConcurs with ft OC report?Additiond tommsr or e)capeou-Vc.l.1/%--"Y,/7-Ewe,YestNoC.0A . h. eve C.E T"Tt &JG luweg l .W-r5 of ~g c.,rn 3L r ~~ .-"S h nsD rvate t .v G'~.,-K>4-t . k t r4( o K-c~" t .cJ~- s< L _ , -rAr So T" Y~'1 A L-?-,F1rv5 ox .,S ,f-,2~ +n,cv .U n ti G .~ J~II c c~ s599-0332CEP-J071Continuation ShectMartposr and pulp~LaborC1eeeMkad"Protect MensgrCoc Sywm Mw"wBLvwvftvwg"U "*W01>aItaNlw.ra0010101312410908012LaborersNumber4161Type4 wNSMerC411426 badeArgoNodw.aPkla,pCat 906 Lo.drarCat 973 Track LoedaMoue Used30224061210111162Told Moors:Tow HM"Instructions ON .n by the Gov ernment to Ow Contraobr (hctude rwnes. reocwm . and rema1 .)96Q W. no Ovtrea/NONElftlbelr Program Art two any Convacwr caused delays a patsi t v*D d tact?Are them any GowwWWO caused dMaye or poMdlal Sr g or tect7yes O NoYea O NoNo 11yes OM Mrs any urdoreseesbla or weeew related dMeys9Rwri.ets (Viduds any risibrt 10 prgtd and mboMleMan ramerlez P W%rMV b work)A eve d the Alaska DOT called and requested that connexes be kept out of the north approach zone of therunway . All cortexes were moved within 4 hours.The OAR and the COC presented a briefing to the tonal native corporation board of elders . The progress of the project to.date and the projected schedule ware covered . M question and answer session followed1 asrOry flat to a m s repel is cmnp4a and coned WW that 61 malertala and puiprtant used, work perbmsd and tru corl0txyad dump 54 psrsod wen in w1aooenpiero.4th M contract plane and apedpCabre a+eept as rroled abOW. Conun.nts.Government auatRy AssurancCaroms we M QC rspnrt7AdddkxW aorrrrlenb or errCepOorr :Ce0„=Dl &I kr' aV%,Yu )lo O~FTrfCZ-T~SI~ F3 yc9 - wv~~,4#,p QC- t.to7" C h vN~ C Pr71 "RD e t~v>z-~-L .V` re k' -41- "rg r t_ 1 .4y > I a~ }oW%4-,,A401,1L,tJ O-W )CI &J GT I tZ3 c, T7 ^-,a -F4 c .7 e ,6- / ors 5 Ff t Pr T- .A,n4UJ r LL t!e vq er,/ + TN LesSL1 eL -e172- mil 5 et t P rSS tJ pT'r'4-hu'll'o owe-DcSeMo>° o, .f tc..;~g .4°CEM77-~2Stlva z t- g4,t3t.as-i-ts6GevoSupavbors trdtial-2. rt*-a esC a~ ° v'dYz C)KC i`"r g a 5 j?>or-~,,n,,,efl,, ..~-tttaw' tupeaMar AVil-t L_/}t3c- -99-036s r-Ac i cw wt rie- ; o.v s ., p G ec ri-1.1- r~*r- llS,.*r 15 1Orfr Lc,t'0 S Can Qt- -fw~TssFc,a,~ 1 rt o^ -)S .GAr, V at rJ51-AV--J f:->, ;;-raOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS . INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title:Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell . AlaskaDate:In 1999 Time : O7 C2)OBriefing Location :Activities Planned :Briefer :LPC ~ ~ try ~~ t ti ~Topic :Topic :Topic :BrieferTopic:Topic :Topic:l) AttendeesSite Healthand Safety Officer.Date:1999Environmental Quality ControUQuality Assurance Report(ER 4nyr- MCnContract Number I Oetiwy Order Number :OACAU .97-0-001010.0.0004UPGPro1.et Ties.O.Orb Removal and Contatn.rQ.d I4a srdous and Tonk Waata RemovalCCC Report NumberDate or Tim. Pe riodLocation and Team!l-03711111!Gambef, AlaskaVV*~ Condition .T.n.p Low N Temp H AContractorConditions aMy tdoudv .Calm -11 Knot!Wind SpeedON Spill Consultants, Inc .puapty Control inspections performed This Del. ( trnclude respecaons . moults. deicrencles ooeen d . and co' ective ac I )Prep .r,MOry 0 eve ae.cMd dncaaSIn" 0 we aladnd 0--titaMat .Aal handlingFollow-upA final inspection of multiple sites was conducted in the evening by the CAR . contractors Project Manager, and theCOC . The results area as follows :Sites 2 , 6, 7, 12 , and 13 - Completed SatisfactorilySite 3 - Complete debris removal at higher elevations but only where terrain will allow work to be done safely .Was tie delioency talking 10 updated this daleyes0Field Sarnpang and TestlnlHas Nrd ksbng been part mod this dab?NoYes 0 No ataednodAMatrtitTyped tatOuanaty or samplesRssuftNO FIELD TESTING TODAYbeen schwved? WAmHave Data.Collatedfor Laboratory AnahslsMove Sernptas B. .Type d TatYq= 0Yp0 mooOuaity or sample,EPA Test MetTodAvtavaNO SAA43LIVG TODAYHave, required .most d QC to blanks and rinsates been adwe ed?Have appropriaMe OC laboratory Mete been ordered 7 (matrtic spikes . rneenod blank. surrogates, reference standards, side)Have OA and OC samples been oJected n /x sped /bd quantity? Not required by Dalh.ry OrderHave sarnpies been properly labeled an-4 p g!0WADYeONoDWAOYspNo0N/ADYMONoOWADYs NODH.sRh and safetyWorker prusec i knela Vie date: Level A D Laval S 0 Level C 0 Laval D 0 WADwas any wont acltvty ccndnuofed ie1wi a oonrirnd space ?Ys0NoeWas any work .cift* card to within an area determined b be immedialely dangerous b life and heafln?Yes (3 No ardW6WproceduresusedonWorkersandequipmentasrequired?were approved decoM.Yes 0 NoaSafety Comments : (IrrAde any 1*at lion . d approved safety plan, and include insiYUCtions from Goverrwnent personnel Speafy corrective action taken .)At the safety meeting, the Superintendent focused on hazards associated with the ongoing operation to move connexesfrom the south staging area to the barge loading area in the north . Operations were planned to avoid routes heavilytraveled by the egtupment form another contractor in the area. The need to practice caution with respect to the ATVtraffic from the village was heavily stressed. Work was scheduled to have operators move connexes in evening hourswhen local traffic is light Special attention was given to total operating hours and crew rest for the operators working theevening shiftLater in the day the Site Health and Safety Officer observed the connex moving operation . Operators were using careand interference with local traffic appeared minimal .OAR SAFETY COSw1af tL,a a eL . U-n r v o~ n -S Ar 5 t G E To V P'0+T fig ti '~ . ~ 8 c vt txv St r.,~y P~ c . rL . 01nJS+V-t:-ry A r-F'(yu , ./ s5r2<,wtS.E L_ tLt/Ai' L a, Dsc ' 4 5 5~~j N e, .-'-… t +rnr o …g,e t5 .[h> S7 k3t . .E . 1UE W%-L- 14Cl- Sw bc, Or 514 t? 4vi>o2xroye 14ov+ 7 .icrU' `~-tom"', ~ Kr7 -v-e~~,,,rr. G~rtw ReST l,5 Ajj e-~1> "rd do-/t y,*- s 4'f "'LSr- w aI1 15 i5.t(51,N)c , , K o u~A'T , N+--Environmental Quality Coatrol/Quality Assurance Report(ER 41}1 30MContinuation SheetWont ActtvIMs P.Awnwd This DabR.Lrance (HAS D WTedt Spec AAc9Mty & LocationQUW"cƒw .aorStared Sod Removal (NAS ID 0019 . 02050) No Stowed $d was processed today38 .03$ b d Staw4d tbi remote b dale protect wideHTW Removal (WS D 0022 . 02030)605 b d HTW was processed today49 .245 b d KTW removed to daft prgecl-wpeThe last debris *am She 48 was moved todayNo debris was masd .104,700 b d Debris removed to dale proteCl-w,pe8 .634 b d ca vton*lad 909 was WOWted and loaded todayAddbonal sand bpi are waryng to be ..eelE„avap0n estimated to be CornpieW .90 .829 b 01 carRarnired Soil wegned to dateNumberHours Used482400Debris RImo(NAS D 0020 . 02050)Contanwtated sad (NAS D 0016 . 02220)Wnpower and EqulpmertLaborclass" catdonProtect MsnparNumber0ManHours6COC 9y-Mm Mrtpar114Cat 426 loaderSupertlsndent11112131213136ArgoArchoofopstOperatorLaborersTotal Hours:EquipmentType4 wheeler4161NodwellPickupCat 966 LoaderCat 973 Trade Loader112110101193Trial Horn :122Vorbal 0 Wman OIrtatnurions Given by the Government to OW Contractor (Include names . reacdons_ and rents.)NOWWart Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or polsntial finolntg a fact?M 8mre any Government causal delays or pollor" 6ndng d fact?Are 8,are any ta*r seembit or weafw related delays?YesYeaYesOOONoNoNoRomarfrs ( bsdude any vi7ADr$ to prged and rtes arreola remarks perbnerri to work .)The contractor 's Project Manager , Mr. Randy E . Easley arrived on site todayI cer4/y 91st ttr . above report is 0ompkls and cartact and 91st all materials and eq iprrrrt used . work performed and left eondrctsd during 914 period were in smaompiartca with 914 00ntrad pans and sped6a6Cns sxept as noted above.Government Ouafity Assurance CommentsComaswilhAddeorrl nitertts or aocepbolw:S.-ra 't.L9T.ferr ,-19eOCreport?Yes k NoNo 0~j ~t1ittit7 isic~Lt ~C- `s'j°.ts6~r~et~4*-t__A'WPe~Os~l n .i G Cv~ _ UZ v n. ` 1R1 ,~ .~tL 1 ` --'2,~f7~ let 113gemC rr &Q ' ' .PLJDOAR SigSupervbors Initial2DateOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage . Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambeil, AlaskaDate : -61A q4 1999 Time : C776&Briefing Location :Activities Planned :J&l f xculru-1rG/)Qr, ( 5Briefer:Topic :Topic :Topic :BrieferTopic :Topic :Topic :a'4'0Je"!'Rt,l i V -dWeight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovaluSites89SWeight toc85ActualActualActualActualWeight toDate9Contaminated SoilStained soilHTWDebrisaDateWeight toDatec8Site 21600020024985Site 377067380011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214033621877Site 4/Area 4B905601223017640SIte4IArea 4D1000638108308463Site 5315257204700site 5 and 355Site 835078970Site 7150Site 811500077791620088842340Site 10130022123009280540Site 12100798255081547830Site 13300343000104000Weight toDate90892Area MAWR100299200Totals 127255 104700Percent of Con tract Wt 82 %16140 49247 40000 38035 104000 90892305%95%87%Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReporttER_41 i $-31M)UPC o Ct Ttd.Cons.d NuT+W( / Deavey Order Numb(O.brts Removal and Contalrvetzed Hazardous and To xic Waste RemovalOACAa.17 -0-o010ID . O. 0004COC Report Number",4MDate or Tkn. PeriodLocation and Tees$/12MGamb. ll, AlaskaContractor. Cavdlt/orvsvv.Tamp Low 41 Temp Pf !MWend Speed6-16KnotsConditions ft .Oil Split Consultants, Inc.Quality Control Inspection s Performed This Deft ( Inck a inspections . results . deliuenaes observed . and corrective action )Prspwalory O w seach .d dv.caarMleerOse" ranched ch .daatFoNow-Up • Debris Removal Stockpling o/ debss removed Sites S . 3 . and 5 Work gang welI . no defosnoesWas Iho de loervcy racking list upda ted fhis daftField SampNng and TestingHas field lasting been performed tws dais?Type of artYes O NoYea O NoMef XY MMU Quantity, of samplesResrrlttNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Quality Objectives bee n achieved? WAHave Samples Ben Collected for Laboratory MalysW?Type of TeatYesOYes(:)EPA Test Mefhoc Ma&uNCONomQuantity d SamplesNO SA W>LING TODAYHave regi%ud amount of OC tip blarWs and riroatas been adreved9. surrogates . reference standards . sit)Have approprtale OC laboratory tab been ordered 7 (matrix spikes. me0wd blanksHave QA Mid OC senlptss been collected in the specified quantity? Not required b Dellvey OrderHave samples bee n prmpsly labeled and packaged ?N/AOYSSONoONIAOYssDNoONAOYssI]NOOw Yes0NOpWorker and sanerWorker projection levels In data:Level A O Level 9 (3 Level C O Level D • NUOYesONoWas any work activity canduc ed einrn a cn * eel specs?Was any watt ectiwty conducted within en area determined b be immedately, dangerous b life and heft?Yes O NoeWes approved dscorrryrnination proesduns used on waters and egupment as "Pried?Yes 0 NoeSafety Comments : (1r'cti a any infractions d approved safety plan . and include nstrardions from Government personnel . Specify corrective action Islam .)At the safety, the Superintendent again addressed the hazards associated with the ongoing operation to move connexesfrom the south staging area to the barge loading area in the north. Routes were planned to avoid interference with localtraffic and avoid the construction area for an ongoing airfield paving project . Special attention was given to operatorworking hours and crew rest to insure that personnel were rested and alert while operating equipment .Later in the day the Site Health and Safety Officer observed the connex moving operation . Work was being conductedsafety and without interference with local traffic .QAR SAFETY COMMENTS :4PgVCl &,5,1-LL.-r'R S A c.-Vi-,-0L."X., S *- Ft ES f 7uHvo W tTLfI3 Y2p,,'l -.CT'2. W r'.Y1tc /i U 4j; .D .rEnvironmental Quality ConttroUQuality Assurance Report(ER 41 5- 1 .3a21Continuation Sheetyllbrh fr vIlea performed This DebReference ( HAS D WTedh Spec 8)Ac why & LocationQuantityStained Sod Remo.d (MASK) 0019. 02050)2 .450 Ib d stained 50A was processed soday Mom Onsn cleaningand processing t rougl'oi4 Oe protect.40 .085 ib d Stained Um rammed b date prorea .waleHTW Remd.M (NAS D 0022 .02050)HTW rsmcwi from arc h oo/ogical site r.0r4h of the n%hwsyIn site 6 . The mountain sift. She 3, and Site 5, the caDteburial artm up the mountain side was c wn%eted WayThis HTW has yet b be weighed .49 .247 lb of (1TW ramowed b dale protect . .,deebris Ramrod ( NAS D 0020. 02050)Debris remwol from ardneoiogrral sit sow th d the runwayin site 6, The mountain side. Site 3. and Site 5. the cableburial area up the mou*am $ite was Completed WayThe Navy cable in site 10 was picked up w d ay05 .237 Ib of Doors removed b dft project-wideConractor537 Ib d debris processed. More yet ba be wegeedCordaminaled Sod (NAS D 0016 . 02220)Manpower and EqulprrentlaborPnbl.ct merwerCOC Systrm t ,AanagerSupwkiiendardArdwftgWOperatorLaborers103 .969 Ib of Conbmnaled 5d wtbgne 10 dateThis darn Complete2.450 Ib previously excavated contamirsased $0A .was weighed and loaded way complebnp this her .NumberManHours11211111212131212138EquipmentType4 wheelerCat 426 loaferArgoNOdwelPickupCat 966 LoaderNumber416111Cat 973 Track LoaderTotal Hours:Hours Used48044S12e01199Total MOWS .tlstrutdtl0ns Given by five Government to the Connector (tidude names . reacbore. w remarks.)verbal0M1101,11713The OAR approved an alternate seed mix for tundra planting . Memo is attachedWoAt Progress Am tiere any Confsctor caused delays or potential finding of tact?Am flare any Government caused delays or potential finding of !ad?M fare any umtoreseeabl or weather related delays?R,amarb (Widude airy welters b project and micttanearsYo OYes 0Ya.ONoNoNoremarks pertinent b worth-)Weather cancelled the scheduled arrival of the Resident Engineer from the Fairbanks Resident Office, USAGE .The project Archeologist monitored debris removal from archaeological site XSL-005, annexed to Area 8 ., MonitoredNavy sub-detection wire removal from archaeological site XSL-002, in Area 5, Navy sub-detection wire removal fromhillside adjacent to archaeological site XSL-001, in Area 5 . and Monitored debris removal from among grave boxes inArea 3.I certify fit go above report is complete and correct and hat at materials and egt4proerd used . work performed and tests oonduct .d during in period as, in strich -1 1above .compliance with t e cweract plans and specifications 6311"trant anutunDebGovernment Oualhy Assurance CommentsCongas with five OC report?Addbonal comments or wcepiona :Vtorcheir' 4r 17 (--)~-`ryG-r'2't` r.am.11010/slgmtum-~99MVI-P,aYUXNDr%Yk0-, L AAs, &e, r53AO-rat P ti>gu,`,-,~&V,6710" h44- Nor YET ,2 ,0+0t is(j,t)sr.e g ! ? 3upervl. or's Initial217--- --1- --Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalHTWDebrisActualWeight toDatecSitesContaminated SoilStained soilc‚ActualWeight toDateSite 21600020024985Site 3770121060011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214033821877Site 4/Area 4B905801223017840SIte4/Area 4D1000638108306483Site 531525720470078970Area DeTweensite 5 and 355Site 6350Site 7150Site 811500077791620088844790Site 10130022123009280540Site 12100798255081547830Site 13300343000104000103969100299200Totals 12 105237Percent of Con tract Wt 83%1644949247 40000305%Page 140485 104000 103969101%100%Asof 8/12/99,8 25 PMOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title :Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , AlaskaDate :1999Time :Briefing Location :o-'k 0~(rActivities Planned :fBriefer :`Ite 7oTopic :Xc" ~nn,GYt,~to l-Topic :Topic :Briefer.Topic :Topic :Topic :AttendeesW, ZDate: 1 01999rte ~`Environmcntal Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportnEft 1I%1,to.')Contract Number I OWKWy Order Number .DACAUS91Z-W0/0 . O . 0004UPCJProlect TitleDebris Removal and Contalnertzed Hazardous and Toxic West. RemovalCQC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team9!-0318/13/99Gamb.l, AlaskaWeetWr ConditionTemp Low 44 Tap N 111Wind SpendI . /S KnotsContractorOil Split Consultants, Inc.Conditions leo a m - sumo p mQuality Control Inspections Perform ed This Oat. (Include inspections . results . deftaenues observed . and corrective action)O s . . .e died cMckIMPreperasoryttAal0 s .o aesdee U.ctl.rFosovwUpa Debris Removal Demolition of Navy Shack . Sle 10 Work going wen . no deflcencxsFinal inspections : A final inspection of multiple sites was conducted by the CQC and the QAR . The following were theresults :Site 3 - The deficiencies identified by the previous final inspection were corrected satisfactorily by Daniel. The site was accepted by the QAR .Apassingok . Robert Tungiyan , and Gordon OozovasekSite 4a - The site was accepted by the QAR without deficiencies.Site 4b - The site was accepted by OAR contingent upon completion of the attached punchlist .Site 4d - The site was accepted by QAR contingent upon completion of the attached punchlist .Site 5 - The site was accepted by the QAR without deficiencies .Site 8 - The site was accepted by QAR contingent upon completion of the attached punchlist .Was the deficiency racking tit updated this daleField Sampling and TeeingHas Reld testing been perbrmed this date?Type d testY .e 0No aYes D No eMetlrod/Matrix Quantity of samples ResultsNO FIELD TESTING TODAYHave Data Quality Objectives been achieved? WAHave Samples Soon Cofcted for Laboratory Analysis ?Type d Tat EPA TestYesoNo(:)Y.sO MooMedvd/MatruQuarmtyofSamplesNO SAMPLING TODAYHave required amount of QC tip blanks and rmsates been achieved?NAOYesONoDHave appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 ( matrix spikes . method blanks . surrogates . reference standards . etc) N/AOYesONoDHave QA erect QC samples been collected i n the speared guantiyt Not requi ed by Delivery order wAOYesONo(Have samples been prop" labele d and packaged?NADYesONoDHealth and SafetyWorker protection kveis In daft : Level A D Level B 0 Level C 0 Level 0 e wADWas any work acbwty Conducted wenin a conch ed space ?Yes 0 NoeWas any work activity conducted wietin an are d determined 10 be immediately dangerous to life and he i h?Yes 0 MooWere approved decartanwkaeon procedures Used an workers and equipment as required ?Yes 0 NoeSalety Canrnents: (Include any i.Nractlons d approved safety plan. and include instructions from Go eroment Personnel . Speay correClhe action taken.)The Superintendent stressed the importance of radio communication and strict adherence to the buddy system for crewsworking in remote sections of the tundra . Planned work include collecting Navy signal cable from remote areas of thetundra. Crews working in pairs must insure that the buddy system would always been in effect and that effective radiocommunication was always maintained .GAR SAFETY COMMENTS:U c>ON-'tst 5 .w 4' t ,e-i'-f 0'&!z _Isue= ETY keve, Low SEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Report(ER °151-302)Continuation SheetYllort Activ11ee petorm.d This OMsReference (NAS b WT .c+ Spec 9)Acsvlty & Locationouanerystained Sod Rsmo.S (NAS 0 0019 . 02050)No stained sod was conecled or processed .40065 10 d Stained sod removed to date p pw OeHTW RsmovM (NM 0 0022 .02050)No HTW was collected or processed49 .247 b d 11TW removed 10 date poleci .wideDebris Remove/ (NAS 0 0020 . 02030)Debris removal acbvlbes nduded demokbon of 6w NavyCable shack and renoud of ew Navy signal wire kymSine 10105 .237 Ib d Oebns ramo* .d to date pro e,:1,0eCo *avmnated Sod (NAS 11) 0016 . 022201Removal of suppon facibes at Me excavation sine wined103 .969 Ib of contaminated Sod weighed to daisThis rlem completeManpoww and EqutpnnsrRLaborNumbertProlecs thawCQC Sysldn Marlaper1111supwwftx tOpaOMLaborers0Total Hours :EquipmentTyperanHoursCorwacsNumberHours Used124 wnee/er4461313121205Cat 425 loaderArgoNodwettPickupCat 966 LoaderCat 973 Track Loader10406e1110610148Total Hours 102Yatrucoons Given by the Government to tM Contractor (Include names . reac>ioru. and remarks .)verbal• Wrltsn ONONEYes O No aYes O No aYes O No aw11ort progress Are Here any Contractor caused delays or potential Iinrting of tautAre there any GovemmeM steed delays or potential tndirg d fociAre there any kxdoreseeable or weather related delays')Remarks (rhduda any vtibrs to project and misceaneous remarks pertinent Io work)The scheduled visit by the Resident Engineer from the Fairbanks Resident Office , USACE was cancelled .I certify that the above report is complete and correct and that ad materials and equipment used . work performed erd tests conduced during 6rs penod were in s61Ctcomprance with the conaaa pons and speaflcab9 S except as npteSaepveGovernment Quanty Assurance CommentsCantaas with to QC report?AdQktional c r nman or MCGO ins ::1 K/LANtYsr,,N c- f+ L L4 r' 'S ~ c °v G01 ~L 2a~'7 c w r ~S D k° 'cAgopwZ> 0 8 ct~-~-~ 'n ES i1-r" (7 S~`~`+ P L_ t ~~ vr~ 17 t .v'~t`~ v~ .o DS o_A- (2t1QLZT-zc'7~ .~-t~ Lp ~~Tt e f= /t~t_ L9i4i-o/3-s~9 -GSM D/7 -s/fey-?7 36 /Sv~~:-,9 -6 .9 -fz9% 6,9A1 /7 S~Relinquished by : (Printed )(Signature)/ /v3o ySD ate /TimeReceived by: (Printed)(Signature)Relinquished by: (Printed)Received by : (Printed)(Signature)(Signature)Dispatched by: (Printed)Received at laboratory by :(Signature)Me thod of Shipment :Condition of ContainersComments:Good Fair PoorReceived TomEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportrQcontred Number ! Delivery Order Number :s.t°xatUPC/P"*ectTM:.QACASS- R-0-001010 . 0. 0004 Debrb Removal and Contain erized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalCGC Report Number Date or Time P.Aod loutfon end TomW1319fGambell , Alaska99--0{tCondlllwrsContractoryre.rherTemp Low 44VAnd SpedTemp H111 - 1a KnobConditions Iba a .m ., sunny o m .On spin Coemufdndft ktc.O,&" Control InspedfonS Perfonrrd This Date (rrdude i specbons . resorts . degcevwies observed . and correctrie scow.)1111"ab,y 0 am .aarrrr4 dbeeaatrwal0 as* s0 ectmd tdwaaarrFollow-up 0Was fvo dercpar q vas nq Ibt updated t hisdateYea0NoFlow semparr4 and Testl qVieQNoHas km bsfno been pafbnmed Otia date?Meelod tit slz ouarvly d samples ResultTwo d ledaNONEVisa No•" own Quality 00)ernea been ad eved7 WAHenMay. Ssnpies Seen collected for Laboratory Ana"?EPATest MeecdMarbEType d TomVisa No•ouer" d SamoaNONEWACYnONoCWACYee(NoIWAOYssOMoOWACYnQNOCHave re *ed sn td d QC Mq bterrb and rinsates been aclweved9Have pproprl.b QC 4borabq haft been ordered 7 (mabbr spikes. method blanks, wrrogates . reference standards . sue..)Have GA and QC samples been coaxted In the specMed Oraidty?Have samptw been propelly labeled a nd/teeth are So"Warkr polac7fon levels fileclaimLevel A O Lever a Q Level C 0 Lave oYea O No•Was anywork adrAy condur.'t.d W M a ooryMrd spas?Yes Q No•Wee tryeemt acth Iy oonduCtad all an area dMOI &htod b be h e atefy danger . a b tie and healthyWare apprued dsoord . *w1lon proosdurM mend on workers aid .quipment as regrirard?Safety Cor merr (Include arty I *actfa +a d approved sandy plan , and include Instruraons from Gores menu peiso wYea O No•. Spedfy COrred9ve ad ion take n.)The Superintendent emphasized the need for teamwork as fundamental to a safe work environment The concept goesbeyond simply the buddy system and correct use of spotters when operating equipment . He urged personnel keep awareof their complete working environment. Communication of potential hazards to coworkers , synchronization of tasksbetween personnel working In dose proximity , and general awareness of what those around were doing are vital to a safeworking environment for everybody .GAR SAFETY COM9aENMOAR NOT ON SITEWW%Ac& Perronr .d This OdeRa/Yrerm (HAS D .ITed+ Spec 0)Arlvfy&Locasonotsr+fbConlraclorSite cleanup work completed . Weighing and loading of cleanup material completed today . Cleanup of contractor'sstaging area completed today. Packing of contractor's tools started today .uanpaw.r . nd EgrrtpnrntLaborc1b"McatdonPsolad Marlowcoc systarm amarrpersuperM~MrdwtPichednidtowswtaboorsEquipmentNumber11I17ManHoursType12II13047$4 wheelerCat 424 ioederArgoNadwaPkierpCat 904 LoaderCat 977 Trsclt LoaderTool Hours:120NumberHours Used4$041f11II4440104Tao/ Hours :114M aft uceonee Given by the 0ovenrarr* In 610 Contr .dor (Ir chide names, resdos, and remarks .)NONEfMork Flowsea Ate two any Ca *scor emmed delays or potsn6el M&V d fact?Me fin arty Oov vneik esmed delays or polenfel fti* g d IoWMe two any to* rsenabla or omens related dsMye?QYea E3Yea Q0NoNo 11No~aviroa mental Quality Costrol/Quality Assurance Report .(E/141 -1-Continuation SheetRemaru (1ncAida &V rlalbrs b prci aand m1,adaneam rartlab par U.0 b work)The Project Archeologist . OAR. and one operator left the site today .and 8%M M matartata and spuiprnant aced, wont parlonned and Mate conducted " tt+is penod wen in WICI oarWy &W M …oa raporl h owmplaa and ool'oomomm s win t o C0 110-t plans and spacMcaiOM COWGovanmant OAft Msuranee CormnnbCanaats wm ft OC rapo l?rea D No Q .Addltlonal CarrtnNnb ar a)capUa s:OAR NOT ON SITEOIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous WasteRemovalProject Site Location :and ToxicGambell , AlaskaTime : q GdBriefing Location:U42 GTopic : ____Topic:Topic:BrieferTopic:Topic:Topic:AttendeesDate:1999f4Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportER .fir1Consract Number / 13wt .ery Order Numberwh.,UPCiProfect TitleD.bds Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalOACASS- 97-0 d010IO .O . 0 004COC Report NumberDate or Time PeriodLocation and Team99.0428/16/99Gambel, AlaskaWeatherr ConditionsTemp Low 44 Temp HI 46KnotsIS-20Wind SpeedContractorConditions fog a m Sunny o mOil Spill Consultants . IncQuality Control Inspections Performed This Date (Include Inspections results del c+enc es ooserved and corrective act,on,Preparatory 0 s.. attached ch.ckasthrISMO ..e . itached ch.ckastFollows-1 .1%)0Was the deficie ncy tracking li st updated this dateField Sampling and TestingHas field testing peenType of lestyes Q Noperformedthisdate'YesMetrod/Matn : Ouantny of samplesONoResultsNONEHave Data Qualify Objectives been achieved?N/AYesOMaeHave Samples Been Collected for Laboratory Malysks?TypeofTestEPAYes0 MooTestMemod /Matrix Quantity of SampiesNONEHave regtared amount d QC trip blanks and nnsates been achieved?MAOYesONOCHare appropriate QC laboratory tests been ordered) (matron spikes . method blanks . surrogates . reference standards . etcIN/ACYesCNoOQAandOCsamplesbeencollectedinftspecifiedquantity?N/AOYhONoCHaverrtylabeledandpackaged?MAOYHare sampes been p ope.sONoDH..Rh and Safetyworker proaction levels tss daft Level A O Level B O Level C O Level DWas any work actrety conducted within aconfinedspace?YesOWas any work actrvey conducted within an area determured lobe immediately dangerous to life and healm?Yes0Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment asrequired?YesOSafely Comments ( Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include instructions from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )MAONo•No•Ho•The Superintendent stressed the need to use care while operating ATVs on the tundra . This was important in light of theday's planned activities which included spreading fertilizer on the disturbed portions of the tundra Drivers should not bedistracted by the fertilizer spreading , maintaining their concentration on driving . The proper PPE for handling fertilizerwas also discussed . This included gloves and dust mask type respirators .OAR SAFETY COMMENTS :QAR NOT ON SITEWoAt Activities Performed This DateReference (NAS o !/Tech Spec e)Acbety &LocationQuantityContractorSpreading fertilizer was complete today .Manpower and EquipmentLaborClassificationProtect ManagerCOC System ManagerSupennMndentArcheologistLaborersTotal HoursNumbertManHoutsEquipmentTypetta wheelert11Cat 426 loader1t06120ArgoNodwellCat 973 Track Loader615892Instructions Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactions, andremarks)NumberHours Usedr480IToo hoursr.0092Verbal O Wrf1t'n ONONEWore Progress Are there any Contractor caused delays or potential finding of fad?Arc there arty Government caused delays or potential finding d fact?Are there any unforeseeable or weather related delays?Yes OYes OYes 0Remarks (include any, nsiton b protect and miscellaneous remarks pertinent to work)2 laborers left the site todayINoNoNoEnvironmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance ReportIt 41S- I .3m)Continuation SheetI cart y f e+. .bove report b comp/N . and corre ct and o at M mae .Aa1. and .qu *m .nt u ..d . work p.r*xm.d and sets c0nduct .d dunnq ews parod were n stnscampiarr‡ wfel e s oon trsd plans and spsciecaeon s s kept as, pasd abotis.Gov .mm.nt Quataty Assurance CommentsConcurs wref e s QC rspori?Add*onal comments or exceptions .Yet 0No0CHAR NOT ON SITEQAR Sagnatur.Dab99-042Sup. rvboes baud2OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E . 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title :Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location :Gambell , AlaskaActivities Planned :1999 Time : (37x)/.fƒ~iirsZ1,0.1rjBriefing Location :6 0Topic: 0424Briefer.Topic:'~Pz~i/'z~fnTopic:Topic:Briefer:Topic:Topic:~l.~/~~p~~c f7oNAttendeesICC0 d 1- 0 1 6c,Site Healthand Safety Officer,Date :1999. 4///~-Environmental Quality Control/Quality Assurance Reporthot 41 s 1 .14:1UPCfihx4 eCt TAIeContact Number I Dekvery Order NumberDACABS- 97-0-0010 /D.O. 0004 Oebsls Removal and Containe rized Hazardous and T o xi c Waste RemovalCOC Report Number Date or Time Period Location and Team8/1 7/99Ga mbeil . Al as ka99 41143WeatherConditionsContractorTemp Low 44 Temp HI 44Wind SpeedConditions loo, cloudy . intermmtteM acrg ramcalm - 10 KnollOil Spill Consultants, Inc .Quality Control Inspections Performed This Date (khdude inspecbons . results defoenues observed . and correctwe action)Preparasory 0 s . e aftachad ch.ckletIrbal 0 see amdhod thicksetFollow-Up0Material TrackingThe regulatory specialist and the COC performed final correction of the database, re-checking against all original weightickets . The final corrected numbers 142 , 324 lb for debris, 53,738 lb for HTW items , 39,889 lb for stained soil and103 .885 lb of contaminated soil removed by the project .Was the dehoenc7 tracJung list upd ated thus dateField Sampling and TestingHas leld testing been performed tens dale?Type of testYes 0 NoYes o NoMethodi%atnxQuanrty of samplesResultsNONEHey. Data Quality Objedbes been achie ved? WAHave Samples Been Collect ed for Laboratory Analysis?Type of Test EPATest kMethod/tAathuYes(:]No•YssONo•Quantity of SamplesNONEN/AOYesDNoOHave required amount of OC lnp blanks and nnsates been acrieied ?Have apprrphate QC laboratory tests been ordered 7 (matrix spikes . method blanks . s:n*ogates, reference standards . etc 1 WAOY9s0NooHays QA and OC samples been collected in the specified quanta?N/ADYesDNoOWAOYesONOQHave samples been properly labeled and pack s e~Q?Health and SafetyLevel A 0 Level B 0 Level C 0 Level 0 • WADWorker protection levels this date :Yes D No•Was any work activity conducted within a confined space ?Yes 0 MOBWas any work activity conducted within an area determined to be immediately dangers b fife and heaith7Were approved decontamination procedures used on workers and equipment as re„rired ?Yes0NomSafety Comments. (Include any infractions of approved safety plan . and include i hmAons from Government personnel Specify corrective action taken )The Superintendent stressed the need to use care while operating ATVs on the tundra . This was important in light of theday's planned activities which included spreading fertilizer on the disturbed portions of the tundra Drivers should not bedistracted by the fertilizer spreading, maintaining their concentration on driving . The proper PPE for handling fertilizerwas also discussed . This included gloves and dust mask type respirators .QAR SAFETY COMMENTS :QAR NOT ON SITEWork ActlvItles Performed This DataReferent. (NAS ID *Tech Spec 6) Activity & LocationQuantityContractorSeeding was completed today . The silt fence was not installed ( see remarks section) . All contract work for the project iscomplete . All punch list items were completed today . Mobikzation started today .Manpower and EquipmentLaborclasdlicadonProled ManagerNumberCQC System WanagerSupairAendentArcheologistLaborersTotal Hours'EquipmentTypeManHoursNumberNoun Us.d1112144 wheelerCat 426 loader4124105905792ArgoNodwellCat 973 Track Loader601Total Hours160040m and remarks )Insttudfons Given by the Government to the Contractor (Include names . reactionsNONEIverbal0 Written 00Environmental Quality ControUQuality Assurance Report(ER 415 - 1 .302)Continuation SheetYesAre awe any unforeseeable or weattw related Mays)C3NoRemsvts (1neJude any wsnors to protect' and miscellaneous remartcs perbnent b workThe project manager for the sub contractor arrived today .After seeding the crew started erecting silt fence across the few areas of potential erosion . Concerns were raised by themembers of the crew who were local residents that placement of fence across trails might posed a hazard to ATV ridersusing the trails . During the lunch break the CQC . Superintendent, and members of the crew consulted with the ProjectLiaison, Burt Oosevaseuk . The Liaison confirmed that the silt fence could be a danger to those in the area . He alsoadded that local residents would probably remove much of the fencing to salvage the materials . He confirmed that itwould be in the best interest of the local community not to install any silt fencing . Sift fence installation was deleted atthe request of the Project Liaisonii cart,ty mat e+e above repon a complete and correct and ttlat all matenals and equipment used , work Performed and tests conducted dunng this psnod were in sahacom liance coral ale contract plans and specjfcabons exep( as /bled /borecontrol Manager'tJ/,BSignatureDateGovernment Quality A ssurance CommentsCa+CUrswMAddbonal comments or ex epbonstheQCreporrrYes0QAR NOT ON SITEQAR SignatureMeSupervisors initialNo0OIL SPILL CONSULTANTS, INC .209 E. 51st AvenueAnchorage , Alaska 99503(907) 562-7169Safety Meeting MinutesProject Title : Debris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste and ToxicRemovalProject Site Location : Gambell, AlaskaDate:i 1999 Time :C) 7 X)Briefing Location :ez&Activities Planned :v+~~ TBriefer:? L~ 14Topic :Topic :Topic :Briefer:Topic :Topic :Topic :AttendeesDSite Healthand Safety Officer :mDate :1999Weight SummaryDebris removal and Containerized HTW RemovalDebrisHTWActualWeight toDateAciuau LaWeight to csite*Datec40Contaminated SoilStained soilActualIActualWeight to c Weight toDatec0i 39 1 DateSite 21600020024982Site 3770188060011500Site 4/Area 4A541012348214024241877Site 4/Area 489051052223017840Site4/Area 4D1000696806008463Site 5315826804700Area t)enAoeeA-- 'site 5 and 3551441100Site 63501748078970Site 7150Site 81150001080906200128074790Site 1013001388230012516540Site 12100798255087027237Site 133003430001040001038850Totals 127255 142324 16140 53738Percent of Con tract Wt 112 %333%Page 140000 39889 104000 103885100%100%Asof8/17/99 .8 54 PMRA: :CGY EASLEYrVANDY EASLEYL O'r NUMBER425.081399L%-'T NUMBER...~4NT. DESCRIPTIONArctared FescueAnnual RyePERCENTDESCRIPTION '48 .28 %Norran Tufts,a Mavgrass39 .10%Arctared Fescue9 .91%Annual RyeGERM ORIGIN T .C° r%tran Tu/te1 Harrgrass4r5-(a130g65% AK Feb-9985% CAN Mar-9990% ORJar-99OTHER CROP SEECINERT MATTERr- C8%2 J8%OTHER CROP SEEDINERT MATTERQ..25100 00°.:WEED SEEDGEF*' r85% AK Nb.Fe;985% CAN `far . ;;90°%. OR Jan- ; :Wt~.t r) SEEDNO NOXIOUS WEEDSNET WEIGHTNO NOXIOUS WEEDSNET WEIGHT30 LBS:r'/ LBSALASKA GARDEN & PET St°F-,f14 N ORCA s r .ALASKA GARDEN & PET SUPPLY114 N . ORCA STANr'HC 1 r. RE . AK 99`01RANDY EASLEY.01 r'4UlVu,tRPERCENT48 .28%39 .10%9 .91%0 .08%2.38%026DESCRIPTION GERM . ORIGINNortran Tufted Ha:grass 85%AKArctared Fescue 85% CANAnnual Rye90% OROTHER CROP SEEDINERT MATTERWEED SEED425-081399LOT NUMBER425-081399PERCENT48 . 20%39 .10%911%0 .03%2 .38%T/DFeb-99Mar-99Jan-990.26%DESCR IPTION GERM .Nortran Tufted Hai rgrass 85%Arctared Fe scueAnnual RyeOTHER CR OP SEEDORIGINAKT: DFeb-9CANORMar-9Jan-985%90%INERT MATTERWEED SEE D100 .00%100.00%'J I^°'NEFDSr.~wRANDY EASLEYRANDY EASLEYLOT NUMBERDESCRIPTION/PERCENTNo Iran Tufted Haugrass48 .28%Arctared Fescue39 .10%Annual Rye9 .91%OTHER CROP SEED0 .08%INERT MATTER2 .38%WEED SEFO0.25$100 .00% -425-081399GERM .85%85%90%LOT NUMBER :425-081399PERCENT DESCRIPTIONGERM . ORIGIN85% AK85% CAN90% ORORIGIN:T/ONorlran Tufleo Hrrgrass4328%39 .10% Arctared Fescu=.CANORMar-_9 .91% Annual Rye0 .08% OTHER CROP SEEDJam-992 .38% INERT MATTERQ2 WEED SEED' 00 .00%NO NOX OUS WEEDSNET WEIGHT 30 LBSALb.SKA GARDEN & PET SUPPLYT/DFeb-9cMar-9EJan-99Appendix ELaboratory Data SummaryAppendix ETable of ContentsDescriptionTableNo.TCLP VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Waste Identification Samples5ATCLP SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Waste Identification Samples5BTCLP PCB Results by EPA Method 8082 for Waste Identification Samples5C-1TCLP PCB Results by EPA Method 8082 for Transformer Wipe Samples5C-2TCLP Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Waste Identification Samples5DTCLP Herbicide Results by EPA Method 8150 for Waste Identification Samples5EVOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation Samples (mg/kg)6A-1VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation Samples (mg/L)6A-2SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation Samples6BPCB Results by EPA Method 8082 for Confirmation Samples6CPesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation Samples6DTable 5ATCLP VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Waste Identification SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999UnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No.99-GAM-001-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-002-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-003-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-004-SL(Site 2Sample No .99-GAM-005-SLSite 4/46Benzenemg /L0 .5U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Carbon tetrachloridemg/L0 .5U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Chlorobenzenemg/L100 .0U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Chloroformmg/L6 .0U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/L7 .5U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/L0 .5U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/L0 .7U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)2-Butanone ( MEK)mg /L200 .0U (0 .50)U (0 .50)U (0 .50)U (0 .50)U (0 .50)Tetrachloroethenemg/L0 .7U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Trichloroethenemg/L0 .5U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Vinyl chloridemg/L0 .2U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)U (0 .10)Anal esNotes:1.2.mg/L means milligrams per liter ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3.Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F.4.5.TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for VOA .Regulatory limits are from 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .Table 5BTCLP SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Waste Identification SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999UnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-001-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-002-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-003-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-004-SL(Site 2Sample No .99-GAM-005-SL(Site 4/4B2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/L200 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/L200 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/L0 .13U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Hexachlorobenzenemg/L0.13U (0.017)U (0.018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Hexachlorobutadienemg/L0 .5U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Hexachloroethanemg/L3.0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0.015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Nitrobenzenemg/L2 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Pentachlorophenolmg/L100 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Pyridinemg/L5 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/L400 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/L2 .0U (0 .017)U (0 .018)U (0 .015)U (0 .014)U (0 .022)Anal esNotes :1.2.3.4.mg/L means milligrams per liter ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for SVOA.5.Regulatory limits are from 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .Table 5C-1TCLP PCB Results by EPA Method 8082 for Waste Identification SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999UnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-001-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-002-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-003-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-004-SLSite 2Sample No .99-GAM-005-SL(Site 4/46Aroclor-1016pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1221pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1232pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1242pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1248pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1254pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Aroclor-1260pg/L0 .5U (0 .179)U (0 .190)U (0 .151)U (0 .105)U (0 .279)Anal esNotes:1.2.3.4.5.pg/L means microgram per liter."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for PCB .Regulatory limit for PCBs obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table C .Table 5C-2TCLP PCB Results by EPA Method 8082for Transformer Wipe SamplesDebris Removal and-Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999Sample No .99-GAM-006-W(Site 4Sample No .99-GAM-007-WSite 4Sample No .99-GAM-008-W(Site 4Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsAroclor-1016pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1221pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1232pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1242pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1248pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1254pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Aroclor-1260pg/wipe10 mg/100 cmZU (1 .00)U (1 .00)U (1 .00)Notes :1 . pg/wipe means micrograms per 100 cmZ wipe .2 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3. Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4 . TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for PCB .5 . Sample collected by wiping the internal wall with a hexane wipe prepared by the projectlaboratory .6 . Regulatory limit for PCBs obtained from 40 CFR 761 .3.Table 5DTCLP Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Waste Identification SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999RegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-001-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-002-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-003-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-004-SL(Site 2Sample No .99-GAM-005-SL(Site 4/4BAnal esUnitsgamma -Chlordanepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)alpha-Chlordanepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)alpha-BHCpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)beta-BHCpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)gamma -BHC(Lindane)pg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)delta-BHCpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Heptachlorpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Aldrinpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Heptachlor epoxidepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endosulfan Ipg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)pg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)4,4'-DDEU (0 .0151)U (0 .0151)Dieldrinpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endrinpg/L0 .0395U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endosulfan IIpg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)4,4'-DDDpg/L0 .0486U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endrin aldehydepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)4,4'-DDTpg/L0 .0274U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endosulfan sulfatepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Endrin ketonepg/LU (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Methoxychlorpg/L10 .0U (0 .0179)U (0 .0190)U (0 .0151)U (0 .0105)U (0 .0279)Toxaphenepg/L0 .5U (1 .79)U (1 .90)U (1 .51)U (1 .05)U (2 .79)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.6.0 .0080 .008pg/L means micrograms per liter ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for pesticides .Regulatory limits are from 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .U (0 .0279)Table 5ETCLP Herbicide Results by EPA Method 8150 for Waste Identification SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : July 19, 1999UnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-001-SL(Site 8Sample No.99-GAM-002-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-003-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-004-SL(Site 2Sample No .99-GAM-005-SL(Site 4/4B2,4-Dmg/L10U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)Silvex (2,4,5-TP)mg/L1 .0U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)U (0 .010)Anal esNotes :1.mg/L means milligrams per liter .2.3."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4.5.TCLP extraction by EPA 1311 was performed for herbicides .Regulatory limits are from 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .Table 6A-1VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No. DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-009-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-010-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-011-SL(Site 12Dichlorodifluoromenthanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .17)U (0 .11)U (0 .093)U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0.019)U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0.019)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kg1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kg2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Carbon tetrachloridemg/kg0 .03U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Benzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Trichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .0593)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)trans-l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date: August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No.99-GAM-009-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-010-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-011-SL(Site 12Dibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgu (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Ethylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Isopropyl benzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Bromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2,3-Trichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)tert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)U (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg1100 .87n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .34)U (0 .22)U (0 .19)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Naphthalenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .034)U (0 .022)U (0 .019)Notes :2431 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3 . Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4 . Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .5 . Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-012-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-013-SLSite 8Anal esUnitsDichlorodifluoromenthanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .18)U (0 .19)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .090)U (0 .095)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0.019)1,1-Dichlorethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0.019)2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Carbon tetrachloridemg/kg0 .03U (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Benzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Trichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)4-Methyl-2-pentanone ( MIBK)mg /kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)trans -l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A -1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-012-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-013-SL(Site 8Anal esUnitsDibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgu (0 .018)U (0 .019)Ethylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .018)U (0 .019)P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .018)U (0 .019)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .018)U (0 .019)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Bromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2,3-Trichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgu (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)tert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8U (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .018)U (0 .019)n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .18)U (0 .19)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Naphthalenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .018)U (0 .019)Notes :1102431 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3 . Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4 . Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1 , Method 2 .5 . Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6A -1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-014-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-015-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-016-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Dichlorodifluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .075)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .160)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .130)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .160)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .087)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .160)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .024)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .022)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .15)U (0 .15)U (0 .031)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .025)1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .021)2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .150)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .027)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .018)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .017)Carbon tetrachloridemglkg0 .03U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .020)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)Benzenemg /kg0 .02U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .018)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .045)Trichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .020)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .019)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .025)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .056)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .095)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)trans -l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .016)1,1,2-Tnchloroethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .016)1,3-Dichloropro panemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .023)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .110)120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-014-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-015-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-016-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Dibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .021)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .029)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)Ethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)U (0 .030)1105 .5P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .030)U (0 .030)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .016)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .024)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)Bromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .021)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .068)1,2,3-Thchloropropanemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .017)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .022)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .017)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .022)U (0 .018)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgtert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .018)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .021)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .020)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .015)n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .029)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .30)U (0 .30)U (0 .067)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .044)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .077)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .047)U (0 .030)U (0 .030)U (0 .052)1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzenemg/kgHexachlorobutadienemg/kgNaphthalenemg/kg1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kg243Notes : 1 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2. "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3. Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4. Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .5. Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .6. Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL, and 99-GAM-016-SL are parts of a triplicatesample where 99-GAM-014 is the project sample, 99-GAM-015-SL is the quality controlsample, and 99-GAM-016-SL is the quality assurance sample .Table 6A -1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-017-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-018-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-019-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Dichlorodifluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .094)U (0 .13)U (0 .14)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgu (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Carbon tetrachloridemg/kg0 .03U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Benzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Trichloroethenemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgu (0 .19)U (0.27)U (0 .29)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)trans -l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date: August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-017-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-018-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Sample No .99-GAM-019-SL(Site 4A/Area 4A)Dibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Ethylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Bromobenzenemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2,3-Trichloropropanemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)tert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgu (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kgU (0 .019)0 .0396U (0 .029)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .19)U (0 .27)U (0 .29)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Naphthalenemg/kgU (0 .019)1 .20U (0 .029)1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .019)U (0 .027)U (0 .029)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.110243mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-020-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-021-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-022-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Dichlorodifluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRChloromethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRVinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBromomethanemg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRChloroethanemg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRTrichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRCarbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRMethylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .19)U (0 .20)NRtrans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NR2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRcis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRChloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRCarbon tetrachloridemg/kg0 .030 .04960 .0442NR1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBenzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRTrichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRDibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRcis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRToluenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRtrans-1,3-Dichloroprope nemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRTetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NR120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A -1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-020-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-021-SL(Site 4A/Area 48Sample No .99-GAM-022-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRDibromochloromethanemg/kg1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgChlorobenzenemg/kg1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgEthylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRP&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRo-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRStryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRIsopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRBromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRNR1101,2,3-Tnchloropropanemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kg0 .04810 .0430NRtert-Butylbenzenemg/kg0 .04050 .0414NR1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRsec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kg0 .09610 .0998NR1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRn-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .38)U (0 .39)NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR0 .3820 .371NRU (0 .038)U (0 .039)NR1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kg'Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgNaphthalenemg/kg1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgNotes :1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.0 .87243mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appenadix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Samples 99-GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021-SL, and 99-GAM-022-SL are parts of a triplicate samplewhere 99-GAM-020 is the project sample, 99-G ;AM-021-SL is the quality control sample, and 99-GAM022-SL is the quality assurance sample .Based on Modification No . 04P4, VOA analyeas were not required for Sample No . 99-GAM-020-SLthrough 99-GAM-025-SL ."NR" means not run .Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatorySample No .99-GAM-023-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-024-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Anal esUnitsDichlorodifluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .27)U (0 .22)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .0150 .1640 .141trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1,1-Trchloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Carbon tetrachloridemg/kg0.03U (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Benzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0.015U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Trichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)trans-l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)Limits120 .0175_ .40 .6117Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-023-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-024-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Anal esUnitsDibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Ethylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .027)U (0 .022)P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .027)U (0 .022)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .027)U (0 .022)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Bromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2,3-Tnchloropropanemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,3,5-Tnmethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)tert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2,4-Tnmethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kg0 .0327U (0 .022)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8U (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .027)U (0 .022)n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .27)U (0 .22)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Naphthalenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .027)U (0 .022)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.6.110243mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1 , Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Numbers printed in boldface exceed regulatory limit .Table 6A-1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-025-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-026-SL(Site 6Sample No .99-GAM-027-SLMethanol Field BlankDichlorodifluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Chloromethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Vinyl chloridemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Bromomethanemg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)Chloroethanemg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Carbon disulfidemg/kg17U (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)Methylene chloridemg/kg0 .015U (0 .10 )0 .101U (0 .131)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1-Dichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)2-Butanone (MEK)mg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Bromochloromethanemg/kg0 .35U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Chloroformmg/kg0 .34U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1,1-Trichloroethanemg/kg1 .0U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Carbon tetrachloridemg/kg0 .03U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Benzenemg/kg0 .02U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/kg0 .015U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Trichloroethenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Dibromomethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Bromodichloromethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0.262)Toluenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)trans-l,3-Dichloropropenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1,2-Trichloroethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Tetrachloroethenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)2-Hexanonemg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)120 .0175 .40 .017Table 6A -1 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-025-SL(Site 4A/Area 4B)Sample No .99-GAM-026-SL(Site 6Sample No .99-GAM-027-SLMethanol Field BlankDibromochloromethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Chlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Ethylbenzenemg/kg5 .5U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)P&M-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)o-Xylenemg/kg78U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Stryrenemg/kg1 .3U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Bromoformmg/kg0 .38U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Bromobenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2,3-Trichloropropanemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)n-Propylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)2-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)4-Chlorotoluenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)tert-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)sec-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)n-Butylbenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/kgU (0 .20)U (0 .14)U (0 .262)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)Naphthalenemg/kgU (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)U (0 .020)U (0 .014)U (0 .0262)1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneNotes :1.2.3.4.5.6.mg/kg110243mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ." U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341 , -Fable B1 , Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Numbers printed in boldface exceed regulattory limits .Table 6A-2VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-028-SLMethanol Trip BlankDichlorodifluoromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Chloromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Vinyl chloridemg/LBromomethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Chloroethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Trichlorofluoromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)1,1-Dichloroethenemg/LU (0 .00100)Carbon disulfidemg/LU (0 .0100)Methylene chloridemg/LU (0 .00500)trans-l,2-Dichloroethenemg/LU (0 .00100)1, 1 -Dichloroethanemg/L2-Butanone (MEK)mg/LU (0 .0100)2,2-Dichloropropanemg/LU (0 .00100)cis-1,2-Dichloroethenemg/LU (0 .00100)Bromochloromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Chloroformmg/L1,1,1-Tdchloroethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Carbon tetrachloridemg/LU (0 .00100)1,1-Dichloropropenemg/LU (0 .00100)Benzenemg/L0 .5U (0 .00100)1,2-Dichloroethanemg/L0 .5U (0 .00100)Trichioroethenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2-Dichloropropanemg/LU (0 .00100)Dibromomethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Bromodichloromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethermg/LU (0 .0100)cis-1,3-Dichloropropenemg/LU (0 .00100)4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)mg/LU (0 .0100)Toluenemg/LU (0 .00100)trans-l,3-Dichloropropenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,1,2-Trichioroethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Tetrachloroethenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,3-Dichloropropanemg/LU (0 .00100)2-Hexanonemg/LU (0 .0100)0 .20 .56 .0U (0 .00100)U (0 .00100)U (0 .00100)Table 6A-2 (Continued)VOA Results by EPA Method 8260 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-028-SLMethanol Tri BlankDibromochloromethanemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2-Dibromoethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Chlorobenzenemg/L1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/LU (0 .00100)Ethylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)P&M-Xylenemg/LU (0 .00100)o-Xylenemg/LU (0 .00100)Stryrenemg/LU (0 .00100)Bromcformmg/LU (0 .00100)Isopropylbenzene (Cumene)mg/LU (0 .00100)Bromobenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethanemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2,3-Trichloropropanemg/LU (0 .00100)n-Propylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)2-Chlorotoluenemg/LU (0 .00100)4-Chlorotoluenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)tert-Butylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)sec-Butylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)4-Isopropyltoluenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/Ln-Butylbenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropanemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)Hexachlorobutadienemg/LNaphthalenemg/LU (0 .00100)1,2,3-Trichlorobenzenemg/LU (0 .00100)100 .07 .50 .5U (0 .00100)U (0 .00100)U (0 .00100)Notes : 1 . mg/L means milligrams per liter.2 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is thelaboratory detection limit .3 . Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4. Regulatory limits are from 40 CFR 261 .30, Table 1 .5 . Blank space in regulatory 6imits column means that no limit iscited in 20 CFR 261 .30 .Table 6BSVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Sample No .99-GAM-009-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-010-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-011-SL(Site 12N-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Pyridinemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Anilinemg/kgu (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Phenolmg/kg67U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)u (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimits2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .41,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgBenzyl Alcoholmg/kg1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)0 .8bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgu (11)U (0 .35)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0 .00036U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Isophoronemg/kg3U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (11)U (0 .35)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzenemg/kg2U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Naphthalenemg/kg43U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (22)U (0 .71)U (0 .71)U (0 .35)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgu (11)U (0 .35)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (22)U (0 .71)U (0 .71)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg90U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)Dimethylphthalatemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Acenaphthylenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)0 .0044Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsmg/kgAcenaphthene0 .2Sample No .99-GAM-009-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-010-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-011-SL(Site 12u (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)Dibenzofuranmg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Diethylphthalatemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Fluorenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)0 .0052704-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (11)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (11)U (0.35)U (0 .35)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (56)U (1 .8)U (1 .8)U (11)U (0.35)U (0 .35)3 .4Phenanthrenemg/kgAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg1,700U (11)U (0.35)U (0 .35)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Pyrenemg/kg1,500U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Azobenzenemg/kgu (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .71)5,6003,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (22)U (0 .71)Benzo(a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Chrysenemg/kg620U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (11)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Dibenzo(a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Benzo(g,h,i]perylenemg/kgU (11)U (0 .35)U (0 .35)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-012-SL(Site 8Sample No.99-GAM-013-SL(Site 8N-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Pyridinemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Anilinemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Phenolmg/kg67U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (0 .32)U (0 .32)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Benzyl Alcoholmg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (0 .32)U (0 .32)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0.,00036U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Isophoronemg/kg3U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (1 .6)U (1 .6)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzenemg/kg2U (0 .32)U (0 .32)0 .8Naphthalenemg/kg43U (0 .32)U (0 .32)4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (0 .65)U (0 .65)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (0 .65)U (0 .65)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg90U (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .6)Dimethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Acenaphthylenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .6)0 . .0044Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-012-SL(Site 8Sample No .99-GAM-013-SL(Site 8U (0 .32)U (0 .32)U (1 .6)U (1 .6)Acenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .6)Dibenzofuranmg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Diethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Fluorenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .6)N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (1 .6)U (1 .6)U (0 .32)U (0 .32)0 .20-0052703 .4Phenanthrenemg/kgAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Di-n- butyl phtha latemg/kg1 .700U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Pyrenemg/kg1,500U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Azobenzenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kg5,600U (0 .32)U (0 .32)U (0 .65)3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg(}-02U (0 .65)Benzo(a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Chrysenemg/kg620U (0 .32)U (0 .32)bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (0 .32)U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (0 .32)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (0 .32)U (0 .32)lndeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg'54U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .32)U (0 .32)Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kgU (0 .32)U (0 .32)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ." U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provides in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6B ( Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-014-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-015-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-016-SL(Site 4A/Area 4AN-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (1 .200)Pyridinemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .890)Anilinemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .700)Phenolmg/kg67U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .620)Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .680)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .650)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .660)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .580)Benzyl Alcoholmg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .920)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .500)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .990)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .790)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)NRN-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0 .00036U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .750)Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .850)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .590)Isophoronemg/kg3U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .680)2-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .900)2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .590)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (46)U (46)U (1 .200)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0.720)1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kg2U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .680)Naphthalenemg/kg43U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .620)4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (18)U (18)U (0 .790)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (1 .700)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (18)U (18)U (0 .940)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .960)2-Methyl naphthalenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .660)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0.540)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0.740)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg90U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .800)2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .520)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (46)U (46)U (0 .650)Dimethylphthalatemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .540)Acenaphthylenemg/kgu (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .710)2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .910)3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (46)U (46)U (0 .770)0 .80 .0044Table 6B ( Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsAcenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgRegulatoryLimits0 .2Sample No .99-GAM-014-SL(Site 4ASample No.99-GAM-015-SL(Site 4ASample No .99-GAM-016-SL(Site 4AU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .610)U (46)U (46)U (0 .570)U (46)U (46)U (0 .570)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .560)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .690)Dibenzofuranmg/kg2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgDiethylphthalatemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .460)4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .540)Fluorenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .470)4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .720)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (46)U (46)U (0 .650)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .920)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .780)U (9 .0)U (0 .450)0 .005270N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kg3 .44-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgHexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (9 .1)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (46)U (46)U (0 .800)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .370)Phenanthrenemg/kgAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .580)Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg1,700U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .610)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .520)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .760)U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .690)U (9 .0)NRPyrenemg/kg1,500Azobenzenemg/kgButylbenzylphthalatemg/kg5,600U (9 .1)3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (18)U (18)U (8 .600)U (9 .0)U (0 .590)Benzo(a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (9 .1)Chrysenemg/kg620U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .540)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .780)U (9 .0)U (0 .540)Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (9 .1)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .610)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .620)U (0 .550)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (9 .1)U (9 .0)Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .520)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .570)Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kgU (9 .1)U (9 .0)U (0 .570)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.6.7.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Samples 99-GAM-017-SL are parts of a triplicate sample where 99-GAM-014-SL in the projectsample, 99-GAM-015-SL is the quality control sample and 99-GAM-016-SL is the qualityassurance sample ."NR" means not run .Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-001 0, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-017-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-018-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-019-SL(Site 4A/Area 4AN-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Pyridinemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Anilinemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Phenolmg/kg67U (0 .34)U (18)U (8.4)Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg0 .8Benzyl Alcoholmg/kg1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (0 .34)U (18)U (8.4)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)U (8 .4)0 .00036Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (0 .34)U (18)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Isophoronemg/kg3U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (1 .7)U (89)U (43)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzenemg/kg2U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Naphthalenemg/kg43U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (0 .69)U (36)U (17)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (0 .69)U (36)U (17)U (8 .4)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg90U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .7)U (89)U (43)mg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Acenaphthylenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .7)U (89)U (43)Dimethylphthalate0 .0044Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-017-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-018-SL(Site 4A/Area 4ASample No .99-GAM-019-SL(Site 4A/Area 4AU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)U (1 .7)U (89)U (43)Acenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .7)U (89)U (43)Dibenzofuranmg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (43)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Diethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)4-Chlorophenyi-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Fluorenemg /kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .7)U (89)U (43)N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (1 .7)U (89)U (43)U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)0 .20 .0052703 .4Phenanthrenemg/kgAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg1,700U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (0 .34)17 .4U (8 .4)Pyrenemg/kg1,500U (0 .34)25 .2U (8 .4)Azobenzenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Butyl benzylphtha latemg/kg5,600U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (0 .69)U (36)U (17)Benzo (a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Chrysenemg/kg620U (0 .34)U (18)U (8.4)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (0 .34)21 .4U (8 .4)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (0.34)U (18)U (8 .4)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (0.34)U (18)U (8 .4)Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Benzo[g ,h,i]perylenemg/kgU (0 .34)U (18)U (8 .4)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.6.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit ."NR" means not run by laboratory .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-020-SL(Site 4A/Area 413)Sample No .99-GAM-021 -SLSite 4A/Area 413)Sample No .99-GAM-022-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BN-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (9.4)U (3 .5)NRPyridinemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRAnilinemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRPhenolmg/kg67U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (3 .5)NRBis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (9 .4)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRBenzyl Alcoholmg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (3 .5)NR0 .8bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (9 .4)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRN-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0 .00036U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRHexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRIsophoronemg/kg3U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNR2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (9 .4)U (3 .5)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (48)U (18)NRBis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kg2U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNaphthalenemg/kg43U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (19)U (7 .2)NRHexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (19)U (7 .2)NR2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .69)U (3 .5)NRHexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNR2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg902-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (48)U (18)NRDimethylphthalatemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRAcenaphthylenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (48)U (18)NR0 .0044Table 6B ( Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-020-SL(Site 4A/Area 48Sample No .99-GAM-021-SLSite 4A/Area 48)Sample No.99-GAM-022-SL(Site 4A/Area 46U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (48)U (18)NRAcenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (48)U (18)NRDibenzofuranmg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRDiethylphthalatemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRFluorenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (48)U (18)NRN-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRHexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRPentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (48)U (18)NRPhenanthrenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRDi-n-butylphthalatemg/kg1,700U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRFluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRPyrenemg/kg1,500U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNR0 .20 .0052703 .4Azobenzenemg/kgU (9 .4)U (3 .5)Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kg5,600U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NR3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (19)U (7 .2)NRBenzo (a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNRChrysenemg/kg620U (9 .4)U (3 .5)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRDi-n-octylphtha latemg/kg810,000U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (3 .5)NRBenzo [b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (9 .4)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRBenzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRNRIndeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (9 .4)U (3 .5)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRU (9 .4)U (3 .5)NRmg/kgBenzo[g ,h,i]perylene1.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .Notes :7."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Samples 99-GAM-023-SL are parts of a triplicate sample where 99-GAM-020-SL is the project sample,99-GAM-021-SL is the quality control sample and 99-GAM-022-SL is the quality assurance sample .Based on Modification No . 04P4, SVOA analyes were not required for Sample No . 99-GAM-020-SL8.through 99-GAM-025-SL ."NR" means not run .2.3.4.5.6.Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-023-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BAnal esUnitsN-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (0 .33)Pyridinemg/kgU (0 .33)Anilinemg/kgU (0 .33)Phenolmg/kg67U (0 .33)Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (0 .33)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (0 .33)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgBenzyl Alcoholmg/kg1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .33)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (0 .33)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (0 .33)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (0 .33)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0 .00036U (0 .33)Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (0 .33)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (0 .33)Isophoronemg/kg3U (0 .33)2-Nitrophenolmg/kg2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kgg0 .2U (0 .33)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (1 .7)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kg1,2,4-Trichlorobenzenemg/kg2U (0 .33)Naphthalenemg/kg43U (0 .33)4-Chloroanilinemg/kg0 .5U (0 .67)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .33)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmglkgU (0 .67)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (0 .33)2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .33)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kg0 .45U (0 .33)2,4,6-Trichlorophenolmg/kg0 .6U (0 .33)2,4,5-Trichlorophenolmg/kg90U (0 .33)2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .33)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .7)Dimethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .33)Acenaphthylenemg/kg2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kg3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (0 .33)0 .8U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)0 .0044U (0 .33)U (1 .7)Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-023-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BAcenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .7)Dibenzofuranmg/kgU (0 .33)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgDiethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .33)4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .33)Fluorenemg/kg4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (0 .33)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .7)N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kg4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgHexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (0 .33)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (1 .7)Phenanthrenemg/kgAnthracenemg/kg4,300U (0 .33)Di-n-butylphthalatemg/kg1,700U (0 .33)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (0 .33)Pyrenemg/kg1,500U (0 .33)Azobenzenemg/kgButylbenzylphthalatemg/kg5,600U (0 .33)3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (0 .67)Benzo(a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .33)Chrysenemg/kg620U (0 .33)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,2000 .384Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (0 .33)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (0 .33)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (0 .33)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (0 .33)lndeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (0 .33)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .33)Benzo(g ,h,i]perylenemg/kgNotes :1.2.3.4.5.U (0 .33)0 .20 .0052703 .4U (1 .7)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)U (0 .33)mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratorydetection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table BI, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18AAC 75 .341 .Table 6B (Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryAnal esUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-024-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BSample No .99-GAM-025-SLSite 4A/Area 48Sample No .99-GAM-026-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BN-Nitrosodimethylaminemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Pyridinemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Anilinemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Phenolmg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)U (0 .31)67Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ethermg/kg0 .002U (0 .31)U (0 .33)2-Chlorophenolmg/kg1 .4U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)1,3-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)1,4-Dichlorobenzenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzyl Alcoholmg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)1,2-Dichlorobenzenemg/kg7U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)mg/kg7U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ethermg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)mg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylaminemg/kg0 .00036U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Hexachloroethanemg/kg1 .6U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Nitrobenzenemg/kg0 .06U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Isophoronemg/kg3U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2-Nitrophenolmg/kgu (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2,4-Dimethylphenolmg/kg0 .2U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzoic Acidmg/kg390U (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methanemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)1,2,4-Tnchlorobenzenemg/kg2U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Naphthalenemg/kg43U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)U (0 .64)0 .84-Chloroanilinemg/kgU (0 .63)U (0 .68)Hexachlorobutadienemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)4-Chloro-3-methylphenolmg/kgU (0 .63)U (0 .68)U (0 .64)2,4-Dichlorophenolmg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2-Methylnaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Hexachlorocyclopentadienemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)0 .6U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)90U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)0 .50 .452,4,6-Tdchlorophenolmg/kg2,4,5-Tdchlorophenolmg/kg2-Chloronaphthalenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)Dimethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Acenaphthylenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2,6-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)3-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)0 .0044Table 613 ( Continued)SVOA Results by EPA Method 8270 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999RegulatoryesAnalUnitsLimitsSample No .99-GAM-024-SLSite 4A/Area 46Sample No .99-GAM-025-SLSite 4A/Area 413)Sample No .99-GAM-026-SL(Site 4A/Area 46U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)U (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)Acenaphthenemg/kg2,4-Dinitrophenolmg/kg4-Nitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)Dibenzofuranmg/kgU (0 .31)U (0.33)U (0 .31)2,4-Dinitrotoluenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Diethylphthalatemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)4-Chlorophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Fluorenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)4-Nitroanilinemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolmg/kgU (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)N-Nitrosodiphenylaminemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)4-Bromophenyl-phenylethermg/kgU (0 .31)U (0.33)U (0 .31)U (0 .31)0 .20 .0052703 .4Hexachlorobenzenemg/kg0 .73U (0 .31)U (0 .33)Pentachlorophenolmg/kg0 .01U (1 .6)U (1 .7)U (1 .6)Phenanthrenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Anthracenemg/kg4,300U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Di-n-butyIphthalatemg/kg1,700U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Fluoranthenemg/kg2,100U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Pyrenemg/kg1,500U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Azobenzenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Butylbenzylphthalatemg/kg5,600U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)3,3-Dichlorobenzidinemg/kg0 .02U (0 .63)U (0 .68)U (0 .64)Benzo(a)Anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Chrysenemg/kg620U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatemg/kg1,200U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Di-n-octylphthalatemg/kg810,000U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzo[b]Fluoranthenemg/kg20U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzo[k]fluoranthenemg/kg200U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzo[a]pyrenemg/kg3U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)lndeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrenemg/kg54U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Dibenzo[a,h]anthracenemg/kg6U (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Benzo[g,h,i]perylenemg/kgU (0 .31)U (0 .33)U (0 .31)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits obtained from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means no limit was cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6CPCB Results by EPA Method 8082 for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999No .Sample No .SiteAroclor-1016mg/kgAroclor-1221mg/kgAroclor-1232m /kAroclor-1242m /kAroclor-1248m /kAroclor-1254m /kAroclor-1260m /k199-GAM-009-SL12U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)U (0 .0477)299-GAM-010-SL12U (0 .0365)U (0 .0365)U (0 .0365)U (0.0365)U (0 .0365)U (0 .0365)U (0 .0365)399-GAM-011-SL12U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)499-GAM-012-SL8U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)U (0 .00319)599-GAM-013-SL8U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00329)U (0 .00338)U (0 .00338)U (0 .00338)U (0 .00338)0 .0317699-GAM-014-SL (1)4AU (0 .00338)U (0 .00338)799-GAM-015-SL (1)4AU (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)U (0 .00353)0 .0111899-GAM-016-SL (1)4AU (0 .0033)U (0 .0037)U (0 .0088)U (0 .013)U (0 .0089)U (0 .0038)U (0 .0020)999-GAM-017-SL4AU (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)U (0 .00325)1099-GAM-018-SL4AU (0 .349)U (0,349)U (0 .349)U (0 .349)U (0 .349)U (0 .349)U (0 .349)1199-GAM-019-SL4AU (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0314)U (0 .0390)U (0 .0390)U (0 .0390)1299-GAM-020-SL (2)4BU (0 .0390)U (0 .0390)U (0 .0390)U (0 .0390)1399-GAM-021-SL (2)4BU (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)U (0 .0386)1499-GAM-022-SL (2)4BNRNRNRNRNRNRNR1599-GAM-023-SL4BU (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)U (0 .00343)1699-GAM-024-SL4BU (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00317)U (0 .00341)U (0 .00341)U (0 .00341)1799-GAM-025-SL4BU (0 .00341)U (0 .00341)U (0 .00341)U (0 .00341)1899-GAM-026-SL6U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)U (0 .00326)1999-GAM-027-SLMFBNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR111112099-GAM-028-SLMTBADEC Regulatory Limit - 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B111.Samples 99 -GAM-017- SL are parts of a triplicate sample where1Notes :99-GAM-014-SL is the project sample, 99-GAM-015-SL is the qualitycontrol sample, and 99-GAM-016-SL is the quality assurance sample .2 . Samples 99-GAM-023-SL are parts of a triplicate sample where99-GAM-020-SL is the project sample, 99-GAM-021-SL is the qualitycontrol sample, and 99-GAM-022-SL is the quality assurance sample .3 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .4 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratorydetection limit .5 . "MFB" means methanol field blank .6 . "MTB" means methanol trip blank .7 . Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .8 . Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .9 . Based on Note 9 for Table B1 in 18 AAC 75 .341, PCB limit is 1 mg/kg forresidential areas .10 . "NR" means not run . (PCB analysis was not required for Sample Numbers99-GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021-SL, and 99-GAM-022-SL for per Modification No . 04P4 .Table GDPesticide Results by EPA Method &081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-009-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-010-SL(Site 12Sample No .99-GAM-011-SL(Site 12alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)beta-BHCmg/kg0 .09210 .0438U (0 .000353)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgl .? (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)alpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)delta-BHCmg/kg0 .00668U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Endrinmg/kg0 .3U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)4,4'-DDDmg/kg0 .0100U (0.00364)0 .000494Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0.00364)U (0 .000353)4,4'-DDTmg/kg0.00668U (0 .00364)0 .000953Endosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Endrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .00477)U (0 .00364)U (0 .000353)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .477)U (0 .364)U 0 .0353Notes :1 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2 . "U" means undetected . The number i n parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3. Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4 . Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 , Method 2 .5 . Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-012-SL(Site 8)Sample No.99-GAM-013-SL(Site 8alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)beta-BHCmg/kg0 .0332U (0 .000329)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)alpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)delta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endrinmg/kg0 .3U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)4,4'-DDTmg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Endrnn ketonemg/kgU (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .00319)U (0 .000329)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .319)U (0 .0329)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratorydetection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18AAC 75 .341 .Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-014-SL(Site 4A/Area 413)Sample No .99-GAM-015-SL(Site 4A/Area 413)Sample No.99-GAM-016-SL(Site 4A/Area 46alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)beta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00047)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)NRalpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)NRgamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)delta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00023)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Endhnmg/kg0 .3U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00020)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00044)4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00024)Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00021)4,4'-DDTmg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00044)Endosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00021)Endrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00021)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .00507)U (0 .00177)U (0 .00076)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .507)U (0 .177)U (0 .0030)Notes :1.2.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .3.Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL, 99-GAM-015-SL, and 99-GAM-016-SL are parts of a triplicatesample where 99-GAM-014 is the project sample, 99-GAM-015-SL is the quality controlsample, and 99-GAM-016-SL is the quality assurance sample .Based on Modification No . 04P4, pesticide analyes were not required for Sample No .99-GAM-020-SL through 99-GAM-025-SL ."NR" means not run .4.5.6.7.8.Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-017-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BSample No .99-GAM-018-SL(Site 4A/Area 48)Sample No .99-GAM-019-SL(Site 4A/Area 4Balpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)beta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)alpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)delta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0.000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Endrinmg/kg0 .3U (0.000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0.000325)U (0.697)U (0 .0110)Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0.697)U (0 .0110)4 .4'-DDTmg/kg0 .000358U (0.697)U (0 .0110)Endosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0.697)U (0 .0110)Endrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .000325)U (0 .697)U (0 .0110)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .0325)U (69 .7)U (1 .10)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2.Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-020-SL(Site 4A/Area 4BSample No .99-GAM-021-SLSite 4A/Area 413)Sample No .99-GAM-022-SL(Site 4A/Area 46alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRbeta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRgamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRalpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRgamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRdelta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRHeptachlormg/kg8U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRAldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRHeptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndosulfan Img/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NR4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRDieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndrinmg/kg0 .3U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NR4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NR4,4'-DDTmg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NREndrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRMethoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .0117)U (0 .0116)NRToxaphenemg/kg10U (1 .17)U (1 .16)NRNotes :1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Samples 99-GAM-020-SL, 99-GAM-021-SL, and 99-GAM-022-SL are parts of a triplicatesample where 99-GAM-020 is the project sample, 99-GAM-021-SL is the quality controlsample, and 99-GAM-022-SL is the quality assurance sample .Based on Modification No . 04P4, pesticide analyses were not required for Sample No .99-GAM-020-SL through 99-GAM-025-SL ."NR" means not run .Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No .99-GAM-024-SL(Site 48/Ares 413)Sample No.99-GAM-025-SL(Site 4B/Ares 4BSample No .99-GAM-023-SLSite 4B/Ares 46alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)beta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0.000341)U (0 .00171)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)alpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)delta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Heptachlor epoxidemg/kg0 .2U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)4,4'-DDEmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endrinmg/kg0 .3U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)4,4'-DDTmg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endosulfan sulfatemg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Endrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .000317)U (0 .000341)U (0 .00171)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .0317)U (0 .0341)U (0 .171)Notes :1.2.3.4.5.mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram ."U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is the laboratory detection limit .Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1, Method 2 .Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit is cited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Table 6D (Continued)Pesticide Results by EPA Method 8081A for Confirmation SamplesDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order 0004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010, Gambell, AlaskaSample Date : August 14, 1999Anal esUnitsRegulatoryLimitsSample No.99-GAM-026-SL(Site 6alpha-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000326)beta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000326)gamma-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000326)alpha-Chlordanemg/kgU (0 .000326)gamma-BHC (Lindane)mg/kgU (0 .000326)delta-BHCmg/kgU (0 .000326)Heptachlormg/kg8U (0 .000326)Aldrinmg/kg1 .6U (0 .000326)Heptachlor epoxidemg /kg0 .2U (0 .000326)Endosulfan Img/kgU (0 .000326)4,4'-DOEmg/kgU (0 .000326)Dieldrinmg/kg0 .015U (0 .000326)Endrinmg/kg0 .3U (0 .000326)Endosulfan IImg/kgU (0.000326)4,4'-DDDmg/kgU (0 .000326)Endrin aldehydemg/kgU (0 .000326)4,4'-DDTmg/kgU (0 .000326)Endosulfan sulfatemg /kgU (0 .000326)Endrin ketonemg/kgU (0 .000326)Methoxychlormg/kg52U (0 .000326)Toxaphenemg/kg10U (0 .0326)Notes : 1 . mg/kg means milligrams per kilogram .2 . "U" means undetected . The number in parenthesis is thelaboratory detection limit .3. Laboratory data sheets are provided in Appendix F .4. Regulatory limits are from 18 AAC 75 .341, Table B1 , Method 2 .5 . Blank space in regulatory limits column means that no limit iscited in 18 AAC 75 .341 .Appendix FChain of Custody and Laboratory Data Reports'3`3-3E'S4Page 1 ofChain of CustodyAuthorization Numbs. .Debris Removal & Containerized Hazardous & Toxic Waste RemovalGambell, AlaskaContract No : DACA 85-97-0-0010, Delivery Order #4a1 y C FS/ySamplers:Clientr'urchase Order No . 913Oil Spill Consultants, Inc .Th . Environmental Cleanup Company209 E . 51st. Avenue, Anchorage , Alaska 99503Tel : (907) 562-7169 Fax: ( 907) 562-7225Anal sis RequiredAnalysis Required by :oC'00YdeldSampleScreenSample Number Date-64M-00 -99-3VI-C02 _SZ--Relinquished by : (Printed)(Signature)Relinquished by : (Printed)(Signature)Dispatched by : (Printed)(Signature)Method of Shipment:Comments:17-19-?9Time PID ReadingType# of6Cont .8Ydrawa-a _Po C; cN~~~ a• CaC5 C; -r- 0Lo oU `8 vCd,ea. 608aCE--D w:r501v v vso /VrVSONrvvs~s/rd/ r.'r/'s -~~/wGo(i 'a ~ q1 ~~'0 o. - r'na t- oCL a .w co ov'/ QCRequiredl77/9 -9Date / fCT ime'2? re~'11Gv1/Received by : (Printed)(Signature)Received by : (Printed)(Signature)R:-3i at aboratyry by:r, I1Condition of Contalner1Fair&lPoorReceived Tamp:2. 3993654CT& E Environmental Services Inc .iurwiuasiiviiSAMPLE RECEIPT FORMAre samples RUSH, priority, or within 72 hrs of hold time?If yes, have you done e-mail notification?Arc samples within 24 firs of hold time or due date?If yes, have you spoken with Supervisor?Are there any problems (e .g ., ids , analyses)?Were samples preserved correctly and pH verified?CT&E WON :Due Date :Received Date/Time :Cooler Temperature :Sample Condition :Maof each Sample :Good / Poor°Has Project Manager been notified of problems?Is this an ACOE/AFCEE/ADEC project?Will a data package be required?If this is for PWS, provide PWSID .Is there a quote for this project?Will eoudler charges apply?4', U 1,r` PL,` 1 ) 'r 5Completed by (sign ) :Trip BlankMS/MSDAdditional Sample RemarkAK 101 s / 8260s field pres'd?Field -filtered for dissolved ?Lab-filter for dissolvedRef Lab required ?Notes :The following must be completed for all ACOE & AFCEE projects : "'Yesx Is coolerNoNotes :temperature 4 + C? ~, 3thermometer used :T 1~ L_3Was there an airbill , etc? note N :Was cooler scaled with custody seals?N/where?r('c,y GoQYl er~Were seals intact upon arrival?X( Was there a COC with cooler?Was the COC filled out properly?Did the COC indicate ACOE/AFCEE project?Did the COC and samples correspond?X _Were samples screened with Geiger counter?Were all samples packed to prevent brec?Xpacking material :to-AC,Were all samples unbroken and clearly labelled?Were all samples scaled in separate plastic bags?Were all bottles for volatiles free of headspace?Were correct container/ sample sizes submitted?Was client notified of problems? (specify below)N of each Container Received :950 ml amber unpres'd950 ml amber w/ IICI500 ml amber w/ 112SO41L cubiesunpres'd1L cubiesw/ IIN031L cubiesw/ 112SO41L cubiesw/ NuOll + ZnAc120 ml colibottles60 mlNalg8ozamberunpres'dc4 oz amberunpres'd4 oz w / septa w/ McOH40 ml vialsOther (specify)Other (specify)Individual contacted :n'A' .&Tine-Phone/FaxN:N/log In Proofed by :w/ I ICIAL.CT&E Environmental Services Inc .Laboratory Division200 W. Potter DriveAnchorage, AK 99518-1605Tel : (907) 562-2343Fax : (907) 561-5301Oil Spill Consultantsattention : Randy Easley209 E 51stAnchorage, AK 99503Account: Oil Spill ConsultantsContact: Randy EasleyProject: Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Received: 07/21/99 15:50CT&E Ref# : 99.3654Print Date : 08/20/99 10 :59Work order 99 .3654 was analyzed for Dioxinsby Triangle Laboratories of Durham, NC 27713-4411Locations NCHAIN OF CU JDY RECORD. At..k.. .dpan‚ CAU10(r" Now Jersey‚ Colƒado ‚ Ohio‚ Maryland ‚ West VkgtJaCT&E Environmental Services Inc .Laboratory Division #,'" AwArA'ArAwAwAwAw Aww ArAwAwAwAwArM W MWAWMM " AW " AW " AW " M ,Zmt,koh,1CUE Reference :CLIENTCONTACT :'{1 ,I° II~PROJECT : D r\ (rSjPAGE-J_,OF_PHONE NO : ( -)) 4,<1„i~ ()No .(1, i l~l ~ 7 I A N I)E I IREPORTS TO:lFAX'INO : (+1 ' ~-INVOICE TO :,~1<WB NO.SDATEC.NCOMPAIG .GRABTIMEJMATRIX~ ~T ' ri jr.DateSDateTimeREMARKSIw4Received By :Shipping Carrier :i ; .l J~(:~Relinquished By : (2)MwR~q~rdr~-1 rj1~ ~~ ~Zp p~C0PO . NUMBER :SAMPLE IDENTIFICATIONL.Weoi~lAelirpuished By : (1)Pia.nauv .SAMPLE uwdTYPEReceived By:TimeDateReceived By :Samples Received Cold? (Girds) YES NOShipping Tidcei No~~l iTemperatureData Deliveribles Required/Chain of Custody Seal : (Girds)Level IRelinquished By : (3)t-{-~ 1~Level II Levell llCCINTACTC:BROKENABSENTRequested Turnaround Time and Special Instructions :~' (I a c ( fl-r-Relnqulshed By : (4)F-+DaTimeReceived For Laborat By :I/qW 200 W . Potter Drive Anchorage , AK 99518 Tel : (907) 562 .2343 Fax : (907)o-e- o -A ak oo7n1 TAI' /9n71 474-R(i58 Fax : (9071474-9685561-5301While- RetaMwd by Lab (Project FY.) Ye llow - Returned with ReportPink - Retairrd by Sam pierCustody SealPresent/IntactChain of CustodyPresentSample TagsAbsentSample Tay Numbers : Nut Listed on chain ofSMO Forms: N/A# ice ChestTRIANGLE LABORATORIES , INC . -- TAG IN RECORD /CHAIN OF CUSTODYSample Seals : Present I TLI Project Number 49151Container . . . :IntactIClient : CTE06 - CT 6 E EnvironmentalServicesICustody.1%ICE PACKS -I Date Received 1 07/24/99+Temp 6 .0 CI By -II Carrier and Number I FedEx/iHT L1 Number . .rmR / H :CPM .#242-60 - 1#. . . . . . .Client Sample ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matrix). . . . . . . . Client COC ID . . . . . . . . . . Location . . . . . . . I99GAM - 005-Sl ,- 993654 -599 . 1654 -5To I .AB I To STORAGEIDate / Init I Date/Toil ITo LABDate/InitTo STORAGEIDate/Lull ITo LABDate/InitI To STORAGEI To LABI Date/Init I Date/InitI To STORAGEI DISPOSEDI Date / Init I Date/InitSOILICO 1I~( ,I`~ a(`INN'uNNIrIIIIIIIIII+IIIIII}lINIIN4IurNNNINNNINuMIIIIIIIIIIIII+II'II+IIIIIIIIINN1IrIfIInIIIIHi%V--1n~INReceiving Remarks :IArchive Remarks :II-Form Revised 05/27 / 1997I--Page 1 OF 1. age 1 ofChain of CustodyPr *d: Debris Removal & Containerized Hazardous S Toxic Waste R.movalOamb.11, Alaska Contract No: DACASS47-D 0010, Delivery Order *4Client:Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.The Envk+onmsnW Cleanup Company209 E . 51st. Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99503Tel : (907) 562-7169 Fax : (907) 562-7225Anal sis RequiredAnalysis R.qulr d by:aweldSampleScreen Sam Number Date TimePIO ReadingT# ofCont .ONO0nb~adOU^LOadad'00. C)a r•oN1 00-Z3w0C2 44 N0010 00y Nm p a• d a ,,a a00 > w11u- •u-1C-2Y/!./ ACRequiredEll"'‚ 30Data(Signature)Relinquished by : (Printed)S natureDispatched by: (Printed)S turoMethod of Shipment : 46, . 4/Comments :aon'IReltrp ulshed by : (Printed)wE(n CqP 4,-2- - D -coITimeReceived bv: ( Printed)Received by: (Printed)(Signaturd)Received at Laboratory by :Condition of Containers I./yr/~rf993834Fair Poor'ReceivedTa mp_ `' 0993630",r.'tsl0kCT& E Environmental Services Inc .rSAMPLE RECEIPT FORMAre samples RUSH , priority, or within 72 hrs of hold time?If yes, have you done e-mail notification?Ark samples within 24 firs of hold time or due date?If yes, have you spoken with Supervisor?Are there any problems (e .g ., ids , analyses)?Were samples preserved correctly and pH verified?CT&E WOO :"W"f`1Due Date :Received Date /Time :Cooler Temperature :Sample Condition :Matrix of each Sample:-i11,uu PoorN11 "Has Project Manager been notified of problems?Is this an ACOE/AFCEE/ADEC project?Will a data package be required?If this is for PWS, provide PWSID .Is there a quote for this project?Trip BlankMS/MSD _Additional Sample Remarks :AK101s / 8260s field pres'd?Field- filtered for dissolved_ ?courier charges apply?Completed by (sign) :* * The followingYes No(print):be completed for all ACOE & AFCEE projects: . . .Notes :Is cooler temperature 4 + C?thermometer used :Was there an airbill, etc? note # :Was cooler sealed with custody seals?#/where?Were seals intact upon arrival?Was there a COC with cooler?Was the COC filled out properly?Did the COC indicate ACOE/AFCEE project?Did the COC and samples correspond?Were samples screened with Oelger counter?Were all samples packed to prevent breakage?packing material :Were all samples unbroken and clearly labelled?Were all samples scaled in separate plastic bags?Were all bottles for volatiles free of headspace?Were correct container/sample sizes submitted?Was client notified of problems? (specify below)Lab-filter for dissolved____Refb required?Notes :W1I of each Container Received :950 ml amber unpres'd950 ml amber w/ Lid500 ml amber w/ 112SO41L cubiesunpres'd1 L cubiesw/ IiNO31 L cubiesw/ 112SO41 L cubiesw/ NaOH + ZnAc120 ml colibottles60 mlNulg8 oz amberunpres'd4 oz amberunpres'd44 oz w/ septa w/ McOll40 ml vialsw/ 110Other (specify)Other (specify)Individual contacted :Date & Time :Phone/ Fax # :N /Log In Proofed by :t w/n Numbw f oO42Chain of CustodyProject :Debris Removal & Containerized Hazardous & Toxic Waste RemovalG amb ell , A laska Contract No : DACA85 -97-D-0010 , Delivery O rder #4Page 1 ofAuthorization Number : OSCI Purchase Order No . 913Samplers :Client:RandyE . EasleyOil Spill Consultants, Inc .The Environmental Cleanup Company(Signature)Witness : 0,.-i_ i c/209 E . 51st . Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99503Tel : (907) 562-7169 Fax : (907) 562-7225~,994255(Signature)Analysis Required by :Analysis RequiredOFieldSampleSample NumberDate#TimePID Readingl`-9- "/V -o4%-SL'9-/ Y -f '9120,0109119-e5 ,9, 111- o/o -fi-~q•zo99-G~it'/-O/l -'rZt/ -9/.2 190,70TypeCont.G.uh262~'-/5'-yy _ _Grc6- "W-D/ Y fZc- ' 9,? 0 5'DGr~~zlq9-G /y1-o/5- Szo/ 7 -sZ-fLf7'V-9o yoGr~62~~Y-yy 3s /Sz9'9-G~ih-oly -'CZyi~-~i 3o yS___Gr~.6G1~6Relinquished by : (Printed )(Signature)Relinquished by : (Pri?Sted)4~ndy dt /V 79 3; 30,~-ls e?r-(Signature)Dispatched by : (Printed)(Signature)Method of Shipment :Comments :~~IN44QA/Requiredvv!~v~-vvQCvi//,vvvvi/22Date I TimeI, -,? 5 t?of4iZt1ov-GiV/-o% ? SLu\kZOh4Z,Screen-6L)''ZReceived by : (Printed)-i '9y(Signature)Received by: (Printed)(Signature)Received at Laboratory by :/B1tnae 2 1 l8 `i5Condition of Containers2a/P/Good Fair PoorReceived TernLPage 1 ofChain of CustodyProject :Debris Removal & Containerized Hazardous & Toxic Waste RemovalGambell , Alaska Contract No : DACA85-97-D-0010 , Delivery Order #4Client:Authorization Number :OSCI Purchase Order No . 913(Samplers:E . EasleyRandyOil Spill Consultants, Inc .99 4255The Environmental Cleanup Company209 E . 51st . Avenue , Anchorage , AlaskaTel : (907) 562-7169 Fax : (907) 562-722599503Witness : p,,,, ,/ /L . Re-la/'(Signature )4Analysis Requir edAnalysis Required by :VtiQFieldSampleScreenSample Number Date TimePID ReadingType# ofCont .l 9- GSM -02 O SL8=/v-95;•30Gr4 l3Jr ' G~9r 7 o.2/-SL9 -6F/PI -023-5f /~7'-1ya J0GrG399-6:All -02V -,SG~/y 9 S•`oO6rcl399 Gf9M 027 sZ9-G -o2~ SL~iy ' ' 7 ' 00__Relinquish(SignatureRelinquis(SignaturevIspaicneo uy : trnnreu )Date / Timey li--#vvl'vv'-'-'AI Requiredv'-Received by : (Printed)(Signature)Received by : (Printed)(Signature)Received at Laboratory by :g( Signature)Method of Shipment :Comments :QA / OC'V"Condition of on1 inersGood Fair PoorReceived Temp :Page 1 ofChain of CustodyProject :Debris Removal & Containerized Hazardous & Toxic Waste RemovalGambell , Alaska Contract No : DACA85-97-D -0010, Delivery Order #4OSCI Purchase Order No . 913Authorization Number :ClientOil Spill Consultants, Inc .The Environmental Cleanup Company209 E . 51st . Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99503Tel : (907) 562-7169 Fax : (907) 562-7225Analysis Re uiredAnalysis Required by :FieldSample#Screen Sample Number Date Time PID Reading9 ‚Gj9iV/-O/ -sIRelinquished by : (Printed(Signature)Relinquished by: (Prin ed(Signature)Dispatched by: (Printed)(Signature)Method of Shipment :Comments :~ ~v-sG~~h20 YoDate / Time,f-/QA/QCRequiredofType Cont .J--- -79 y'2/…vReceived by : (Printed)(Signature)Received by: (Printed)(Signature)Received La oratory by :Condition of Containers!9942b5CT& E Environmenta l S e rvice s Inc .SAMPLE RECEIPT FORMALYesCT&E WO# :NoViAre samples RUSH , priority, or within 72 hrs of hold time?If yes, have you done e-mail notification?Are . samples within 24 firs of hold time or due date?If yes, have you spoken with Supervisor?Are there any problems (e .g ., ids, analyses)?Were samples preserved correctly and pH verified?Due Date :Has Project Manager been notified of problems?Is this an ACOE/AFCEE/ADEC project?Will a data package be required?If this is for PWS, provide PWSID .Is there a quote for this project?Will courier charges apply?2 1 Trip BlankMS/MSDAdditional Sample Remarks :AK101s/ 8260s field pres'd?Field-filtered for dissolved ?Lab-filter for dissolvedRef Lab required?h4aA4zaprinfl :_Received Date /Time :Cooler Temperature :Sample Condition:Matrix of each Sample :li11g-31-ql15 5700oor--1 _ - IQ v t fi 4* 5 11-/S_1o - ff-ar ' 7Cra/u /l e I 59 .2Terphenyl-d14 ?- Fluorobiphenyl < Surr>.- Fluorophenot < Surr>Nitrobenzene - d5 13063 .352 .659XXPCB's by GC ECDAroclor- 1016ArocLor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroctor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroctor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .00319mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20/99 08 / 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08 / 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08 / 22/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20 /99 08 / 22/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/22/99 WAA08/20 / 99 08/ 22/99 WAAXSW846 8082mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 L208/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08 /20/99 08/26/99 LZmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 /26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 107( 53 .3-125) 08/20 / 99 08/22/99Pesticidesalpha - BHCbeta - BHCgamma - Chlordane0 .00319 U0 .03320 .00319 Ualpha - Chlordanegamma - BHC (Lindane)delta - BHCaptachlor0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .00319LTA. . ME Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID913Client PO#09/09/9916 :27Printed Date / TimeTime08/14/99Collected Date /11 :29Received Date/Time08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . Ede994255004Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-012-SLSoil/SolidResultsParameter0 .00319 UAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U4,41-ODEDieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II4,41-DODEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDT0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 U0 .00319 UEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychtorToxapheneUnitsMethod0 .003190 .003190 .003190 .00319mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081A0 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .003190 .00319mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .003190 .003190 .003190 .319mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081AXXSW846-8081ASW846-8081APOL0 .319 UAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/26/99 LZ08/ 20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl Tetrachloro - m-xylene < Surr>I118126(46-154 )( 25-120 )08/20 /99 08/26/9908/20 /99 08/26/99AL .CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255005ClientPO#913Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsPrinted Date/Time09/09/99 16 :27Project Name/# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4 Collected Date/ Time 08/14/99 11 :40Client Sample ID 99-GAM-013-SLReceived Date/Time08/18/99 16 :35Matrix Soil/SolidTechnical Directoi>StenheuC . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks :8270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The results are not affected .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .DRO/RRO - Pattern consistent with lube oil .DRO - Heavier hydrocarbons contributing to diesel range quantitation .ParameterTotal SolidsResultsPQL97 .2UnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrepDateXSM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSAnalysisDateInitRCRA MetalsArsenic3 .60BariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporSeleniumSilver12 .70 .01963 .6214 .30 .00676 U0 .192 U0 .0384 U0 .1924 .120 .01920 .1921 .920 .006760 .1920 .0384mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg / KgSW846 7060SW846 60108SW846 - 7131SW846 - 7191SW846 -7421SW846 -7471SW846 -7740SW846 -776108/ 23/99 08/30/99 JMO08/26/99 08/31/99 WTA08/ 23/99 08/24/99 KGF08 /23/99 08/24/99 KGF08/23/99 08 /24/99 KGF08/25/99 08 / 25/99 RMV08/23/99 08/27/99 GCP08/23/99 08/24/99 KGFGasoline Range Organics1 .90 U1 .90mg/KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/ 24/99 DARXAK101 GROAK101 GROSurrogates4-Bromoftuorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 76 .895 .3X( 50-150 )( 50-150)08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99Am FM-k -CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . Ede91309/09/99 16 :2708/14/99 11 :4008/18 /99 16 :35AllowableParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg /KgSW846-8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDateInitVOA by GC/MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethane'inyl chloridedromomethaneChloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-l,2 - Dichloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone (MEK)2,2-Dichtoropropanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneBromochloromethaneChloroform1, 1, 1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichloromethane2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethercis-1,3-Dichloropropene'-Methyl - 2-pentanone ( MIBK)oluene0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .0190 .019 U0 .19 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .095 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .190 .190 .0190 .0190 .190 .0950 .0190 .0190 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .19mg /Kgmg /Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kg ,mg/ Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260mg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRSLlw-ck ~ CT&E Environmental Services Inc.CT&E Ref.#994255005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . Ede91309/09/99 16 :2708/14/99 11 :4008/18 /99 16 :35AllowableParametertrans-1,3 - Dichtoropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-Hexanoneibromochloromethanei,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropytbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chtorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert - Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butytbenzene',2-Dibromo - 3-chloropropane, 2,4-TrichlorobenzeneResults0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 UPQL0 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0190 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .190 .019mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 -8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDateInit08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 /22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 /22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRSA&LCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneR esu l tsPQLUnitsMethod0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019mg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019 U0 .019mg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260XXSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260XXSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260mg/KgAK102 / 103mg/KgAK102 / 103XXAK102/103AK102/10391309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 11 :4008/18/99 16 :35AllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate DateInit08/14 /99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSurrogates1,2-Dichtoroethane - D4 111Dibromoftuoromethane < surr>10210196 .1Toluene - d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene (74-123)(80-118)(79-130)(71-141)08/14/99 08/22/9908/ 14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/ 14/99 08/22/99DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC30 .070 .98 .8714 .608 / 24/99 08/28/99 PIMP08/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane < surr>d-Triacontane < Surr>102135( 50-150 )( 50-150 )08/24 /99 08/28/9908/24 /99 08/28/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2 - Chloroethyl ) ether2-Chlorophenol0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .320 .320 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .32mg/Kg0 .32 U0 .320 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ0 .32mg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ1,3-Dichlorobenzene0 .32 U', 4-Dichlorobenzene,enzyl alcohol0 .32 U0 .32 UA11wMCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.994255005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGatnbell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidClient PO#913Printed Date / Time09/09/99 16 :28Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 11 :40Received Date /Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameter1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-Methylphenot (o-Cresol)bis(2-chloroisopropyt)ether3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-CresoL)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamineiexachloroethanenitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenolBenzoic acidBis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChloroanilineHexachLorobutadiene4-Chtoro-3-methylphenot2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-DinitrophenoL4-NitrophenolibenzofuranResults0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U1 .6 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 UPaLUnitsMethod0 .32mg/Kg0 .32mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-82700 .320 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .320 .320 .320 .320 .321 .60 .32mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .32mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .32mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .65 U0 .32 U0 .65 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U1 .6 U0 .32 U0 .650 .320 .650 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .32mg/Kg0 .32mg/Kg0 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kg1 .6mg/Kg0 .320 .32 U0 .32 U1 .6 U0 .32 U0 .320 .321 .60 .32mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82701 .6 U1 .6 U0 .32 U1 .6mg/Kg1 .60 .32mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZAN I -CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameter2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyt - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroaniline'-Methyl-4,6- dinitrophenol4-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachtorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceneOi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneResu l tsPOL0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U1 .6 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .320 .320 .320 .320 .321 .60 .320 .320 .32UnitsMethodmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAzobenzeneButytbenzylphthalate3,3-Dichlorobenzidine0 .320 .320 .320 .320 .320 .320 .65mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgBenzo ( a)Anthracene0 .32 U0 .32mg/KgChrysenebis(2 -Ethylhexyl) phthalatedi-n-OctylphthatateBenzo[b] FluorantheneBenzo[k]fluoranthene0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .32mg/Kg0 .320 .320 .320 .320 .320 .32mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270XSW846-8270Benzota ] pyreneIndeno[1 , 2,3-c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a , h]anthraceneBenzo[g , h,i]perylene1 .60 .32AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZSurrogates, 4,6-Tribromophenot r-81 .2Init08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82701 .6 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .32 U0 .65 U91309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 11 :4008/18/99 16 :35( 18-122)08/22/99 08/24/99A ..CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsPQLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/09/99 16 :2808 /14/99 11 :4008/18 /99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowablePrepAnalysisUnitsMethodLimitsDateDate InitXXSW846 - 8270sW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270( 24-88 )( 21-142)( 30-103 )( 18-83)(18-109)08/22 /99 08/24/9908 / 22/99 08/24/9908/22 /99 08/24/9908 / 22/99 08/24/9908 / 22/99 08/24/99SurrogatesPhenol - d6 Terphenyl - d14 ?- Fluorobiphenyl 2-Fluorophenol Nitrobenzene -d5 7012574 .663 .470 .7XXXPCB's by GC ECDAroclor-1016ArocLor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-12480 .00329 U0 .00329 U0 .00329 U0 .00329 U0 .00329 UAroclor - 12540 .00329 UAroclor-12600 .00329 U0 .003290 .003290 .00329mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20 / 99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20 / 99 08/22/99 WAASW846 8082SW846 808208/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08 / 22/99 WAA0 .003290 .00329mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .00329mg/KgSW846 808208/20/ 99 08 / 22/99 WAAmg/KgSW846 808208/20/99 08 / 22/99 WAAXSW846 8082mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZSW846-8081A08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZSW646-8081ASW846-8081A08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ0 .00329SurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 94 .3( 53 .3-125 ) 08/20/99 08/22/99PesticidesaLpha-SHCbeta-BHCgamma- Chlordanealpha- Chlordanegamma-BHC ( Lindane)delta-BHC.eptachlor0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .000329mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ/~ ~,YCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-013-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date/Time91309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 11 :4008/18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameterAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan 14,4'-DDEDieLdrin' ndrin. ndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResults0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .000329 U0 .0329 UAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInitPOLUnitsMethod0 .0003290 .0003290 .000329.0 .0003290 .0003290 .000329mg/Kgmg / Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A08/20/ 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846-8081A%%SW846- 8081ASW846- 8081A0 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .0003290 .032908/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 25/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro- m-xylene 72 .462 .6( 46-154)(25-120)08/20 / 99 08/25/9908/20/ 99 08/25/99CT&E Environmental Services Inc .G4LCCT&E Ref .#994255006ClientPO#91309/10/99 09 :34Oil Spill ConsultantsPrinted Date/TimeClient NameProject Name /# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4 Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 14 :40Received Date /Time08/18/99 16 :35Client Sample ID 99-GAM-014-SLTechnical Director :_*pJieWC . EdeSoil/SolidMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks :SW7421 GF Metal - MS/MSD recoveries for Pb were outside acceptance criteria ; post digestio'spike was successful .SW7761 GF Metal - MS/MSD recoveries for Ag were outside acceptance criteria ; post digestion spike was successful .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .8260 - BFB field surrogate recovery (at 65 % vs . 71 %) is biased low . This may be due to matrix interference (biogenicsin the sample) .8270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The results are not affected .GRO/BTEX - Field surrogate recovery is biased low, run twice for confirmation, results may be biased low .SW7041 GF Metal - MS/MSD recoveries for Sb were outside acceptance criteria ; post digestion spike was successful .8081-Detection limit raised 15X due to presence of PCB .)RO/RRO - Pattern consistent with lube oil .DRO - Heavier hydrocarbons contributing to diesel range quantitation .RRO - Surrogate does not meet QC goals due to lube oil pattern . Results not affected .SW7740 GF Metal - MS/MSD recovery for Se was outside acceptance criteria ; bench spike also recovered outside controllimits . Sample concentration was confirmed by the method of standard additions .8270 - Presence of non target analytes requires analysis at a large dilution .AllowableParameterTotal solidsResultsPGL88 .6PrepDateAnalysisDateInitUnitsMethod Limits%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSmg/KgSW846 7060SW846 60108SW846 -7131SW846 -719108/24/99 08/30/99 JMO08/26/99 08/31/99 WTA08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGFSW846 -7421SW846 -7471SW846 -774008/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/25/99 08/25/99 RMV08/ 24/99 08/27/99 GCPRCRA MetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold Vaporselenium1 .7557 .30 .65913 .22120 .1010 .439 U0 .2204 .420 .2202 .2043 .90 .01710 .439mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg'ILG4CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID913Client PO#09/10/99 09 :34Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/Time 08/14/99 14 :40Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . Ede994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLSoil/SolidParameterSilverGasoline Range OrganicsResultsPQLUnitsMethodAllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate DateInit1 .620 .439mg/Kgsw846 - 776108/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGF2 .99 U2 .99mg/ KgAK101 GR008/14 / 99 08/ 24/99 DARXXAK101 GR0AK101 GROmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260sw846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260Surrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene !1,4-Difluorobenzene < Surr>37 .291 .7( 50-150)(50-150)08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99VOA by GC/MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChloroethaneTrichtorofluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethytene chloridetrans-1,2 - Dichloroethene1,1-DichLoroethane2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2 - DichloroetheneBromochloromethaneChloroform1,1,1-Trichloroethanec arbon tetrachlorideI,1-Dichloropropene0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .15 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .300 .300 .0300 .0300 .300 .150 .0300 .0300 .300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg / KgSW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846- 826008/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 ORS08 / 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS1LCT&E Environmental Services Inc .ACT&E Ref .#994255006Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/Solid913Client PO#TimePrinted Date /09/10/99 09 :34Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 14 :40Received Date /Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameterResultsBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneiromodichloromethane2-ChtoroethyL Vinyl Ethercis-1,3 - Dichloropropene4-Methyl - 2-pentanone ( MIBK)0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 UToluenetrans-1,3 - Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-HexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachtoroethaneEthylbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chtorotoluene4-Chtorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 UPQLUnitsMethod0 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260mg/Kg0 .30mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .30mg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .30mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSL'zCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09/10/99 09 :34Collected Date/Time08 /14/99 14 :40Received Date/Time08/18/99 16 :35MatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParametertert-ButyLbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butylbenzene1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzenePalResults0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 UUnitsMethod0 .030mg/Kg0 .030mg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260XXXXSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260mg/Kgmg/KgAK102/103AK102/103XXAK102/103AllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate Date Init08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSurrogates1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 Dibromofluoromethane Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene !1049796 .764 .6(74-123)(80-118)(79-130)(71-141)08/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/99DR0/RRO CombinationDiesel Range Organics84 .0Residual Range Organics GC59210 .717 .708/24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane !118217AK102/103(50-150)(50-150)08/24/99 08/28/9908/24/99 08/28/99~~ICT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date /Time91309/10/99 09 :3408/14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDAllowableParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethod Limits9 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .1mg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /KgSW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82709 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .1469 .19 .19 .118mg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kg9 .1189 .19 .19 .1mg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/KgPrepDateAnalysisDate InitSemivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridine%nilinePhenolBis(2-Chtoroethyl ) ether2-Chlorophenol1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-Methylphenol ( o-Cresol )bis(2-chLoroisopropyL)ether3&4-Methylphenol ( p&m-Cresol )N-Nitroso-di - n-propylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenolBenzoic acidBis(2-Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4 .-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChLoroanitineHexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3 - methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneAexachlorocyclopentadiene9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U46 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U18 U9 .1 U18 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZSW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270sw846 - 827008/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZLTA ., CT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309/10/99 09 :3408 /14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameter2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichtorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethytphthaLatecenaphthylene2,6-DinitrotoLuene3-NitroaniLineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotoLueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyt - phenyletherFLuorene4-NitroaniLine2-Methyl-4,6 - dinitrophenotN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachLorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzylphthalate3,3-Dichlorobenzidinelenzo ( a)Anthracene,;hryseneResults9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U46 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U46 U9 .1 U46 U46 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U46 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U46 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U18 U9 .1 U9 .1 UUnitsMethod9 .19 .19 .1469 .19 .19 .146mg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82709 .146469 .19 .19 .19 .1mg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg /Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/KgPQL9 .19 .1469 .19 .19 .1469 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19 .1189 .1mg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kg9 .1mg /KgSW846 - 82705W846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDateInit08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08 /24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZAMN-ft.,CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDCT&E Environmental Services Inc .994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-014-SLSoil/SolidParameterbis(2-Ethylhexyt ) phthatatedi-n-OctylphthatateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k]fluorantheneBenzo[a ] pyrene'ndeno[1,2,3 - c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a , hlanthraceneBenzo[g,h,i ] peryleneClient PO#Printed Date / TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdePQLResults91309/10/99 09 :3508 /14/99 14 :4008 /18/99 16 :35UnitsMethodSW846-8270su846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 82709 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/Kg9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1 U9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/Kg9 .1mg/KgAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/22 /99 08 /24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZSurrogates2,4,6-Tribromophenol < Surr>Phenol-d6 Terphenyl - d14 2-Fluorobiphenyl < Surr>2-Fluorophenol < Surr>Nitrobenzene - d5 46 .346 .611455 .939 .541 .7XXXXXXSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270(18-122)( 24-88 )( 21-142)( 30-103)( 18-83)( 18-109)08 / 22/99 08/24/9908/22 /99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22 /99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99PCB's by GC ECDArocLor-1016ArocLor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor - 1254Aroclor-12600 .00338 U0 .00338 U0 .00338 U0 .00338 U0 .00338 U0 .00338 U0 .03170 .003380 .003380 .003380 .003380 .003380 .003380 .00338mg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082XSW846 808208/20/ 99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/ 99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/ 99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/ 22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/ 22/99 WAASurrogatesoecachlorobiphenyl 95 .5( 53 .3-125 ) 08/20/ 99 08/22/99,ALL t CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#994255006Oil Spill ConsultantsGanibell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID99-GAM-014-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date / TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsUnitsMethod0 .005070 .00507mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081Amg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgPQL91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate InitPesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma-Chlordane0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 Uatpha-Chlordanegamma -BHC (Lindane)deLta-BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosuLfan I4,41-DDE0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .00507 U0 .507 U0 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .005070 .507DieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxaphene08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081Amg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081AXSW846-8081A(46-154)XSW846-8081A(25-120)08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyL Tetrachloro-m-xytene 707608/20/99 08/26/9908/20/99 08/26/99~1 ~. CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255007ClientPO#913Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsPrinted Date/Time 09/10/99 09 :35Project Name/# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4 Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 14 :40Client Sample ID 99-GAM-015-SL Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil/SolidTechnical DirectoprStJepb4h C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks :8270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The resifits are not affected .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .8260 - BFB field surrogate recovery (at 60% vs. 71 %) is biased low . This may be due to matrix interference (biogenicsin the sample) .GRO/BTEX - Field surrogate recovery is biased low, run twice for confirmation, results may be biased low .DRO/RRO - Possible lube oil pattern.DRO - Heavier hydrocarbons contributing to diesel range quantitation .8270 Presence of non target analytes requires analysis at a large dilution .ParameterTotal SolidsResultsPQL88 .0UnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrepDate%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSAnalysisDate InitRCRA MetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporSeleniumSilver1 .6066 .71 .5723 .93110 .1150 .4020 .1690 .2104 .590 .083821 .021 .00 .01750 .2100 .0419mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 7060SW846 60108SW846- 7131SW846 -7191SW846 -7421SW846 -7471SW846 -7740SW846 -776108/24/99 08/30/99 JMO08/26/99 08/31/99 WTA08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/25/99 08/25/99 RMV08/24/99 08/27/99 GCP08/24/99 08/25/99 KGFGasoline Range Organics2 .95 U2 .95mg/ KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/24/99 DARL1,. - CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255007Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . EdePQLAllowableLimitsPrepDate( 50-150)( 50-150 )08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99AnalysisDateInitUnitsMethodXXAK101 GR0SW846-826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14 / 99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08 / 22/99 ORSSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene !1,4-Difluorobenzene 27 .394AK101 GR0VOA by GC/ MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DichtoroetheneCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-1,2 - Dichloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneBromochloromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethene',2-Dichloropropane. ibromomethane0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .30 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .15 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30mg/Kg0 .30mg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .300 .150 .0300 .0300 .300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 Umg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260sW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSAllrok ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255007Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLSoil/SolidClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09/10/99 09 :35Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 14 :40Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameterBromodichloromethane2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethercis-1,3-Dichloropropene4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)Toluene'raps-1,3-Dichloropropenei,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropene2-HexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChtorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachlaroethaneEthylbenzeneP & t -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene (Cumene)Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chlorototuene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butytbenzene1,3-Dichtorobenzene•isopropyltolueneResults0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 UPQL0 .0300 .300 .0300 .300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .300 .0300 .0300 .030UnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .30 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kg0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSL1,.CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255007Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLSoil/SolidParameter1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-ButyLbenzene1,2-Dibromo - 3-chloropropane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzenelexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneResults0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U91309/10/99 09 :35Collected Date/Time08/14/99 14 :40Received Date/Time 08/18 /99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePQL0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .030 U0 .30 U0 .030 UClient PO#Printed Date/Time0 .0300 .0300 .0300 .300 .0300 .0300 .0300 .030UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 8260mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate DateInit08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRSSurrogates1,2-Dichloroethane - D4 Dibromofluoromethane < surr>Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene !10498 .496 .860XXXXSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260(74-123)( 80-118 )( 79-130 )(71-141 )08/14/ 99 08/22/99mg/Kgmg/KgAK102 / 103AK102/103XXAK102/103AK102/ 103SW846-8270SW846- 827008 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846- 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/14/99 08/22/9908/14 /99 08/22/9908/14 /99 08/22/99DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range Organics68 .8Residual Range Organics GC3039 .9116 .408/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane < Surr>109143(50 - 150)(50-150 )08/24/99 08/28/9908/24/99 08/28/99Semivolatites by GC/MSt-N-NitrosodimethylaminePyridine9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/KgniLine•,henol9 .0 U9 .0mg/Kg9 .0 U9 .0mg/KgA&. CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255007Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterBis(2 -Chtoroethyl)ether2-Chtorophenot1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichtorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichtorobenzene2-Methylphenot (o-Cresol)bis(2-chloroisopropyt)ether3&4-Methytphenot (p&m-Cresol)N-Nitroso -di-n-propytamineHexachtoroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenolBenzoic acidBis(2 -Chloroethoxy)methane1,2,4-TrichtorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChtoroanitineHexachtorobutadiene4-Chloro-3-methytphenol2,4-Dichtorophenol2-MethylnaphthateneHexachlorocyctopentadiene2,4,6-Trichtorophenot2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chtoronaphthalene2-NitroaniLineDimethylphthalateacenaphthylene.,6-DinitrototueneResultsPQL9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U46 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U18 U9 .0 U18 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U91309 /10/99 09 :3508/14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateUnitsMethod9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg46mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .09 .0mg/Kgmg/Kg18mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg18mg/Kg9 .09 .0mg/Kgmg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/Kg9 .0 U9 .0 U46 U9 .0 U9 .09 .0mg/Kg469 .0mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0mg/Kg9 .0mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270Init08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ:.'AdCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255007Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLClient PO#Printed Date / TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date / TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . Ede91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 14 :4008 /18/99 16 :35Ordered ByPWSIDParameter3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran1,4-DinitrototueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyl - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroanitine2-Methyl - 4,6-dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzylphthalate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo ( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2 - Ethylhexyl ) phthalatedi-n-OctylphthatateBenzo[b] FluorantheneBenzo[k ] fluorantheneBenzo[alpyrene' ndeno[1,2,3-c,d] pyrene, ibenzo[a , hlanthracener-ResultsPQL46 U9 .0 U46 U46 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U46 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U46 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U18 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U9 .0 U469 .04646UnitsMethodmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ KgSW846-8270SW846 - 82709 .09 .09 .09 .09 .0mg / Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kg9 .0469 .09 .09 .0mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kg469 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .09 .0189 .09 .09 .0mg / Kgmg / Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kg9 .09 .09 .09 .09 .0mg /Kgmg /Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg/Kg9 .0mg/ KgSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270 SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateInit08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 L208/ 22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZcCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255007Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLSoil/SolidClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 14 :4008/18 /99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameterBenzo[g ,h,i]peryleneResultsPaL9 .0 U9 .0UnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-8270XXXXXX54846-8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808254846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082X54846 8082S4846-8081ASW846-8081ALimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSurrogates2,4,6-TribromophenoL °henol-d6 rerphenyl-d14 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-Fluorophenot Nitrobenzene-d5 23 .234 .367 .242 .23132SW846-827054846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827054846-8270(18-122)(24-88)(21-142)(30-103)08/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99(18-83)(18-109)08/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99PCB's by GC ECDAroctor-1016ArocLor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroctor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00353 U0 .00353 U0 .00353 U0 .00353 U0 .00353 U0 .00353 U0 .01110 .003530 .003530 .003530 .003530 .003530 .003530 .0035308/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 4AA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAA08/20/99 08/22/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 74 .2(53 .3-125) 08/20/99 08/22/99Pesticidesalpha-BHC0 .00177 U0 .00177mg/Kgbeta-BHCgamma -Chlordanealpha -Chlordanearoma -BHC (Lindane)0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .001770 .001770 .001770 .00177mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZLTL. . CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255007Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-015-SLSoil/SolidMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDParameterdelta - BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,4 1 -DDEJieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin aldehyde4,4 1 -DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResultsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/Time91309 /10/99 09 :3508 /14/99 14 :4008/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePQL0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .001770 .001770 .001770 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .00177 U0 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .001770 .177 U0 .177AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateUnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-8081A08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081A08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 /26/99 LZmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20 / 99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A'SW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro - m-xytene 66 .572XXSW846-8081ASW846-8081AInit( 46-154)( 25-120 )08/20/ 99 08/26/9908/20/99 08/26/99Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 1Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisProject No : 99-092Analysis : Gasoline Range Organics . Alaska Dept . ofMethod : AK101Prep Meth : AK101 PRField ID : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date : 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Matrix : SoilBasis : Dry WeightLab Samp 10 : 0640960003SARecd Date : 08/14/99Prep Date : 08/25/99Analysis Date : 08125/99QC Batch : S990825NNotes:AnalyteDet LimitRep LimitNoteGasoline Range Or anics1 .75 .4 PQLSURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :4-Bromofluorobenzene50-150 SLSA GNTrifluorotoluene50-150 SLSAGN : Surrogate recovery is outside of control limitsApproved by.Date :Result Units Pvc DiiND MG/KG 1 .040%!92%1 .01,pQuanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 2Project Name :Project No :Gambell HTW/Debris99-092Diesel Range Organics . Alaska Dept. ofAnalysis :Method : AK102Prep Meth : SW3541Field ID :Descr/Location :Sample Date :Sample Time :Matrix :Basis :99-GAM-016-SL99-G08/14/991420SoilDry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960001SA08/18/99Rec'd Date :Prep Date : 08124/99Analysis Date: 08/28/99QC Batch : S9908241Notes :AnalyteDet LimitRep LimitDiesel Range Or anics1 .84 .6 PQLSURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :o-Terphenyi5 0-150Approved by.Note Result Units Pvc Dil72 MG/KG 1 .0SLSADate :103%1Quanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 3P rojec t N ame :Gam b ell HTW/D e b ri sProject No :99-092S tate of Al ask a R es id ual R ange HydrocarbonsAnalysis :Method : AK103Prep Meth : SW3541Field ID :Descr/Location :Sample Date :Sample Time:Matrix :Basis :99-GAM-016-SL99-G08/14/991420SoilDry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960001SARec'd Date :08/18/99Prep Date : 08/24/99Analysis Date : 08/28/99QC Batch : S9908241Notes :AnalyteDet LimitRep LimitNote Result Units Pvc DilResidual Range Or anics1 .911 . PQL27Q MG/KG 1 .0SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :Tricontane50-150 SLSA AZ160%!AZ: Surr . recovery outside of acceptance limits due to matrix interf .Approved by.Date :1 .lQuanterra Environmental Services . Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 4Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisProject No : 99 -092Analysis : Organochlonne Pesticides & PCBs as Aroclors bySW8081Method:Prep Meth : SW3541Field 10 : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date : 08/14/99Sample Time: 1420Matrix: SoilBasis : Dry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960001 SARec' d Date : 08/18/99Prep Date: 08125/99Analysis Date : 09/07/99CC Batch : S9906251Notes:AnaiyteDet LimitRep LimitNoteAldnn0.202.0 POLalpha-BHC0.202.0 POLbeta-BHC0.472.0 POLgamma-BHC (Lindane)0.202 .0 POLdelta-BHC0.202 .0 POL4,4'-DDD0.24.0 POL24,4'-DDE0.202.0 POL4,4'-DDT0.442.0 POL_ Dieldrin0.202.0 POLEndosutfan 10.202.0 POLEndosutfan II0.442 .0 POLEndosulfan sulfate0.212 .0 POLEndrin0.202 .0 POLEndrin aldehyde0.212.0 POLEndrin ketone0.212 .0 PQLHeptachlor0.232.0 POLHeptachlor epoxide0.202 .0 PQLMethoxychlor0.763 .8 POLToxaphene3.077. POLChlordane1 .120 . POLSURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :Decachlorobiphenyt10-181 SLSATetrachlorometaxyleneApproved by.23-149 SLSADate :ResultUnitsNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNO'NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGPvc Oil1 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .032%164%1Ouanterra Environmental Services . Anchorage . AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 5Project Name :Gambell HTW/DebrisProject No : 99-092Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) by GasAnalysis :SW8082Method :Prep Meth : SW3550Field ID :99-GAM -0 16-SL/Location:Descr99-GSample Date :08/14 / 99Sample Time : 1420Matrix :SoilBasis : Dry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960001 SARec 'd Date :08/18/99Prep Date: 08/25/99Analysis Date : 09/07/99S9908251QC Batch :Notes :AnalyteDet LimitNoteRep LimitPCB-1016 ( Aroclor 1016)0 .00330 .038 POLPCB-1221 ( Aroclor 1221 )0 .00370 .038 POLPCB-1232 ( Aroclor 1232)0 .00800 .038 POLAroclor1242)PCB-1242 (0 .0130 .038 POLPCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248 )0 .00890 .038 POLPCB-1254 ( Aroclor 1254 )0 .00380 .038 POLPCB-1260 ( Aroclor 1260 )0 .00200 .038 POLSURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :Decachlorobiphenyi10-181 SLSATetrachlorometaxylene23-149 SLSAApproved by.Date :ResultUnits Pvc OilNDNDNDNDNDNDNDMG/KGMG/KGMG/KGMG/KGMG/KGMG/KGMG/KG32%64%1 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .0Quanterra Environmental Services . Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 6P roject Name :G ambe ll HTW /DebrisProject No : 99-092Analysis :Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSMethod :SW 8260Prep Meth : SW5030Field ID :99-GAM -016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date :08/14 / 99Sample Time: 1420SoilMatrix :Basis :Dry WeightLab Samp ID :Recd Date :Prep Date :Analysis Date :QC Batch :Notes :AnalyteBenzeneBromobenzeneBromochloromethaneBromodichloromethaneBromoformBromomethanen-Butyibenzenesec-Butylbenzene_ tert-ButylbenzeneCarbon tetrachlorideChlorobenzeneDibromochlorom ethaneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethane2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,2-Dibromo- 3-chloropropane1,2-DibromoethaneDibromomethane1,2-Dichlorobenzene1 .3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneDichlorodifluorom ethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethenecis-1,2 - Dichloroethenetrans- 1,2-Dichloroethene1 .2-DichloropropaneApproved by.Det LimitRep Limit18.21 .30.25.24 .160.29.21 .18.20.15.21 .87 .15.160 .15.17 .67 .29 .19 .15.15.15 .75 .21 .45.24.18.25.20.150.POL.POL150150. PQLPQL150.150. PQLPQL300..PQL150150. POLPOL150.150. PQL150.PQL150. POL300.PQLPQL150.300.PQLPQL150.150.PQL300. POL. PQL150150. POL150.PQL150. POL150 .PQL300. POL150.PQL150.PQL150. POL75. POL75.PQL150.POL0640960003SA08/14/9908/1419908/26/99S9908261NoteDate :ResultUnitsNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDN13NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUG/ KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG / KGUG / KGUG/ KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG /KGUG/KGUG/KGUG /KGUG/ KGUG / KGUG/KGUG /KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGPvc Dil0 .550 .550.550.550 .550 .550.550.550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550.550.550 .550 .550 .550.550.550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .55Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date: 10/04/99Page : 7Project ect Name:Project No :Gam belt HTW / Debris99-092Volatile Organic Compounds by GC, M,)Method :SW 8260Prep Meth : SW 5030ID :Descr/Location :Sample Date:Sample Time :Matrix :Basis :99-GAM - 016-SL99-G08/14 /991420SoilDry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960003SARec' d Date : 08114/9908/14/99Prep Date:Analysis Date: 08/26/99S9908261OC Batch ::NotesAnalyte1,3-Dichloropropane2 .2-Dichloropropane1,1-DichloropropeneEthylbenzeneHexachlorobutadieneIsopropylbenzene4-IsopropyitolueneMethylene chloride_ Naphthalenen-PropylbenzeneStyrene1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1,2,2 - TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroetheneToluene1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethane1,2,3-Trichloropropane1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene1,3 .5-TrimethyibenzeneVinyl chlorideo-XyieneAcetoneCarbon disulfide2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether1-ChlorohexaneApproved by.Analysis:Det Limit23 .27.15 .15 .77.15 .20.31 .47.22.16.15 .68.16.15 .52.44.17.15 .15.160.17.18.22.130.15 .130 .22.56 .15 .Rep Limit150 .600 .150 .150 .150 .150 .150.150.150.150.150.150 .150 .150 .150 .150 .150 .150 .150.150.300.150 .150.150.300.NotePOLPOLPQLPQLPQLPOLPOLPOLPOLPQLPQLPQLPQLPQLPQLPQLPQLPOLPOLPQLPQLPOLPQLPQLPQL75 . POL600 . PQL150 . POL600 . PQLPOL150.Date :ResultNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUnits Pvc DiiUG/KG0 .55UGIKG0 .55UG/KGo.55UG/KG0 .55UG/KGo.55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0.55UG/KG0.55UG / KG0.55UG/KG0.55UG/KG0 .55UGIKG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UGIKG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0.55UG/KG0.55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55UG/KG0 .55Quanterra Environmental Services . Anchorage . AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 8Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisAnalysis : Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSProject No : 99-092Method : SW8260Prep Meth : SW5030Field 10 : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date: 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Matrix: SoilBasis : Dry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960003SARec'd Date : 08/14/99Prep Date: 08/14/99Analysis Date : 08/26/99QC Batch : S9908261Notes :AnalyteDet LimitRep LimitNotecis-1 .3-Dichloropropene15.150 . POLtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene16.150 . POL1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane15.150 . POL2-Hexanone110.600 . POL2-Butanone150 .600 . POL4-Methyl-2-pentanone95.600 . POLVinyl acetate31 .300 . POLXylenes22.150 . POLm,p-Xylene (Sum of Isomers )30.75 . POLSURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :4-Bromofluorobenzene70-130 SLSA GNToluene-d870-130 SLSAResultUnits Pvc DilNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KG0.0.0.0.Dibromofiuoromethane70-130SLSA1,2-Dichloroethane-d470-130SLSA106%Approved by :Date :UG/KG144%!101%101%GN : Surrogate recovery is outside of control limitsUG/KG0 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .550 .55Quanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Project No :Page: 9Gambell HTW/Debris99-092Semivolatile OrganicOrganic CompoundsCompounds by GC/MSGC/MSAnal isis :: SernivolatileMethod : SW8270Prep Meth : SW3541Field ID : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date: 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Matrix : SoilBasis : Dry WeightAnaiyteAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyieneAnilineAnthraceneBenzoic acidBenzo (a)anthraceneBenzo (b)fluoranteneBenzo (k)fluorantheneBenzo (g,h,i)peryieneBenzo (a)pyreneBenzyl alcoholbis-(2-chloroethoxy)methanebis-(2-Chloroethyi) etherbis(2-Chloroisopropyi)etherbis-(2-ethyihexyi)phthalate4-Bromophenyi phenyl etherBenzyi butyl phthalate4-Chioroaniline1-Chloronaphthalene2-Chloronaphthalene4-Chloro-3-methyiphenol2-Chlorophenol4-Chlorophenyl phenyl etherChryseneDibenzo(a,h)anthraceneDibenzofuranDi-n-butyl phthalate1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1 .2-DichlorobenzeneApproved by:Lab Samp ID :Recd Date :Prep Date :Analysis Date :QC Batch :Notes :Det Limit610 .710 .700 .580.1200.590.610.620.570.550.920.720.680.790.780.780.850.790.590.520.940.650.540.540.570.560.610.660.580.500.Rep Limit0640960001SA08/18/9908/25/9909/09/99S990825ENote3800. POL3800. POL3800. PQL3800. PQLPQL3800 . POL3800 . POL3800 . POL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQL3800 . POL3800 . PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. POL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800 . POLDate:ResultUnits Pvc OilNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KG101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010Quanterra Environmental Services, Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 10Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisProject No :99-092Analysis : Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSMethod : SW 8270Prep Meth : SW3541Feld ID : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date: 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Matrix : SoilBasis : Dry WeightLab Samp 10 : 0640960001SARecd Date:08/18/9908/25/99Prep Date:Date:09/09/99AnalysisQC Batch : S990825ENotes:Analyte3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine2 .4-DichlorophenolDiethyl phthalate2.4-DimethyiphenolDimethyi phthalate2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol2.4-Dinitrophenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene_ 2,6-DinitrotolueneDi-n-octyl phthalateFluorantheneFluoreneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroethaneindeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneIsophorone2-Methyinaphthalene2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)4-Me" phenol (p-Cresol)Naphthalene2-Nitroaniline3-Nitroaniline4-NitroanilineNitrobenzene2-Nitrophenol4-Nitrophenoln-Nitrosodimethylaminen-NitrosodiphenylamineApproved by.Det Limit8600.960.460.590.540.650.570.690.910.540.520.470.450.1700.540.850.520.680.660.990.1900.620.650 .770.720.590.900.570.1200.920. 'Rep Limit----. PQL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800. POL3800. POLPQL---- . POL3800. POL3800. POL3800. POL3800. POL3800. PQL3800. PQL3800 . PQL---- . POL3800 . PQL3800. POL3800 . POL3800 . POL3800 . POL3800. POL3800 . PQL""'. PQL---- . PQL---- . PQL3800 . POL3800 . POLPQL3800 . PQL3800 . PQLNoteDate :ResultUnitsNDNONDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNDNONDNDNDNDNDNONDNDUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUGJKGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUGIKGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGPvc oil101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010Quanterra Environmental Services . Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 11Project Name :Gambell HTW/DebrisProject No : 99 -0 92Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSAnalysis :Method :SW8270Prep Meth : SW3541Field ID : 99-GAM-016-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date :08/14/99Sample Time : 1420SoilMatrix :Basis : Dry WeightLab Samp ID : 0640960001SA08/18/99Rec'd Date :08/25/99Prep Date :Analysis Date : 09/09/99OC Batch :S990825ENotes :AnalyteDet LimitRep LimitNoten-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine750 .3800. POLPentachlorophenol800.---- . POLPhenanthrene370.3800 . POL3800 . POLPhenol620.Pyrene760.3800 . POLPOL1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene680.3800 ..POL2,4,5-Trichlorophenol800 .38002,4,6-Trichlorophenol740.3800. POLPOL690.3800._ AzobenzenePOLCarbazole290 .3800.7600. POLPyridine890 .SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES:25-159 SLSA AXNitrobenzene -d525-178 SLSA AX2,4,6-TribromophenolResultUnitsNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KGUG/KG0 .0%!0 .0%!2-Fluorophenol25-132 SLSA AXPhenol-d525-144 SLSA AX0 .0%!0 .0%!2-Fluorobiphenyl25-158 SLSA AX0 .0%!Terpheny!-d1425-166 SLSA AX0 .0%!AX : Sample too dilute to quantify surrogateApproved by.Date:Pvc Oil1010101010101010101010Quanterra Environmental Servica , Anchorage, AKLab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Page : 12Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :Descr/Location :99-GAM- 016-SL99-GSample Date: 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Lab Samp ID : 0640960001 SAAnalyteMercuryApproved by:Detection ReportingLimit Limit0 .02 0.10 POLNote Result0 .12Date :Units DiiMG/KG dw 1 .0PrepMethodMETHODAnalysisMethodSW7471Basis : DryMatrix : SoilAnalysisDate08/24 /990CBatchS990823HBQuanterra Environmental Service‚ , Anchorage, AKPage: 13Lab Report No. : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :Descr/Location :99-GAM- 016-SL99-GSample Date : 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Basis : DryMatrix : SoilLab Samp ID : E9H210161002AnalyteArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumDetection ReportingLimit Limit0 .92 2 .3 PQL0 .23 4 .6 PQL0.12 1 .2 POL0 .23 2 .3 PQLLead0.46 1 .2 POLSeleniumSilver0 .92 1 .2 PQL0 .23 2 .3 POLApproved by:Units DilMG/KG dw 2.0MG/KG dw 2 .0MG/KG dw 2 .0MG/KG dw 2 .0PrepMethodSW3050BSW3050BSW3050BSW3050BAnalysisMethodSW6010BSW6010BSW6010BSW6010BAnalysisDate08/25/9908/25/9908/25/9908/25 /99197 .MG/KG dw 2 .0SW3050BSW6010B08/25/99 S99082311 .3NDMG/KG dw 2 .0MG/KG dw 2 .0SW3050BSW3050BSW6010BSW6010B08/ 25/9908/25/99Note Result8 .357 .0ND24 .7-Date:QCBatchS9908231S9908231S9908231S9908231S9908231S9908231Quanterra Environmental Service, Anchorage, AKPage: 15Lab Report No. : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :Descr/Location :99-GAM- 016-SL99-GSample Date: 08/14/99Sample Time : 1420Lab Samp ID : 0640960001 SAAnalytePercent MoistureApproved by :Detection ReportingLimit LimitNANANote Result13 .Date :Basis : Not FilteredMatrix : SoilUnits DilPrepMethodAnalysisMethodAnalysisDateOCBatchPERCE 1 .0NONED221608/25/99S990824H20Quanterra Environmental Service, Anchorage, AKPage : 16Lab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :Descr/Location :99-GAM- 016-SL99-GSample Date: 08 / 14/99Sample Time : 1420Lab Samp ID : 0640960003SAAnalytePerce nt MoistureApproved by:Detection ReportingLimit LimitNA NANote Result8.Date :Units DilPERCE 1 .0PrepMethodNONEAnalysisMethodD2216Basis : Not FilteredMatrix: SoilAnalysis QCBatchDate08/25/99 S990824H20L ƒG CT&E Environmental Services Inc .ACT&E Ref.# 994255008Client NameClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeTechnical Director ;,Oil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID 99-GAM-017-SLMatrix Soil/SolidOrdered ByPWSID91309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 15 :1508/18/99 16 :35p n . EdeReleased BySample Remarks :8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results f6r these compounds areestimated .8270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The results are not affected .ParameterTotal SolidsUnitsAllowableMethod LimitsXSM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .06990 .2004 .190 .02005 .526 .430 .00873 U0 .200 U0 .0400 U2 .002 .000 .008730 .2000 .0400mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 7060SW846 60108SW846-7131SW846-7191SW846-7421SW846-7471SW846-7740SW846-776108/24/ 99 08 / 30/99 JMO08/26/99 08 / 31/99 WTA08/24/99 08 / 25/99 KGF08/24/99 08 / 25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/ 25/99 KGF08/25 /99 08/ 25/99 RMV08/24 /99 08/ 27/99 GCP08/24 / 99 08/25/99 KGF1 .88 U1 .88mg/KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/24/99 DARXXAK101 GRO (50-150 )AK101 GRO (50-150 )08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99ResultsPpL96 .1PrepAnalysisDateDate InitRCRA MetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporSeleniumSilverGasoline Range Organics3 .1310 .0mg/KgSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 6895 .3,A111FML ICT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255008Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID99-GAM-017-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /Time91309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 15 :1508/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableMethod LimitsPrepDatemg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-826008/14/ 99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS0 .0940 .0190 .0190 .190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08 /22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRSPOLUnitsAnalysisDateInitVOA by GC/MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethane'inyt chlorideBromomethaneChloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-l,2 - Dichloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone (MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2 - DichloroetheneBromochLoromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichtoropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichtoromethane2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethercis-1,3-Dichloropropene-Methyl-2- pentanone ( MIBK).,luene0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .0190 .019 U0 .19 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .094 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .190 .190 .0190 .0190 .190 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .190 .0190 .190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRSILME Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255008Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParametertrans - 1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-Hexanonelibromochtoromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chtorotoluene4-Chtorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butytbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-DichLorobenzenen-Butytbenzene1,2-Dibromo - 3-chloropropane,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneResultsPOLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 82600 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .019mg/Kg0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .0190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SU846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 82600 .0190 .0190 .190 .019mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 82600 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .19 U0 .019 USW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826091309 /09/99 16 :2808 /14/99 15 :1508 /18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS,ALCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255008Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017-SLSoil/SolidParameterHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneResultsClient PO#Printed Date / TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date /TimeTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdePOL0 .019 U0 .019 U0 .019 U91309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 15 :1508/18/99 16 :350 .0190 .0190 .019UnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260mg/Kgmg/KgAllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate DateInit08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 / 22/99 DRSSW846-8260Surrogates1,2-Dichloroethane - D4 DibromofLuoromethane < surr>Toluene - d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 105101XXSW846-8260SW846 - 826010197XXSW846- 8260SW846- 8260mg/Kgmg/KgAK102 / 103AK102 / 103XXAK102/103AK102/103mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270(74-123)(80-118)( 79-130 )(71-141)08/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908 / 14/99 08/22/99DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC15 .347 .79 .8816 .308 / 24/99 08/28/99 MMP08 / 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane < Surr>95 .7113( 50-150)( 50-150)08/24/99 08/28/9908/24 /99 08/28/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethytaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2-Chloroethyl ) ether2-Chtorophenot1,3-DichLorobenzene', 4-Dichlorobenzene., enzyl alcohol0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .34mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZAILCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255008Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Namel#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . Ede91309 /09/99 16 :2808 /14/99 15 :1508/18 /99 16 :35AllowableParameter1,2-D.ichlorobenzene2-Methylphenol ( o-Cresol)bis(2-chloroisopropyl ) ether3&4-Methylphenol ( p&m-Cresol)N-Nitroso - di-n-propylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethytphenolBenzoic acidBis(2 - Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChloroanitineHexachLorobutadiene4-Chloro-3- methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyctopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthyLene2,6-Dinitrototuene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-Nitrophenol+ibenzofuranRe su lt sPOLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82700 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U1 .7 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .340 .34mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg0 .340 .340 .69mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .34 U0 .34mg/Kg0 .69 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U1 .7 U0 .34 U0 .690 .34mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg0 .340 .340 .34mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg1 .70 .340 .340 .341 .7mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .34mg/Kg1 .71 .70 .34mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .69 U0 .34 U0 .34 U1 .7 U0 .34 U1 .7 U1 .7 U0 .34 Umg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDateInit08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/ 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZA&fCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255008Client PO#913Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDOil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017- SLPrinted Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time09/09/99 16 :2808 /14/99 15 :1508 /18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil /SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameter2,4-DinitrototueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyl - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroaniline2-Methyl - 4,6-dinitrophenotN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachtorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzytphthalate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo ( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalatedi-n-OctytphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k]fluorantheneBenzo[a ] pyreneIndeno[1,2,3 - c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a , hlanthraceneBenzo[g , h,ilperyleneResultsUnitsMethod0 .340 .340 .340 .340 .341 .70 .34mg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg / Kgmg/Kg0 .340 .341 .70 .340 .340 .34mg / Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg/ KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82700 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .69 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .340 .340 .340 .340 .690 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .340 .34mg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kg0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .340 .340 .340 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U1 .7 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 U1 .7 U0 .34 U0 .34 U0 .34 UPOLmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg / Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /KgAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SurrogatesL,4,6-Tribromophenot < Surr>61 .3%sW846-8270Init( 18-122 )08/22 / 99 08/24/99'AILL ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255008Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017-SLClient PO#Printed Date/ TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterPQLResultsUnitsMethodXXXXXSW846-8270SW846-8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 808291309/09/99 16 :2808/14/99 15 :1508/18 /99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysis(24-88)(21-142)(30-103)(18-83)(18-109)08/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99Date InitSurrogatesPhenol-d6 56 .2Terphenyl-d14 ?-FLuorobiphenyl 2-Fluorophenol Nitrobenzene-d5 92 .760 .349 .656 .3SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270PCB's by GC ECDArocLor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232ArocLor-1242Aroclor-1248ArocLor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .00325 U0 .003250 .003250 .003250 .003250 .003250 .003250 .00325mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082XSW846 8082mg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 102(53 .3-125) 08/20/99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma -Chlordanealpha-Chlordanegamma-BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCieptachlor0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .000325mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0003250 .000325mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255008Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-017- SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . Ede91309 /09/99 16 :2908 /14/99 15 :1508 /18/99 16 :35Ordered ByPWSIDParameterAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan 14,4'-DDEDieldrin-ndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin atdehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychtorToxapheneResultsPOL0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .0003250 .0003250 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .000325 U0 .0003580 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .000325 U0 .0325 U0 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0003250 .0325UnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846 - 8081Amg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/KgAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate Init08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 / 20/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081A08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 L2SW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081ASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro -m-xylene < Surr>70 .468%%SW846- 8081ASW846 - 8081A( 46-154 )( 25-120 )08/20/ 99 08/25/9908/20/ 99 08/25/99AL.CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E ReI .IClient NameProject Name/IClient Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID913Client POI09 /10/99 09 :35Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/Time 08 /14/99 15 :30Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Dlrectorr8fe)he 9` Ede994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-0 18-SLSoil/SolidReleased BySample Remarks:8270 - LCSILCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results fof these compounds areestimated.8270 - Internal standards phenanthrene -d 12 are biased low . The result of benzo[b]fluoranthene may bias high .8082- Detection limit raised 10X due to matrix interference .8081 /8082 - Surrogate recovery does not meet QC goals due to matrix interference .8081 -Detection limit raised 200X due to matrix interference .DRO - Pattern consistent with highly weathered middle distillate .DRO - Heavier hydrocarbons contributing to diesel range quantitation.nRO/RRO - Surrogate recoveries outside controls due to matrix interference .'0 - Presence of non target analytes requires analysis at a large dilution .ParameterTotal SolidsResultsPCL93 .5AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInitUnitsMethod%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSme/Kgmg/K9mg/K9me/KeSWO46 7060511846 60106SY846-7131mp/Kgmg/K0mg/Kgmg/KgSV846-7421SY846-7671SY846-774008/24 /99 08 /30/99 JMO08/26/99 08/31/99 WTA08/24/99 08/ 25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGFRCRA MetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporSeleniumSilver3 .0118 .60 .2900 .2223 .790 .022242222 .244 .30 .04450 .4880 .44022 .20 .01340 .2220 .0443SW846-7191S11846-776108/25 /99 08/25/99 RMV08/24/99 08/27/99 GCP08/24/99 08/ 25/99 KGFq1CT&E Envirc :imental Services Inc .CT&E Rd.IClient NameProject Name / #Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDClient PO/913Printed DaterTlme09/10/99 09 :35Collected Daterrlme 08/14/99 15 :30Received Date/TIme 08/18 199 16 :35Technical Director. Stephen C . Ede994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGatnbell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoil/SolidParameter;asoline Range organicsResults2 .66 UPQL2 .66UnitsMethodmg/KgAK101 GROxAK101 GROAK101 GROAllowableLimitsProp AnalysisDate Date Init08/14/99 08/24/99 DARSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene < Surr>1,4-Difluorobenzene < Surr>60 .593 .1X( 50-150)( 50-150 )08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99VOA by GC /MS Method Sv8260Dichlorodiftuoromethane0 .027 U0 .027 me/Kg54846 - 8260ChloromethaneVinyl chloride0 .0270 .02754846 - 826054846 - 8260Methylene chloride0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .13 Utrans - 1,2-Dichloroethene0 .027 U1,1-Dichloroethane0 .027 U2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichloropropane0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 UBromomethaneChtoroethaneTrichloroftuoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfidecis-1,2-DichLoroetheneBromochloromethane0 .027 UChloroform0 .027 U1,1,1-Trichloroethane0 .027 UCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 ORSS4846 - 826008/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSmg/Kg54846 - 8260S4846- 82600 .027me/Kg54846- 82600 .270 .130 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgS4846-8260S4846 - 82600 .27 mg/Kg0 .027 mg/Kg54846 - 826051846 - 826054846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS54846-826008/14 / 99 08/ 22/99 DRSSH846 - 826054846- 8260S4846- 826054846- 826054846- 826008/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS0 .270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .027mg/Kg54846 - 8260SW846 - 826092CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ret./Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatri xOrdered ByPWSIDClient P00913Printed DateiIime09/10/99 09:35Collected Date/Time 08/14199 15 :30Received Date/I7me 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . Ede994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoil/SolidAllocablePer a.e ter1,2-DichloroethaneTrichtoroethene1,2-Dichtoropropeneibraso.ethane.rosodichloramethaneResults0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U2-chloroethyl Vinyl Ether0 .27 Ucis-1,3 - Dichloropropene4-Methyl - 2-pentanone ( MIBK)Toluenetrans - 1,3-Dichtoropropene0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U1,1,2-TrichloroetheneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-NexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibroawethaneChtorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachtoroethaneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyteneStyreneBranafor.Isopropyl benzene ( Cu.ene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichtoropropenen-Propylbenzene?-Chlorototuene-Chlorototuene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert - Butylbenzene0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 UUnitsPOL0 .027 .e/KS0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .270 .0270 .270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027 U0 .0270 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .0270 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .0270 .0270 .027.e/Ka.e/KgmeAsme/Kgmg/Keme/Kgmp/Kgme/Kgme/Keme/Ksme/Kgme/Kg•e/Keme/Kg. e/Kgme/Kgmg/Kgma/K9me/Kgme/Kgme/Kgme/Kgmg/Keme/K9me/Kgme/Kg0 .027 me/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027me/Kgme/K9.e/Kgme/K9MethodLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInitSWO46- d2b0SY846-826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRSSY846 - 8260SY846 - 8260SW646 - 6260Si846 - 826008/14 /99 08/22/99 DRSSv846 - 8260S1d846-826OSY846-8260SY846- 8260SY846 - 8260S11846 - 8260SW646 - 8260SW846 - 8260Sti846 - 8260SWO46 - 8260SWO46- 8260SS846- 8260SW646- 8260SW646 - 8260S1d846-8260S%846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 ORSSi. 46 - 826O08/14/99 08/22/99 ORSS4846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/ 22/99 ORS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 22/99 ORSS'846 - 8260SW546-826OSY846- 8260Sta846- 826OSS1846 - 8260SY846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14 / 99 08 / 22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSQ2CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .JiClient NameProject Name/SClient Sample IDMatri xOrdered ByPWSID913Client POO09/10/99 09 :35Printed Date/TimeCollected Dateffime 08/14/99 15 :30Received Date/IYme 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . Ede994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGambeU DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoil/SolidResultsParameterPOL0 .027 q-1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesac-RutytbenzeneI,3-Dichtorobenzene-Isopropyltotuenei,4-Dichlorobenzene0 . 027 U0 .027 U0 .03960 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U1, 2-Oichlorobenzenen-Butylbenzene1,2-Dibromo - 3-chtoropropene0 .027 U0 .027 U1 .200 .027 U1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-Trichlorobenzens0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027AllowableLimitsProp AnalysisDate Date InitUni tsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg514846-8260SW846- 8260SL1846- 8260SY846- 8260SV846- 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRSmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg514846- 8260514846- 8260514846- 8260514846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRSmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg514846 - 826008 / 14/99 08/22/99 ORS514846-826051846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 22/99 DRSSW846- 8260SY846- 8260514846- 8260514846 - 826008/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/22/99 DR$08/14 /99 08 / 22/99 ORS08/14/99 08/22/99 DRS08/14 /99 08 / 22/99 DRSSurrogates1,2-Dichloroethane - D4 Dibromofluoromethane 105X99 .1xToluene - d8 4-Bromoftuorobenzene 98 .992 .8XX(74-123)( 80-118 )( 79-130 )(71-141)08/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/14/99 08/22/9908/14 /99 08/22/99DRO/RRO Canbination1310930Diesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC49 .782 .1mg/Kgmg/KgAK102/103XXAK102/ 103AK102 /10308/24 /99 09/ 01/99 MMP08/24 /99 09/ 01/99 MMPAK102/103Surrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane II317312(50 - 150)(50 - 150)08/24/99 09/01/9908/24/99 09/01/9994CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Rd .rClient NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoil/SolidClient Por913Printed DatefTlme09/10/99 09 :35Collected DatelTime 08/14/99 15 :30Received Date/Time 08/18199 16 :35Technical Director: Stepben C . EdeAllowableParaaKterResultsPOLUnitsMethod Limits181818.p/K8mommm/Kg511846 -82701818181818mm/KgrJKOme/Kgm8/Kg"/Kgmg/KgPrepDateAnetysisDateInitSemivotatitee by GC/MS1-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2 -Chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenot1,3-Dichtorobenzene1,4-DichtorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichtorobenzene18 U18 u18 u18 u18 U18 U18 U18 U18 U18 U2-Methytphenol (o-Cresol)18 ubis(2-chtoroisopropyt)ether3i4-Methylphenot (pim-Cresot)N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamineNexachloroetheneMitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethytphenolBenzoic acidBis(2 -Chtoroethoxy)methane18 U18 U18 U18 U18 u18 U18 U18 u89 U18 U1,2,4-TrichtorobenzeneNaphthatene4-ChtoroanilineNexachtorobutediene4-Chtoro-3-methytphenot18 U18 U36 U18 U2,4-Dichlorophenot2-MethytnaphtheLeneHexachtorocyclopentediene36 u18 U18 U18 USN846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 L2511846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L2511846-8270SW546-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 L1SV846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ511846-827008/22199 08/24/99 L2511846-8270Sv846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 L2m8/Kpma/Kg511846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZS'846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZWe/KgwJKSmp/Kgmg/Kgmp/Kgmp/KSma/Kgmg/KBSti+846-8270511846-8270551846-827008/22/ 99 08/24/99 L208/22/ 99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L2Si1846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L2SW646-827008/22 /99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZmm/Kgme/KBma/K9"/KgSW546-8270511846-8270S1r846-8270ma/KgS'846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSH846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L21818ft/Kgft/Kgft/KgHp/Kg511846-8270511846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ511846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ18mp/KgSW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ181818181818181818181889181818361836511846-8270S1846-8270SW646-8270SH846-827095CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref;rClient NameProject Name /#Client Sample 1DmatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255009Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoU/SoHdParameter2,4,6-Trichloropherwl2,4,5-Trichtorophenol2-Chloronaphthatene2-Nitroanitine.iaathylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrototueneDiethylphthslate4-ChIorophenyt-phenylotherFtuorene4-Nitroaniline2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Brorphenyt-phenytetherHexachlorobenzenePentachtorophenotPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthatateFluorantheneResultsClient PO#913Printed DatelTlme09/10/99 09 :35Collected DatetTlme 08/14/99 15 :30Received Datenline 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePCL18 U18 u18 U89 U18 U18 U18 U89 U18 u89 U89 U18 u18 u18 u18 U18 U18 u89 U18 U18 U18 U89 u18 U18 U18 U17 .4Pyrene25 .2AzobenzeneButytbenzylphthalate3,3-Dichlorobenzidine18 U18 U36 uBenzo (a)AnthraceneChrysene18 U18 uUnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrepDate54846-8270SY846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 u08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 Lz181818WWKgme/KIDMR/KO8918181889mp/KpSS846-8270511846-8270mg/Ksag/Ka54046-827054846-8270Mg/KBmg/Kgng/Kp54846-827054846-827054846-8270mg/Kgmg/Kg54846-8270S4846-8270ma/Kgsu846-8270ag/Ksme/Kg54846-8270S4846-827054846-8270S4046-827054846-627054846-827054846-827054846-827054846-8270Sv846-8270i88989181818181818ag/KBa4/Kgme/KB89mg/Kg1818w4/Kgmg/KB18W4/KgW4/Kgmp/Kga4/KBn4/KBmg/Kg891s181818AnalysisDateInit08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ54846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ54846-827054846-8270ag/Kp54646-827054846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ18mg/Kgmg/Kgag/Kgme/KB54646-827054846-827054646-827054646-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ18Mg/Kg54846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ18181836QcAL.CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Rd.IClient NameProject Name /IClient Sample 1MatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255009Oil Spill ConsultaaqGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-018-SLSoil/SolidResul tsParameterbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatedi-n-Octytphthatate8enzo [b]FLuorantheneBenzo (k)ftuorentheneBenzo (alpyrene18 UAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInitUnitsMethodSW646-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZS11846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 L218Me/KgWWKgme/Kgme/Kgnq/Kgmg/Kg1818mg/Kgmg/Kg511846-8270SW846-8270(18-122)(24-88)(21-142)(30-103)PQL18 U18 U21 .418 U18 U18 U18 UIndeno(1,2,3-c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a,hlanthraceneBenzo[g ,h,i]peryteneClient POO913Printed DatelTime09/10/99 09 :35Collected DatetTlme 08/14/99 15 :30Received Date/ Ttme 08 /18/99 16 :35Technical Director- Stephen C . Ede1818181818SW846-827051846-8270SW646-8270SW646-827008/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L2Surrogates2,4,6-Tribromophenol 49 .7Phenol-d6 61 .7XXTerphenyl-d14 104XSW646-8270SW846-8270S6846-82702-Ftuorobiphenyt 2-Ftuorophenol Tetrechtoro - m-xylene < Surr>II700200XX511846 - 8081A511846 - 8081A(46-154)( 25-120 )08/20/99 08/26/9908/20/99 08/26/9998A ILCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.# 994255010Client PO#Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsPrinted Date/Time/#GambellDACA85-97-D-0010DO4CollectedDate/TimeProject NameID99-GAM-019-SLReceivedDate/TimeClient SampleMatrixS011/SolidOr d ered ByPWSID91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 15 :4508/18 /99 16 :35e. EdeTechnical Director~,ReleasedS amp l e Remarks :ByA'98270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The results are not affected .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .8082- Detection limit raised lox due to matrix interference .8081-Detection limit raised 70X due to matrix interference .DRO/RRO - Pattern consistent with lube oil .DRO/RRO - Pattern consistent with weathered middle distillate .DRO/RRO - Surrogate recoveries outside controls due to matrix interference .8270 - Presence of non target analytes requires analysis at a large dilution .AllowableParameterTotal SolidsResultsPQL91 .2LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate InitUnitsMethod%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSRCRA Metals0 .2144 .230 .21421 .421 .40 .01610 .2140 .0428mg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 7060SW846 60108Silver4 .2216 .81 .9131135 .10 .01730 .6680 .0767SW846- 7740SW846- 776108/ 24/99 08/30/99 JMO08/26/ 99 08/31/99 WTA08/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/ 25/99 08/25/99 RMV08/24/99 08 / 27/99 GCP08/ 24/99 08 / 25/99 KGFGasoline Range Organics2 .85 U2 .85mg/ KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/24/99 DARArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporseleniumSW846- 7131SW846- 7191SW846- 7421SW846-7471'ILCT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019- SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date / TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameterResultsPOLAllowablePrepAnalysisDateUnitsMethodLimitsDate%AK101 GROAK101 GRO(50-150)08/14/99 08/24/99(50-150)08/14/99 08/24/99InitSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 61 .393 .3%VOA by GC/MS Method SW8260DichiorodifluoromethaneChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChloroethaneTrichtorofluoromethane1,1-DichtoroetheneCarbon disulfideMethytene chloridetrans-1,2-DichLoroethene1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone (MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneBromochLoromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichLoroethene1,2-DichLoropropaneJibromomethane0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .14 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .29mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .290 .0290 .0290 .290 .140 .0290 .0290 .290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260sw846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 ORS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRSAMk~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 15 :4508 /18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameterBromodichloromethane2-ChloroethyL Vinyl Ethercis-1,3 - DichLoropropene4-Methyl - 2-pentanone ( MISK)Toluenetrans-1,3 - Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-HexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propytbenzene2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butytbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene-IsopropyltolueneResults0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 UPOLUnitsMethod0 .0290 .290 .0290 .290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .0290 .0290 .290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .029mg/Kg0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRSJAIL ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLSoil/SolidParameterResults1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butytbenzene1,2-Dibromo -3-chloropropane1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene' 1exachlorobutadiene0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .29 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U0 .029 U4aphthatene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/10/99 09 :3508/14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . EdePQL0 .0290 .0290 .0290 .290 .0290 .0290 .0290 .029UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846- 8260mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate Date Init08/ 14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08 /25/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/25/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/25/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/25/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260Surrogates1,2-Dichloroethane- D4 Dibromofluoromethane 106107Toluene - d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene < Surr>10089 .3XXXXSW846 - 8260mg/Kgmg/KgAK102 / 103AK102 / 103XXAK102/103AK102/ 1038 .4mg/Kg8 .48 .48 .4mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ KgSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260(74-123)( 80-118)( 79-130 )( 71-141)08/14 /99 08/25/9908 / 14/99 08/25/9908/14/99 08/25/9908/14/99 08/25/99DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel. Range Organics77810 .5Residual Range Organics GC45017 .308/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane !176d-Triacontane !189(50-150 )(50-150 )08/24 /99 08/28/9908/24 /99 08/28/99Semivotatites by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridine8 .4 U8 .4 UAnilinehenol8 .4 U8 .4 U08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZA0-'CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterBis(2 -Chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-Cresol)N-Nitroso-di -n-propylamineHexachioroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenotBenzoic acidBis(2 -Chtoroethoxy) methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChloroanilineHexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3-methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene,6-Dinitrotoluener_Re s ultsPQLDate08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .48 .48 .48 .4mg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4438 .4mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg17mg/Kg8 .4 UAnalysisDateSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270mg/Kg8 .48 .4 U43 U8 .4 U8 .4 UPrepLimitsMethod8 .443 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U17 U8 .4 U17 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 UAllowableUnits8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U91309 /10/99 09 :3508 /14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35mg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg17mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .48 .48 .443mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .48 .4mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270Init08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 L208/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZti.CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255010Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . Ede91309/10/99 09 :3608/14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35AllowableParameter3-NitroanitineAcenaphthene2,4-DinitrophenoL4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotoLueneiiethylphthatate4-Chtorophenyt - phenytetherFtuorene4-Nitroanitine2-Methyl-4,6 - dinitrophenotN-Nitrosodiphenytamine4-Bromophenyt - phenytetherResultsPOLUnitsMethodSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846-827043 U43mg/Kg8 .4 U43 U43 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4mg/Kg43mg/Kg43mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg43mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg43mg/Kg8 .48 .4mg/Kgmg/KgHexachLorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthrene8 .4 U43 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U43 U8 .4 UAnthracene8 .4 UDi-n-butyLphthatateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzytphthatate3,3-DichtorobenzidineBenzo ( a)Anthracene8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U17 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .417mg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4mg/Kg8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4 U8 .4mg/Kg8 .48 .48 .4mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg8 .4mg/KgChrysenebis(2 - Ethythexyl ) phthatatedi-n-OctytphthalateBenzo[b]FtuorantheneBenzo[k ] ftuorantheneBenzo[a ] pyreneIndeno[1,2 , 3-c,d] pyrenebenzo[a , h]anthraceneSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW646 - 8270SW846 - 8270sw846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDateInit08 /22/99 08/ 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/24/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/24/99 LZIL!A -CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLClient PO#Printed Date / TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date / TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterBenzo[g , h,i]peryleneResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/KgSW846-827053 .259 .1XXSW846-8270SW846- 827011571 .248 .7XXXXSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82708 .4 U8 .491309/10/99 09 :3608/14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate In it08/22/99 08/ 24/99 LZSurrogates2,4,6-TribromophenoL < Surr>Phenol-d6 erphenyl-d14 < Surr>2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-FLuorophenot < Surr>Nitrobenzene - d5 53 .7( 18-122 )( 24-88 )( 21-142 )(30-103 )(18-83)(18-109 )08/22 / 99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/ 99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99PCB's by GC ECDAroclor-1016Aroclor - 1221Aroctor-12320 .0314 U0 .0314 U0 .0314 U0 .03140 .03140 .0314mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAAAroclor-12420 .0314'U0 .0314mg/KgSW846 808208/20 /99 08/23/99 WAAAroclor - 1248Aroctor-1254Aroclor-12600 .0314 U0 .0314 U0 .0314 U0 .03140 .03140 .0314mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20 /99 08/23/99 WAAXSW846 8082mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081A08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZSW846-8081A08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 106(53 .3-125 ) 08/20/ 99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta - BHC0 .0110 U0 .0110 Ugamma - Chlordanealpha-Chlordane3mma - BHC (Lindane )0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .0110mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgLTA ., CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255010Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-019-SLClient PO#Printed Date/ TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsdelta - BHCHeptachlor0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 UAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosuLfan 14,4 1 -DDEiieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin atdehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxaphene0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U0 .0110 U1 .10 UPOLUnitsMethod0 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .0110mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081AsW846-8081AsW846-8081A0 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .01100 .0110mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg91309/10/99 09 :3608/14/99 15 :4508/18/99 16 :35AllowableLimits0 .01100 .0110mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .10mg/KgXXSW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081AAnalysisDate Init08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZSU846-8081AsW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A5W846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081APrepDate08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachtorobiphenyl Tetrachloro - m-xytene 6963(46-154 )( 25-120 )08/20 / 99 08/26/9908/20/ 99 08/26/99CT&E Environmental Services Inc .994282001CT&E Ref .#Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Gambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID99-GAM-020-SLSoil/SolidMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDReleasedClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09 /01/99 15 :10Collected Date/Time 08 /14/99 16 :30Received Date/Time 08 /18/99 16 :35Technical Directoc:.Staphen C . EdeBySample Remarks :8082- Detection limit raised lox due to matrix interference .8270 - CCV recovery for 2,4-dinitrophenol is biased low . The results for this compound are estimated .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and 3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .8270- Surrogate recovery for nitrobenzene-d5 is biased high possibly due to matrix or/and dilution .8081-Detection limit raised 30X due to matrix interference .GRO/BTEX - Surrogate recovery is biased high due to matrix interference . Results not affected .DRO - Pattern consistent with weathered middle distillate .DRO/RRO - Surrogate recoveries outside controls due to matrix interference .ParameterResultsTotal Solids83 .2Gasoline Range Organics34 .9PQL3 .75AllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate Date InitUnitsMethod%SM18 2540G08/24/99 MPAmg/KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/27/99 DAR%%AK101 GROAK101 GROmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008 / 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846 - 826008/14/99 08 / 26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRSSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene !1,4-Difluorobenzene < Surr>16892(50-150 )( 50-150 )08/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99VOA by GC / MS Method SW8260DichtorodifluoromethaneChtoromethaneVinyl chlorideRromomethanehloroethane0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .38 U0 .0380 .0380 .0380 .380 .38mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg'A L CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994282001Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLSoil/SolidClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date / Time91309/01/99 15 :1008/14/99 16 :3008/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameterTrichlorafluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethytene chloridetrans-1,2-Dichloroethene1,1-DichloroethaneResults0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .19 U0 .038 U0 .038 U2-Butanone (MEK)0 .38 U2,2-Dichloropropane0 .038 Ucis-1,2-DichtoroetheneBromochloromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .04960 .038 U0 .038 U1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichtoroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichtoromethane2-chloroethylvinyl ethercis-1,3 - Dichloropropene4-Methyt-2 - pentanone ( MIBK)Toluenetraps - 1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichtoroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-HexanoneDibromochtoromethane2-Dibromoethanelorobenzene0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 UPQLUnitsMethod0 .0380 .0380 .38mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .190 .0380 .0380 .380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .38mg/Kg0 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .0380 .0380 .0380 .380 .0380 .0380 .038 U0 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/14 / 99 08/ 26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08 /26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 / 26/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08 / 26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS~M : CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994282001Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLSoil/SolidParameter1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyteneo-XyleneStyreneSromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butylbenzene1,2-Dibromo-3-chtoropropane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneResults0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .04810 .04050 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .09610 .038 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .38 U0 .038 U0 .038 U0 .3820 .038 UClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/01/99 15 :1008 /14/99 16 :3008/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeUnitsMethod0 .0380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0380 .0380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .038mg/Kg0 .0380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/KgPQL0 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .038mg/Kg0 .38mg/Kg0 .0380 .0380 .0380 .038mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08 /14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08 /26/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 /26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 26/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 /26/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 / 26/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 /26/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/26/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08 / 26/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 /26/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRSmg/KgSW846 - 82605W846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/14/99 08/26/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 26/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 26/99 DRSXXSW846-8260SW846 - 8260Surrogates', 2-Dichloroethane - D4 ibromofluoromethane < surr>88 .8103(74-123)( 80-118)08/14/99 08/26/9908/14/99 08/26/99IL ACT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994282001Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date/Time91309 /01/99 15 :1008/14/99 16 :3008/18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil /SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameterResultsAllowablePrep AnalysisUnitsMethodLimitsDate Date%%SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260( 79-130 )( 71-141)08/14/99 08/26/9908/ 14/99 08/26/99mg/Kgmg /KgAK102/ 103AK102 / 103%%AK102 / 103AK102 / 1039 .49 .49 .49 .49 .49 .49 .49 .4mg/ Kgmg / Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kg9 .49 .49 .49 .49 .4mg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SU846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 82705W846 - 8270POLInitSurrogatesToluene - d8 10877 .84-Bromoftuorobenzene < Surr>DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC1390090522937808/24/99 09/ 01/99 MMP08 /24/99 09/01/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane < Surr>!!771357(50-150)(50-150 )08/24 / 99 09/01/9908/24 /99 09/01/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2-Chloroethyl ) ether2-Chlorophenot1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichtorobenzene9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 Ubis(2-chtoroisopropyl ) ether9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 Uz&4-Methylphenol ( p&m-Cresol )-Nitroso-di - n-propylamine9 .4 U9 .4 U2-Methylphenot ( o-Cresol )9 .4mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZOR.. y CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282001Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . Ede91309/01/99 15 :1008/14/99 16 :3008/18/99 16 :35AllowableParameterHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenotlenzoic acidSis(2-Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChtoroanilineHexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3 - methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanitineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrototuene3-NitroanitineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenot4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chtorophenyl - phenytether7tuorene‚NitroanitineResultsPQLDateSU846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/ 25/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .448mg/Kgmg/Kg9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U19 U9 .4 U9 .4mg/Kg9 .49 .4mg/Kgmg/Kg48 U9 .4 U48 U48 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 UAnalysisDateInitMethod Limits9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U48 U19 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U48 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 UPrepUnits19mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg19mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg48mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg48mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg48mg/Kg489 .49 .49 .4mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg9 .49 .4mg/Kgmg/Kg9 .4mg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SU846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270. SU846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994282001Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLSoil/SolidParameter2-Methyl - 4,6-dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenol'henanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzylphthalate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo ( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2-Ethylhexyl ) phthalatedi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k] fluorantheneBenzo[alpyreneIndeno(1,2 , 3-c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a,hlanthraceneBenzo[g , h,ilperyleneResultsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/01/99 15 :1008/14/99 16 :3008/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . EdePOLPrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate InitUnitsSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-827008 / 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZSW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 827008 / 22/99 08 /25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ48 U48mg/Kg9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U48 U9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg48mg/Kg9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kgmg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4 U19 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4 U9 .4mg/Kg9 .4AllowableMethod9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg19mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .49 .49 .4mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg9 .4mg/Kg08 / 22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZSurrogates2,4,6-Tribromophenol Phenol - d6 Terphenyt-d14 2-Fluorobiphenyl < Surr>I-Fluorophenol itrobenzene - d5 !55 .359 .796 .778 .947 .1146XXXXXXSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270( 18-122)(24-88 )( 21-142)( 30-103 )SW846 - 8270SW846-8270( 18-83)( 18-109)08 /22/99 08/25/9908/22 /99 08/25/9908 /22/99 08/25/9908/22 /99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908 / 22/99 08/25/99LTI ƒ CT& E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282001Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date/ TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 808291309/01/99 15 :1008/14/99 16 :3008/18 /99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateInitPCB's by GC ECOAroclor-10160 .0390 UAroclor-1221oroclor-1232Aroctor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .0390 U0 .0390 U0 .0390 U0 .0390 U0 .0390 U0 .0390 U0 .03900 .03900 .03900 .03900 .03900 .03900 .0390mg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082%SW846 80820 .01170 .01170 .01170 .01170 .01170 .01170 .01170 .0117mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846- 8081A0 .01170 .01170 .01170 .01170 .0117mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kg0 .01170 .0117mg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846 -8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081Amg/KgSW846 - 8081A08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08 /20/99 08/23/99 WAA08 /20/99 08/23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 112(53 .3-125) 08/20/99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma -Chlordanealpha -Chlordanegamma - BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U4,41-DOEDieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U,,4'-DDD0 .0117 U08/20/ 99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 /26/99 LZ08 / 20/99 08 /26/99 LZA& ; . CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /Time994282001Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-020-SLSoil/SolidParameterEndrin aldehyde4,4 1 -DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResults0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U0 .0117 U1 .17 U91309 /01/99 15 :1008 /14/99 16 :3008 /18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdeUnitsMethod0 .0117mg/Kg0 .0117mg/Kg0 .01170 .01170 .01171 .17mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081APQLAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZSW846 - 8081ASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro - m-xylene < Surr>12259XXSW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081A(46-154).robenzene - d5 l74 .450 .2133XXX77 .335 .7XXX130SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270( 18-122)SW846 - 8270SW846-8270(18-83)( 18-109)( 24-88 )( 21-142)( 30-103 )08/ 22/99 08/25/9908/22/ 99 08/25/9908/ 22/99 08/25/9908/22 / 99 08/25/9908 /22/99 08/25/9908 /22/99 08/25/99LILCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282002Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-021-SLMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#913Printed Date/ Time09/01/99 15 :11Collected Date / Time 08/14/99 16 :30Received Date / Time08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePQLUnitsMethod0 .03860 .03860 .03860 .03860 .03860 .0386mg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082sW846 8082SW846 80820 .0386mg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082XSW846 80820 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01160 .0116mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01160 .0116mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .01160 .01160 .0116mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate InitPCB's by GC ECDAroclor-1016Aroclor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .0386 U0 .0386 U0 .0386 U0 .0386 U0 .0386 U0 .0386 U0 .0386 Umg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachtorobiphenyt 61 .6(53 .3-125) 08/20/99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma-Chtordaneatpha-Chlordanegamma -BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,4'-DDEDieldrinEndrin-ndosulfan II:'-DDD0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 USW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZA1,. VCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282002Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-021-SLSoil/SolidMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDParameterEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResults0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U0 .0116 U1 .16 UClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09/01/99 15 :11Collected Date/Time 08 /14/99 16 :30Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePOL0 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01160 .01161 .16UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg541846 - 8081ASW846-8081A541846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A541846 - 8081AXXSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081AAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate Init08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachtorobiphenyl Tetrachloro - m-xylene 10759( 46-154)( 25-120 )08/20/ 99 08/26/9908/20/ 99 08/26/990". . CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.# 994255012Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID 99-GAM-021-SLMatrix Soil/SolidOrdered ByPWSIDClient PO# 913Printed Date/Time 09/09/99 16 :29Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 16 :30Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical Director. tepheiit . EdeSample Remarks :Sample analyzed for Dioxins (SW8290) by Triangle Laboratories of Durham, NC .ParameterResultsPQLUnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrep AnalysisDate Date Initmg / KgSW846 6010809/02 /99 09/ 03/99 WTA%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSMetals by ICPCopper33 .2Total Solids83 .14 .37Metals by Graphite FurnaceAntimony0 .206 U0 .206mg /KgSW846 - 704108/ 24/99 08/27/99 KGF0 .6420 .206mg/KgSW846 706008/ 24/99 08/30/99 JMO0 .09270 .0206mg/KgSW846 - 713108/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGF22 .22 .06mg/KgSW846 - 742108/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGFMetals by Graphite FurnaceArsenicMetals by Graphite FurnaceCadmiumMetals by Graphite FurnaceLeadTLI Project : 49337 Method 8290 PCDDIPCDF Analysis (b)Client Sample : 99 .42 -55-1.2 Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -021-SL Analysis File : U316704Client Project :Sample Matrix :TLI ID :Gambell, AXSOIL244-42-2Date Received : 0812111999Spike File :SPMrr=SDate Extracted : 08/2911999Date Analyzed: 09/11/1999ICal:ConCal :UF58319U993166Sample Size :11.800 g9.9128DB-5Dilution Factor. n/aU315501Blank File:SWAnalyst:% Moisture :% Lipid:% Solids :16.0n/a84.0Dry Weight :GC Column :Azagytm2-3 .7 .X-T('DDI .2.3 .7 .;t-PeCDD1 .2.3 .4.7 .8-HxCDDI .2_ . 3 .6 .7 .8-Hx('DD1 .2 .3 .7,8 .9-HxCDDt ._.3 .4.6 .7 .8-HpCDD1 .2.3 .4.o .7 .8.9-OCDD11 .71 .3-TCDF1 .2 .3 .7 .,`t-PeC:DF2 .3 .4.7,4-PeCDF1 .2 .? .4.7 .8-HxCDFI .2 .3 .6.7 .8-HxC DF1 .4.6.7 .8-HxCDF1 .2A7 .8 .9-HxCDF1 .2 .3 .4 .6.7 .8-HpCDFI .2 .', .4 .7 .8 .)-HpCDF1 '? .4 .6.7 .8 .9-OCDFTotal T('DDTotal Pe('DDTot-,d Hx('DDTot .d HpCDDCot :d T('DFrot :d l\K('DFTotal I Ix('DFTo al IIpCDFCam 8FbWND2 .23 .08 .98 .21518000 .61 .441 .111 .271221 .030 .8434 :2337 :2040:540 .8025 :55B_J_1 .371 .341 .291 .1730:3333:1933:2433 :53JJ1J74 .14 .81 .061 .0837 :494360.9041 :064 .1E.iPC1 .74 .61 .8NDJ_34:050.972.91 .519 .167 .130:5234 :000.536 :181-2.5263177226 .7729 .912.8614.559 .47362420 .3tPage I of 2MM--MR 1 04 . L,AM 6 15Triangl e Laboratories, Inca801 Capitola Drive ‚ Durham , North Carolina 27713ot, - . ra, C~ ce t .c7w ‚ Cix 19191 544- "O!Printed: 03 :50 09/1411999TL[ Project :Client Samp l e :493379 9.4255-12Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)Analysis File : U316704Client Sample iD : 99-GAM-021-SLb t TW StandardsCOW."C, :-2.3 .7 .8-TCDF11C' :2.? .7 .8-TCDD"C, :-1 .? 3 .7.8-PeCDF"C,--- 1 .? 3 .7.9-PeCDD"C, :-1 .? 3 .6.7,8-HpCDF' C, :-1 .2.3 .6 .7.9-HxC.'DD1 .2 .3 .4 .6.7,8-HpCDF"C, . 1 .'_,3 .4 .6.7 .8-HpCDD161180187180204228294"C, ‚- 1 .? 3 .4.6 .7.8.9-OCDD473"C, :-2.3 .4 .7 .8-PeCDF"C, :- ( . :.3 .4.7 .8-HpCDF"C,, 1 ' .3 .4 .7.9-HxCDD"C . :-1 .2 .3 .4 .7 .9 .9-HpCDF187187,215liro OWyOC i( tft"I m.79.840%-130%0.7389 .192.889 .410110711314611740%-130%0.821 .481 .470 .311 .2225 :5226 :3529:4930:5240%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%25%-130%25%-130%25%-130%40%-130%23092 .592.9105114'CL-2.3 .7 .9-TODD15 .878 .140%-130%t ' 3 .7 . .&9-HpCDF''C', :-? 2 .4 .6.7 .9-HAMF217Ltd11040%-130%40%-130%2122211 .2.3 .4-T1'OD. :-1 .2.' .7 .9 .9-HxCDDData ReviewerVC/Page 2 Of 240%-130%40%-130%25%-130%0 .441 .180.841 .480.511 .260 .4333:2434 :0436 :1737 :1940 :5330:3133:1834:0037 :4926 :360.510.5134 :3933 :530 .851 .1926 :2434 :2309/1411999Wi. - PSR . , a. i.usa : : 70Triangle Laboratories, inc . .801 Capitola Drive ‚ Durham, North Carolina 27713Phone . (919) 544-5729 ‚ Fax: (919) 544-5491Printed : 03 :50 09/14, 19 c 9TLI Project :Client Sample :Client Project :Sample Matrix :TT-I ID :Sample Size :Dry Weight:GC Column :4933799.4255-12Gambell, AKSOIL244-42-21L800 g9.912 gDB-2252.3 .7 .8-TCDFMethod 8290 TCDD/TCDF Analysis (DB-225)Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -021 -S L Analysis File : P993261Date Received: 08x21/1999Date Extrxted : 08129/1999Date Analyzed: 09/14/1999Spike File :ICal :ConCal :SPCZNFZPF27079Dilution Facra- n/a% Moisture :% Lipid:% Solids :16.0n/a84.0Blank File :P993270AnalystSS0 .92cc17CI :-2.3 .7.8-TCDF253125P9930.7423 :010.7823:00Q_0.8821 :50Q-t„40%-130%M13C, -1 .x .4-TODDDara Reviewer. -KPage 10( 109/17/1999C 2W-M rips L.ARS 616-00Triangle Laboratori es, Inc..801 Capitols Drive ‚ Durham, North Carolina 27713Phone : (919) 544-5729 ‚ Fax: (919 ) 544-5491Printed : 17 :59 09/17/1999Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKPage : 14Lab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name:Gambell HTW /Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :Descr/Location :99-GAM-022-SL99-GSample Date : 08/14/99Sample Time : 1630Basis : DryMatrix : SoilLab Samp ID : E9H21016 1001AnalyteDetection ReportingLimitLimitNoteAntimony0.507 .5POLArsenicCadmiumCopperLead1 .00 .131 .00 .501 .30 .633 .10 .63POLPOLPOLPQLResultNDJ1 .1ND65 .736 .5J: EPA Flag - Estimated valueApproved by :Date:PrepMethodAnalysisMethodAnalysisDateOCBatchMG/KG dw 1 .0SW3050BSW6010B08/25/99S9908231MG/KG dwMG/KG dwMG/KG dwMG/KG dwSW3050BSW3050BSW3050BSW3050BSW6010BSW6010BSW6010BSW6010B08/25/9908/25/9908/25/9908/25/99S9908231S9908231S9908231S9908231UnitsDil1 .01 .01 .01 .0Quanterra Environmental Servicets, Anchorage, AKPage : 17Lab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :99-GAM - 022-SLSample Date : 08/ 14/99Basis : Not FilteredDescr/Location :99-GSample Time : 1630Lab Samp I D : 0640960002SAMatrix : SoilAnalytePercent MoistureApproved by:Detection ReportingLimit LimitNA NANoteResult20 .Date :Units DilPERCE 1 .0PrepMethodNONEAnalysisMethodD2216AnalysisDate08/25/99OCBatchS990824H20Quanterra Environmental Servicet , Anchorage, AKPage: 18Lab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name :Gambell HTW/Debris RemovaProject No : 99-092Field ID :99-GAM - 022-SLSample Date: 08 / 14/99Basis : WetDescr/Location :99-GSample Time : 1630Matrix : SoilLab Samp ID : G9H210185001AnalytePercent MoistureApproved by:Detection ReportingLimit LimitNA NANoteResult17 .1Date:Units DilPERCE ww 1PrepMethodMETHODAnalysisMethodD2216Analysis QCDateBatch09/14/99 9237207Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKPage : 19Lab Report No . : 064096 Date: 10/04/99Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisAnalysis :PolychlorinatedProject No: 99-092Method :SW8290Prep Meth :METHODField ID : 99-GAM-022-SLLab Samp ID :G9H2101 85001Descr/Location : 99-GRec'd Date :08/21/99Sample Date : 08/14/99Prep Date:08/25/99Sample Time : 1630Matrix : SoilAnalysis Date :QC Batch :09/11/999237207Basis: Dry WeightNotes :AnalyteDet LimitRep Limit2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin0.151 .01,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin0.300.420.612.25.05 .0PQL1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin0.41 .5.01,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin0.305.0Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran2 .3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran1 .20.080.300.3710.01 .01 .61 .51,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzoturan1,2,3 .7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran0 .300.411,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzoturan2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzoturan1 .2,3 .4,6.7,8-He tachlorodibenzofuranApproved by:NoteResultUnits Ratio FITPOL0.60PG/G0.1POLPOLND12.03.3PG/GPG/GPG/G0.0.0.111POL5.1PG/G0.1POL250.PG/G0.1POLPOLPQLPOL1100 .1 .2NDNDPG/GPG/GPG/GPG/G0.0.0.0.11112 .11 .6POLPOLNDNDPG/GPG/G0.0.110 .350 .422 .91 .8POLPOLNDNDPG/GPG/G0.0.110 .305.0POL96 .0PG/G0.1Date :Pvc DilQuanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKPage : 20Lab Report No . : 064096 Date : 10/04/99Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisAnalysis :PolychlorinatedProject No :Method :SW8290Prep Meth:METHOD99 - 092Field ID :99-GAM-022-SLDescr/Location : 99-GSample Date:08/14/99Sample Time : 1630Lab Samp ID :Rec'd Date :Prep Date :Analysis Date:G9H2101 8500108/21/9908/25/9909/11/99Matrix:QC Batch :9237207SoilNotes :Basis : Dry WeightAnalyteDet Limit Rep Limit1,2,3,4,7, 8,9-HeptachlorodibenzofuranOctachlorodibenzofuranNoteResultUnitsRatio RT5.0570.PG/GPG/G0.0.Pvc Dil5.010.0POLPOL40-135SMSATotal He tachlorodibenzo- -dioxins2.501 ATE AND INTERNAL STANDA D RECOVERIES :5.0PQL430.PG/G0.1Total Heptachlorodibenzofurans (HpCDF)2.5r SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :5.0PQL470 .PG/G0.12.5Total Hexachlorodibenzo - dioxinsOI ATE AND INTERNAL STANDA D RECOVERIES :5.0POL68.0PG/G0.1Total Hexachiorodibenzofurans (HxCDF) 1 2.5SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :4 .5Total Pentachlorodibenzo - dioxinSATE AND INTERNAL STANDA D RECOVERIES :5 .0PQL61 .0PG/G0.14 .5POLNDPG/G0.1Total Pentachlorodibenzofurans (PeCDF) 1 2 .5SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :5 .0PQL11 .0PG/G0.10.310.6011SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDAR D RECOVERIES :1,2,3,4 , 7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran -C13Approved by :IN171%IDate :Quanterra Environmental Services , Anchorage, AKPage : 21Lab Report No . : 064096 Date: 10/04/99Project Name : Gambell HTW/DebrisAnalysis :PolychlorinatedProject No : 99-092Method :SW8290Prep Meth :METHODField ID : 99-GAM-022-SLLab Samp ID :G9H210185001Descr/Location : 99-GSample Date : 08/14/99Sample Time : 1630Matrix : SoilBasis : Dry WeightRec'd Date :Prep Date :Analysis Date :DC Batch :Notes :08/21/9908/25/9909/11/999237207AnalyteDet LimitRep Limit0 .501 .0Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins(TCDD)1 .0Total Tetrachlorodibenzofurans CDF0.50SURROGATE AND INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES :40-135IN1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-C131,2,3,6,7 .8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-C131,2,3,7 .8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-C13ResultUnits Ratio RT Pvc DilPDL7.6PG/G0.1POL47.0PG/G 0.1SMSA65%1NoteIN40-135SMSA72%1IN40-135SMSA69%1IN40-135SMSA65%140-135SMSA69%1Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-C13ININ40-135SMSA72%12,3,7 .8-Tetrachlorodiibenzo-p-dioxin-C 13IN40-135SMSA70%12,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran-C 13IN40-135SMSA78%11,2,3,4,6 .7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran-C131 .2,3 .7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran-C 13Approved by :Date :~iuanterraQuanterra Inc - Anchorage AK LabClient Sample ID :Client Sample ID : 99-GAM - 022-SL99-GAM - 022-SLDioxinsMatrix . . . . . . . . . . SCLIDLot-Sample # . . . : G9H210185-001Work Order # . . . : D1M9N102Date Sampled . ._ : 08/14 /99 Date Received - . : 08/21/99Prep Date . . . . . . : 08/25 /99 Analysis Date . . : 09/11/99Prep Batch # . . . : 9237207Dilution Factor : 1DETECTIONLIMIT UNITSPARAMETERRESULT2,3,7,8 - TCDD0 .60 1TotalTCDD7 .61,2,3,7,8-PeCDD NDTotalPeCDDND1,2,3,4 , 7,8-HxCDD3 .3 J1,2,3,6 , 7,8-HxCDD125 .1 J1,2,3,7, 8,9-HxCDDTotalHxCDD1,2,3,4 , 6,7,8-HpCDD682502 .24 .5BTotalHpCDD430OCDD1100B2,3,7,8 - TCDF1 .2 CONTotalTCDF471,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF NDTotalPeCDF111,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ND2 .92 .11 .80 .181,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ND2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ND1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF NDTotalHxCDF611, 2, 3, 4 , 6, 7, 8-Hp(DDF 961,2,3,4 , 7,8,9-HxCDF 5 .0 JTotalHpCDF470OIDF570INTERNAL STANDARDS13C-2,3,7,8-TODD13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD13C-OCDDPERCENT RECOVERYRECOVERY LIMITS70(40135)69(40135)72(40135)65(40135)72(40135)13C-2,3,7,9-TCDF13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF78697165(40(40(40(40-pg/gpg/gpg/gp9/ 9pg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gPg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gpg/gPg/gMETHODSW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846 8290SW846SW846SW846SW8468290829082908290( r ll G3135)135)135)135)NOTE(S) :Results and reporting limns have been adjusted for dry Weight.J E umated result. Result u less than the reporting limit .8 Method blank :ontarnutauun. The associated method bank contains the target analyte at a reportable level .COY Confirm anon analysts.JAIL ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrix994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeSoil/SolidTechnical Directopr 5tephejYt . EdeOrdered ByPWSID91309/01/99 15 :1108 /14/99 16 :4508 /18/99 16 :35Released BySample Remarks :8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and 3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The resultIor these compounds areestimated .8270 - CCV recovery for 2,4-dinitrophenol is biased low . The results for this compound are estimated .DRO - Pattern consistent with highly weathered middle distillate .DRO/RRO - Surrogate recoveries outside controls due to matrix interference .ParameterTotal SolidsGasoline Range OrganicsResultsPaL89 .62 .68 U2 .68AllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate Date InitUnitsMethod%SM18 2540G08/24/99 MPAmg/KgAK101 GRO08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DAR%%AK101 GROAK101 GROmg/KgSW846- 8260mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSurrogates4-Bromoftuorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 56 .892 .2(50-150)(50-150 )08/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99VOA by GC/MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChloroethane0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .27 U0 .0270 .027TrichLoroftuoromethane1,1-Dichtoroethene^arbon disulfide!thylene chloride0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .1640 .0270 .0270 .270 .0270 .270 .270 .13mg/Kgmg/Kg08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRSLIE. 4 CT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309/01/99 15 :1108/14/99 16 :4508 /18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/ TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDAllowableParametertrans - 1,2-Dichloroethene1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichtoropropanecis-1,2-Dichtoroethene' romochloromethane.hloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichloromethane2-chloroethylvinyl ethercis-1,3-Dichloropropene4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK )Toluenetrans-1,3 - Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-DichLoropropane2-HexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthylbenzene& M -XyleneXyleneResults0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 UPQLUnitsMethod0 .0270 .0270 .27mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 82600 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .270 .0270 .270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027 U0 .0270 .270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRSSW846- 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRSLt .. CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282003Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert - Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethytbenzenesec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-DichLorobenzenen-ButyLbenzene1,2-Dibromo - 3-chloropropane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichLorobenzeneResults0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .03270 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .27 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 U0 .027 UPQLUnits0 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .027mg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .0270 .27mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0270 .0270 .0270 .027mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgMethod91309/01/99 15 :1108/14/99 16 :4508/18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsSW846-8260PrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260sW846-8260SW846-8260sw846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260sW846-8260Sw846-8260sW846-8260sW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260sw846-8260Sw846-8260Sw846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/ 27/99 DRSSurrogatesDibromofluoromethane 90 .9106Toluene - d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene < Surr>107761,2-Dichloroethane - D4 %%%XSW846-8260SW846- 8260( 74-123 )(80-118)SW846- 8260SW846- 8260( 79-130 )( 71-141)08/14/99 08/27/9908 / 14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09 /01/99 15 :11Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 16 :45Received Date/Time08/18 /99 16 :35Technical Director : Stephen C . EdePOLUnitsMethodAllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate DateInitDRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range Organics6439 .98mg/KgResidual Range Organics GC18716 .5mg/KgAK102/ 103AK102/103XXAK102/ 103AK102 / 1030 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 -82700 .33mg/Kg08/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/24/99 08/28/99 MMPsurrogates5a Androstane !d-Triacontane !199216(50-150 )(50-150)08/24 /99 08/28/9908/24 / 99 08/28/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2 - Chloroethyl ) ether2-ChLorophenot1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-DichLorobenzene2-Methylphenol (o-CresoL)bis(2-chloroisopropyl ) ether3&4-Methylphenot ( p&m-Cresol)N-Nitroso-di-n-propyLamineHexachtoroethaneNitrobenzene0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33mg/Kg0 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgIsophorone2-Nitrophenol, 4-Dimethylphenol0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ,z /G4CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample . ID994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterBenzoic acidBis(2-Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-Chloroaniline! exachlorobutadiene4-Chtoro-3 - methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyctopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichtorophenol2-ChLoronaphthatene2-NitroaniLineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-DinitrophenoL4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyt - phenytetherFluorene4-Nitroaniline2-Methyl-4 , 6-dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherexachlorobenzeneentachlorophenolResults1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .67 U0 .33 U0 .67 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33 U1 .7 U1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 UPQLUnits1 .7mg/Kg0 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .330 .670 .330 .670 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .330 .330 .330 .331 .70 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33mg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33mg/Kg0 .33mg/Kgmg/Kg1 .791309/01/99 15 :1108/14/99 16 :4508/18/99 16 :35AllowableMethod LimitsPrepDateSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008 / 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZSW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 827008 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270AnalysisDate Init08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ,A& LCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFtuoranthenePyrene` zobenzenedutytbenzytphthatate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo ( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2 -Ethythexyt) phthalatedi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k]ftuorantheneBenzo[a] pyreneIndeno[1,2 , 3-c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a , h]anthraceneBenzo[g,h,i ] peryleneResultsPQL0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .67 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .3840 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 UUnitsMethod0 .33mg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .670 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .33mg/KgXXXXXXSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82700 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kg0 .33mg/KgAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDateInit08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg91309 /01/99 15 :1108 /14/99 16 :4508 /18/99 16 :3508/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZSurrogates2,4,6-Tribromophenot < Surr>Phenol - d6 Terphenyt - d14 2-Ftuorobiphenyt < Surr>2-FLuorophenot Nitrobenzene - d5 78 .856 .110869 .947 .459 .5( 18-122)( 24-88 )( 21-142)( 30-103 )( 18-83)( 18-109)08 / 22/99 08/25/9908/22 /99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/ 22/99 08/25/9908/ 22/99 08/25/99'AN11W& ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID994282003Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/01/99 15 :1108/14/99 16 :4508/18/99 16 :35Technical Director: Stephen C . EdePOLAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate InitUnitsMethod0 .003430 .003430 .003430 .00343mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 808208/20/99 08/23/99 WAA0 .003430 .003430 .00343mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20 / 99 08 /23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/ 99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAAPCB's by GC ECDAroclor-12210 .00343 U0 .00343 U4roclor-1232,roclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00343 U0 .00343 U0 .00343 U0 .00343 U0 .00343 UAroclor-1016SW846 8082SurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl 120%SW846 8082(53 .3-125 ) 08/20 / 99 08/23/99mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846- 8081ASW846 -8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08 /20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/26/99 LZSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 -8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08 /26/99 LZPesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma -Chlordanealpha -Chlordanegamma - BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,4'-DDEDieldrinEndrinEndosulfan II4'-DDD0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .001710 .001710 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .001710 .001710 .001710 .00171 U0 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .001710 .00171mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ KgSW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081A08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 /26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZAI ~ .CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994282003Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLSoil/SolidParameterEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlor- oxapheneRes ul t sClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdePOL0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .00171 U0 .171 U91309/01/99 15 :1108/14/99 16 :4508/18/99 16 :35UnitsMethod0 .001710 .001710 .001710 .00171mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .00171mg/Kg0 .171mg/KgSW846- 8081ASW846-8081ASW846- 8081ASW846-8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081AAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/ 26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro - m-xylene < Surr>86X64XSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081AInit( 46-154 )(25-120 )08/20 / 99 08/26/9908/20 / 99 08/26/99'AHWEL ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255013Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-023-SLMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidClient PO#913Printed Date/Time09/09/99 16 :29Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 16 :45Received Date/Time 08/18/99 16 :35Technical DirectorrSteahan C . EdeReleased BySample Remarks :Sample analyzed for Dioxins (SW8290) by Triangle Laboratories of Durham, NC .AllowableParameterTotal SolidsResultsPQL89 .6LimitsPrep AnalysisUnitsMethodXSM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSDate DateInitMetals by ICPCopper694041 .2mg/KgSW846 6010809/02 / 99 09/03/99 WTA3 .340 .226mg/KgSW846 - 704108/24/99 08/27/99 KGF1 .570 .226mg/KgSW846 706008/24/99 08/30/99 JMO1 .800 .0904mg/KgSW846-713108 / 24/99 08/25/99 KGF39622 .6mg/KgSW846 - 742108/ 24/99 08/25/99 KGFMetals by Graphite FurnaceAntimonyMetals by Graphite FurnaceArsenicMetals by Graphite FurnaceCadmiumMetals by Graphite FurnaceLeadTL1 Project : 49337 Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)- lient Sample : 99 .4255-13 Client Sample ID : 99-GAMAnalysis File : U316705-023-SLClient Profit u : Gambell, AKSample Matrix :SOIL Date Received: 08/21/1999 Spike File : SPMITTLI ID : 244-42-3Date Extracted : 08129/1999 ICai : UF58319Date Analyzed: 09111/1999ConCal :U993166Sample Size :Dry weight.GC Column :10.800 g Dilution Factor. rda % Moisture : 10.29.698 g Blank File :U315501 % Lipid:n/aDB-5 Analyst :SW % Solids : 89.8CoPUP42 .3 .7 . ;1= fCDD1 .2,3 .7 .3-PeCDD1 .2.3,4.7 .S-HxCDD1,'_.3 .6.7 .8-HxCDD1 .2.3 .7.X .9-HxCDD( .2.3 .4.6 .7 .8-HpCDD1 .2.3.4.6 .7 .8.9-OCDDND3 .32 .95 .83 .746 .31802.3.7.8-TCDF1 .2,3 .7 .8-PeCDF?.3 . 4.7 ..X -PeCDF. .2 .1 .4 .7 .8-Hx('DF1 . . 3 .6 .7 .$-HxCDF2 .3 .4.6.7 . :1-HxCDFI .' 3 .7 .8 .9-HxCDFI .2 .3 .4 .6 .7,8-Hp('DE1 .2 .3 .4 .7 .X .9-HpCDF1 .2 .' .4 .6 .7 .8 .9-0CDF44 .2EMPC6 .916.650.314.029 .1ND0 .883 .47 .958 .11 .01 .551 .261 .231 .141 .070 .8630 :5234 :0134 :0534:2337:1940:540 .79 25 :551 .441 .261 .231 .2330:3233 :1833 :2533 :531 .050 .960 .9336 :1837 :4941 :06TotskToalTCDDToad PiC'DDTotal I [xCDDTonal Hp('DD17 .145 .1731912Total "l'('DFTotal PXDFTotal Hx('DFTotal FIrC13F214166157141487219 .853 .01211t04219175159Page 1 of 2%Cr-- P= , I .olLAM a Is 00801 Capitola Onve ‚ Durham . North Carolina 27713Phone : (919) 544-5729 ‚ Fax : (919) 544-5491Printed : 03 :43 09/14/1999Triangle Laboratoris, IncaTLI Project : 49337 Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)Client Sample : 99 .4255-13 Analysis File : U316705Client Sample ID : 99-GAM-023-SL"C, ‚-2 .3 .7 .8-TC'DF.8-TODD.7.3'1C,---2:-1 2 .3 .7 .8-PeCDF"C,-'C,,- 1 ._.3 .7 .8-PeC:DD"C, :- 1 .? 3 .6.7 .8-HxCDF"C, :-1 .2_.3 .6.7 .8-HxCDD"C, :-1 .2.3 .4.6,7 .8-HpCDF"C, :-1 . :.3 .4.6 .7 .8-HpCDD"C, :-1 .2.3 .4.6 .7 . 9-OCDD157182189183196228225309486Surrogaibs Sbrodwds Cry" ."C, :-2 .3 .4 .7 .8-PeCDF"C 1 .2 .3 .4 .7 .8-HxCDF"C, :-1 .' 1A7 .8-HxCDD"C, :-1 2 .3 .4.7 .8 .9-HpCDFI76 .188 .391 .588 .795 .111110915011840%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%25%-130%25%-130%25%-130%0 .760 .811 .451 .460.511 .220 .441 .250.8525 :5326:3629 :5030:51 _33 :24 _34:0536:1737:19 RO_40:5330:3133 :1937 :4941Caw ~>20318198 .587 .640%-130%22326510812840%-130%1 .470.521 .2825%-130%0.43Ot . StandardCare.'CL-2 .3 .7 .8-TCDD15 .3'-'C, .2_.3 .7 .8 .9-HxCDF:-1A', ‚-'_3 .4.6 .7 .8-HxCDF223231RT74 .440%-130%26:3710840%-130%40%-130%__112WPage 2 of 2Triangle Laboratori es, Inc.,801 Capitola Drive ‚ Durham, North Carolina 27713Phone (919) 544-5729 ‚ Fax : (919) 544-549134:00C lJanlts%"C,.4-TODD.3.2:-1'V . -- 1 . 2 .3 .7 .8 .9- HxCDDData Reviewer40%-130%0.5134 :390.5133:530.841 .2026 :2634:2309/14/1999%a .yM ., . a .LABSe,5 XPrinted: 03 :43 09/14/1999. ( ATLI Project : 49337 Method 8290 TCDD/TCDF Analysis (DB-225)Client Sample : 99 .4255-13 Client Sample ID : 99-GAM-023 -S L Analy sis File : P993249Client Project:Sample Matrix :TLI ID :1Gambell, AXSOIL244-42-3Date Received: 08/2111999Date Extracted : 08/29/1999Spike File :ICal :Date Analyzed: 09113/1999ConCal:Sample Size :10.300 gDilution Factorr n/a% Moisture :Dry Weight :9.698 gBlank File :P993270% Lipid :GC Column :DB-225Analyst:SW% Solids :ArAMM3,7,8-TCDFSPC2NF2SFF27079P99324510.2n/a89.3Cove.RW6 .1"C, :- 1 .2.34-TCDDData Reviewer _~tl23 :000 .8021 :48- 09/16/1999Page I of 1Triangle Laboratori e s, Inc .*801 Capitola Drive ‚ Durham, North Carolina 27713Phone (919) 544-5729 ‚ Fax : (919) 544-54910.72C4V Pgt .zo:L 56 :530Printed : 20 :08 09/16(1999'ACT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample IDMatrix994282004Client PO#913Printed Date/Time09/01/99 15 :11Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 17 :0008/18/99 16 :35Received Date/TimeTechnical Directote lih9QC . EdeOil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLSoil/SolidOrdered ByPWSIDSample Remarks :8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and 3 , 3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results ?or these compounds areestimated .8270 - CCV recovery for 2, 4-dinitrophenol is biased low . The results for this compound are estimated .ParameterTotal SolidsGasoline Range OrganicsResultsPQLPrepAnalysisDate Date InitUnitsXSM18 2540G08/24/99 MPAmg/KgAK101 GR008/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DARXXAK101 GR0AK101 GR00 .022mg/KgSW846 - 82600 .0220 .0220 .22mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 -8260SW846 -82600 .220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 -82600 .220 .110 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg94 .22 .17 UAllowableLimitsMethod2 .17Surrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 74 .994 .4(50-150 )( 50-150 )08/14 /99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99VOA by GC/MS Method SU8260ChLoromethaneVinyl chloride0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 UBromomethaneChLoroethaneTrichtorofluoromethane1,1-Dichloroethene0 .22 U0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .022 UCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-1,2-Dichtoroethene,1-Dichloroethane0 .22 U0 .1410 .022 U0 .022 UDichlorodifluoromethaneSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SU846-826008 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSA 04CT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309 /01/99 15 :1108 /14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994282004Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil /SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameter2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneBromochtoromethaneChloroform', 1,1-Trichloroethane. arbon tetrachloride1,1-DichLoropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichLoroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichloromethane2-chloroethylvinyt ethercis-1,3 - Dichtoropropene4-Methyt - 2-pentanone ( MIBK )Toluenetrans-1,3 - Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichtoroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichtoropropane2-HexanoneDibromochtoromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-Xylenet yrenexnoformResults0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 UUnitsMethod0 .220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 82600 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kg0 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .220 .0220 .220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgPQL0 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRSAIL 4 CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282004Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterIsopropytbenzene ( Cumene)Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene'-Chlorotoluene4-Chtorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethytbenzenetert - Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzenesec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyttotuene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butytbenzene1,2-Dibromo - 3-chloropropane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneHexachLorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneResultsUnitsMethod0 .022mg/KgSW846-82600 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260PQL0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .22 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .022 U0 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .022mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .022mg/Kg0 .0220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .220 .0220 .0220 .0220 .022mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/14 / 99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08 / 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/ 27/99 DRS08/ 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 82605W846-8260SW846-8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260Surrogatesy1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 91 .4XDibromoftuoromethane Toluene -d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 10610896xXXSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260(74-123 )(80-118)( 79-130 )( 71-141)08/14/99 08/27/9908/ 14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99CT&E Environmental Services Inc .91309/01/99 15 :1208 /14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282004Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixSoil /SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg / KgAK102/103AK102/ 103%AK102/ 103AK102/ 103AllowablePrep AnalysisLimitsDate Date InitDRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC10 .2 U22 .010 .216 .908/24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/ 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane < surr>d-Triacontane < Surr>91 .6120%(50-150 )08/24 /99 08/28/99(50 - 150)08/24/99 08/28/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2-Chloroethyl ) ether2-Chtorophenol1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-Methylphenol ( o-Cresol )bis(2-chloroisopropyl ) ether3&4-Methylphenot ( p&m-Cresol )N-Nitroso - di-n-propylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .31mg/ Kgmg/ Kg0 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .31mg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kg0 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .31mg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZLt -CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994282004Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Gambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID99-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date / TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterBenzoic acidBis(2-Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-Chloroanilineiexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro - 3-methylphenot2,4-Dichtorophenol2-MethylnaphthateneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethylphthatateAcenaphthytene2,6-Dinitrotoluene_3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-NitrophenotDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyl - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroaniline2-Methyl-4,6 - dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenylether1 exachtorobenzene.' entachtorophenotResults1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .63 U0 .31 U0 .63 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U1 .6 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 UPOLUnitsMethodSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 82701 .6mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .310 .63mg/Kg0 .310 .630 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .6mg/Kg0 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .6mg/Kg0 .311 .6mg/Kgmg/Kg1 .6mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kg1 .6mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .310 .31mg/Kg1 .6mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827091309 /01/99 15 :1208 /14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateInit08 / 22/99 08 /25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 /25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZAUM-LCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282004Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butytphthatateFluoranthenePyrene0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31mg/KgSW846 - 82700 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/Kglzobenzeneautylbenzytphthalate3,3-DichtorobenzidineBenzo( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatedi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k]fluoranthene0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .63 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .310 .630 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82700 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/KgSW846-8270XXXXXXSW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270Benzo[alpyreneIndeno[1,2 , 3-c,d] pyreneDibenzo[a,hlanthraceneBenzo[g , h,i]perylenemg/Kgmg/Kg91309/01/99 15 :1208 /14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/ 22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 82705W846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270Surrogates2,4,6-Tribromophenol Phenol - d6 Terphenyt - d14 2-Fluorobiphenyl < Surr>2-Fluorophenol Nitrobenzene - d5 7464 .910772 .55766(18-122 )( 24-88 )( 21-142 )(30-103 )( 18-83)( 18-109)08/22 / 99 08/25/9908/22 / 99 08/25/9908/22 / 99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/ 22/99 08/25/99ANWOLCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282004Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 808291309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :0008/18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate InitPCB's by GC ECDAroclor-12210 .00317 U0 .00317 U0 .003170 .00317roctor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00317 U0 .00317 U0 .00317 U0 .00317 U0 .00317 U0 .003170 .003170 .003170 .003170 .00317Aroctor-1016SW846 808208/ 20/99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/ 20/99 08/23/99 WAAmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 808208/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20 / 99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20 / 99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08 / 23/99 WAA08/20/99 08 / 23/99 WAAXSW846 8082mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>96 .6( 53 .3-125 ) 08/20 /99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma - Chlordanealpha-Chlordanegamma - BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCHeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,41-ODEDietdrinEndrin'dosulfan II.,4'-DDD0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .0003170 .0003170 .000317mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0003170 .000317mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZ08/20/99 08/26/99 LZAl~kCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282004Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterEndrin aldehyde4,4 1 -DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlor.oxapheneResultsPQL0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .000317 U0 .0317 U0 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0003170 .0317UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081ASW846 - 8081AXXSW846-8081ASW846-8081A91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :0008 /18/99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate Init08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08 / 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/26/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 26/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>Tetrachloro - m-xylene 78 .264 .8(46-154)( 25-120 )08/20/99 08/26/9908/20/99 08/26/99IL ACT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixCT&E Environmental Services Inc .994255014Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-024-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeSoil/SolidTechnical Director: SOrdered ByPWSID91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 17 :0008/18 /99 16 :35hen _C . WeReleased BySample Remarks :Sample analyzed for Dioxins (SW8290) by Triangle Laboratories of Durham, NC .ParameterTotal SolidsResultsPaL94 .2UnitsAllowableMethod LimitsXSM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSPrep AnalysisDate DateInitMetals by ICPCopper7 .324 .25mg/KgSW846 6010809/02 /99 09/03/99 WTA0 .211 U0 .211mg/KgSW846-704108/24/99 08 /27/99 KGF1 .090 .211mg/KgSW846 706008/24 / 99 08/30/99 JMO0 .03750 .0211mg/KgSW846-713108/24 / 99 08/ 25/99 KGF5 .642 .11mg/KgSW846 -742108/24/99 08/25/99 KGFMetals by Graphite FurnaceAntimonyMetals by Graphite FurnaceArsenicMetals by Graphite FurnaceCadmiumMetals by Graphite FurnaceLeadTLI Project : 49337 Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)Client Sample : 99 .4255-14 Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -024-SL Analysis File : U316706Client Project : Gambell, AKSample Mtatrvc :SOIL Date Received : 08/21/1999 Spike File : SPMI'i72STL[ ID : 244-42-4 Date Extracted: 08/29/1999 ICal : UFS8319Date Analyzed : 09/1111999ConCal :U993166Sample Size :Dry Weight :GC Column :10 .500 g Dilution Factor. n/a % Moisture : 5.69.912 g Blank Fide : U313501 % Lipid : n/aDB-5 Analyst:SW % Solids : 94.41QUM2.3 .7.X-TCDD1 .2 .3 .7 .5-PeCDD1 .2.3,4.7 .8-HxCDD1 .2.3 .6.7 .X-HxCDD1 ._2.3.7.8 .9-HxCDD1 .2.3.1.6.7 .8-HpCDDI ,2.3.4,6.7 .8.94)CDDNDNDND1 .01 .41 .0090 .9ND9 .952 .41 .08 37:19 B_0.83 40:533 .4 .6.7 .8-HxCDF12.3 .7 .X .1)-HxCDFI .2 .3 .4 .6.7 .X-HpCDFI .2 .3 .4 .7 ., .9-HpCDFt .: .3 .4 .6.7 . ;t .94)CDF4 .8ND0 .9IDWC8 .62 .26 .7ND0 .917 .62 .115 .41'utal TC DDTotal PeCDDTotal Hx('DDTotal HpCDDNDND6 .621 .8Tot:d "I'('I)FTotal PeCDFTotal Hx('DFTotal 1(p('DF7S211 .1226 .062 .3 .7 .5-TCDF1 .2 .3 .7 .8-PeCDF2_.3 .4.7 .8-PeCDF12.3 .4 .7.8-HxCDFI .2.3 .6.7 .8-HxCDF32 .90 .78 25 :55 B2 .51 .22 33 :18 _1 .23 33 :25 J1-1933 :541 .010 .970 .8736 :18 _37 :48 J_41 :053217 .54Page 1 of 2WTr._M -106 . LA AS 6.15 XTriangl e Laboratori es, Inc.,,801 Capdola Drive • Durham , North Carolina 27713Ph-r (g191 544-5729 • Fax : (919) 544-5491• Printed : 03 :16 09/ 1411999. n CTLl Project : 49337Client Sample : 99 .4255-14Method 8290 PCDDI PCDF Analysis (b)Analysis File : U316706Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -024-SL"C, :-2.3 .7 .8-TC'DF"C,-2.3 .7 .8-TODD"C,-.-1 .2.3 .7 .8-PcCDF"C, :- l .? 3 .7 .8-P,.CDD13C, :- 1 .2_.3 .6.7.9-HpCDF"Cu-t' 3 .6.7 .9- Flx('DD'IC, :- .2.-;1 .4 .6.7, 8-HpCDF"C, :-1 .23 .4 .6.7.9-HpCDD"C, _ .1 2.3 .4 .6.7 .9 .9-0CDD13013613613313818316921738264 .267 .367 .266 .068 .690 .783 .610794 .640%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%25 %-130%25%-130%25%-130%0.770.851 .491 .460 .511 .160 .430 .990 .8325 :5226 :3529 :4930 :5133 :2434 :0536:1737 :1840:52'C, :-2.3 .4,7.8- PeCDF"C, . 1 .1 .4.7 .8-HpCDF"C, :-1 .23 .4.7 .9-HxCDD"C, :-1 ' x .4 .7 .9 .()-HpCDF14712816321172.963 .680 .710540%-130%1 .460 .501170 .4333 :1833 :5937 :48"C'L-2_ .3 .7 .9-T(')D11 .858 .240% -130%Conc {perRRCavaryCC tanksRado92.090.840%-130%0 .510 .5234:390.8326 :2434 :23Aitsnat. Standards O%yin )1 .2 .3 .7 .9 .'-HpCDF 186"C, :-'_3 .4.6 .7 .9- lUxCDF 1831 .2_ Z .4-TCDD(' _-1 .2 .3 .7 .9 O-HxCDD40%-130%40%-130%25%-130%40%-130%26 :361 .20Data ReviewerV VPage 2 of 230:3133:5309/1411999s ? vsa .t .a .Lbm6 ;s00Triangl. Laboratories, Inc .*801 Capitola Drive • Durham , North Carolina 27713. Printed : 03 :16 09/1411999TLI Project :Client Sample :49337 Method 8290 TCDD/TCDF Analysis ( DB-225)99 .4255- 14 Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -024-SL Analysis File : P993262TLI ID :Gambell, AKSOIL244-42-4Sample Size :Dry Weight:GC Column :10 .500 g9.912 gDB-225Client Project:Sample Matrix :Date Received: 08121/1999Date Extr3c- ed: 08129/1999Date Analyzed: 09/'1411999Spike Fide:ICal :ConCal :SPCZNF2SFF27079P993252Dilution F wtoc n/aBlank File :P993270Analyst :SS% Moisture :% Lipid:% Solids :5.6n/a94.4FigsAAWytw0-62.3 .7,8-TCDF0 .6723 :000 .7722 :590 .7821 :50J-ltt146"C, :-= .3 .7 .8-TCDF40%-130%72.21wy stwxbm.3 .4-TCDD"C, : .1 .2Data Reviewer.09/ 1611999VPage 1 of 1CZW _PW .20'. LAR S 6. :7 00Triangl e Laboratorls, Inc .s801 Capitola Drive • Durham, North Carorma 27713 Printed : 20 :08 09/16/1999-^ - 'n .1)\ c .4-r'rnO . Ce . . !a101 CA .1_e A'n .,-nCT&E Environmental Services Inc .cACT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrix994282005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date/Time91309 /01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008 /18/99 1 :35Technical Director . Spjdn CeSoil/SolidOrdered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks :8270 - CCV recovery for 2,4-dinitrophenol is biased low . The results for this compound are estimated .8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and 3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .DRO - Pattern consistent with highly weathered middle distillate .DRO - Heavier hydrocarbons contributing to diesel range quantitation .ParameterTotal SolidsGasoline Range OrganicsResultsPQL94 .72 .05 U2 .05AllowablePrepLimitsDate DateAnalysisUnitsMethodInit%SM18 2540G08/24/99 MPAmg/KgAK101 GRO08/14/99 08/27/99 DAR%%AK101 GROAK101 GROSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846-8260SW846 - 826008 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 /14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846 - 8260SW846 - 8260SW846 - 826008 / 14/99 08 /27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRS08 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846 - 826008 / 14/99 08/27/99 DRSSurrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 72 .593 .7( 50-150 )(50 - 150)08/14 / 99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99VOA by GC/ MS Method SW8260DichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfidelethylene chloride0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0200 .200 .200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .10 U0 .0200 .200 .10mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg` 1IL I CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAiM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date /Time91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008/18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDAllowableParametertrans-1,2-Dichloroethene1,1-DichLoroethane2-Butanone (MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2-DichloroetheneromochLoromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichLoropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroetheneResults0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichtoromethane2-chloroethytvinyl ethercis-1,3-DichLoropropene4-Methyl-2-pentanone ( MIBK)Toluenetrans-1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichloroethaneTetrachLoroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-HexanoneDibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChLorobenzene1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 UEthyLbenzene& M -Xylene,-Xylene0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 UPOLUnitsMethod0 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0200 .200 .0200 .20SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS,AI ° CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene (Cunene)Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U2-Chtorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-Trimethylbenzenetert-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethytbenzene0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 Usec-Butytbenzene1,3-DichLorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butylbenzene1,2-Dibromo-3-chtoropropane1,2,4-TrichtorobenzeneHexachlorobutadiene0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .20 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 U0 .020 UNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzenePQL91309 /01/99 15 :1208 /14/99 17 :3008 /18/99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDateUnitsMethod0 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS0 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .200 .0200 .0200 .0200 .020mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRS08/14/99 08/27/99 DRSSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260Surrogates1,2-Dichtoroethane-D4 92 .2Dibromofluoromethane Toluene-d8 10610689 .64-Bromofluorobenzene XXXXSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260Init(74-123)(80-118)(79-130)(71-141)08/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/9908/14/99 08/27/99'CG~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . Ede91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008/18/99 16 :35Ordered ByPWSIDParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodAllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDate DateInitDR0/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC24 .850 .19 .17 mg/Kg15 .1 mg /KgAK102/ 103AK102/ 10393 .1127%%AK102/ 103AK102/1030 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/KgSW846-827008/24/99 08/28/99 MMP08 / 24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane (50-150 )(50 - 150)08/24 /99 08/28/9908 / 24/99 08/28/99Semivolatiles by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2 -Chloroethyt) ether2-Chlorophenot1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneBenzyl alcohol1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-MethylphenoL ( o-Cresol )bis(2 -chloroisopropyt) ether3&4-Methylphenol ( p&m-Cresol )N-Nitroso - di-n-propylamineHexachtoroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone'- NitrophenoL., 4-Dimethylphenol0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/Kg0 .33 mg/KgSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZILCA ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994282005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Namel#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsBenzoic acidBis(2-Chloroethoxy ) methane1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 UNaphthalene4-Chloroanilinelexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3 - methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethytnaphthaleneHexachlorocyctopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenot2,4,5-TrichtorophenoL2-Chloronaphthalene2-Nitroaniline0 .33 U0 .68 U0 .33 U0 .68 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 UDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-DinitrotoLuene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-DinitrophenoL4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyl - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroaniline2-Methyl - 4,6-dinitrophenolN-Nitrosodiphenytamine4-Bromophenyl - phenylether1exachlorobenzeneentachlorophenol1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33 U1 .7 U1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U1 .7 UPQLUnits1 .7mg/Kg0 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .330 .680 .330 .680 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .33mg/Kg0 .330 .331 .70 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .331 .7mg/Kgmg/Kg1 .7mg/Kg0 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg1 .70 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .331 .7mg/Kgmg/Kg91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008/18/99 16 :35AllowableMethod LimitsPrepDateSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 827008/22 / 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270AnalysisDate Init08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 /22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/ 22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZLtd. CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994282005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyrene\zobenzeneautylbenzylphthalate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo (a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatedi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[klfluorantheneBenzo[a ]pyreneIndeno[1,2,3-c,dl pyreneDibenzo[a,h]anthraceneBenzo[g,h,ilperyleneResults0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .68 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 U0 .33 UPQLUnitsMethod0 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .680 .330 .330 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kg0 .330 .330 .330 .33mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg91309/01/99 15 :1208 /14/99 17 :3008 /18/99 16 :35AllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate Init08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZ08/22/99 08/25/99 LZSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SurrogatesPhenol-d6 Terphenyl-d14 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2-Fluorophenol 80 .361 .411571 .452 .8Nitrobenzene-d5 60 .22,4,6-Tribromophenol XXXXXXSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270(18-122)(24-88)(21-142)(30-103)(18-83)(18-109)08/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/9908/22/99 08/25/99ALCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994282005Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date /TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 808291309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008 /18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate InitPCB's by GC ECDAroclor-1016Aroclor-1221lroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroctor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-12600 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .00341 U0 .003410 .003410 .003410 .003410 .003410 .003410 .00341mg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 8082XSW846 8082mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08 / 20/99 08/23/99 WAA08 / 20/99 08/23/99 WAA08 / 20/99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/ 23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/ 23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>95 .8(53 .3-125 ) 08/20 / 99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma - Chlordanealpha - Chlordanegamma - BHC (Lindane)delta-BHCHeptachlorAtdrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,41-ODEDieldrinEndrin‚ndosulfan II,,4'-DDD0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .000341mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0003410 .000341mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZ'AlL ~CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994282005Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterEndrin aldehyde4,41-DDTEndosulfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResultsPQL0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .000341 U0 .0341 U0 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0003410 .0341UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081AxSW846- 8081ASW846-8081A91309/01/99 15 :1208/14/99 17 :3008 /18/99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init08/20/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/25/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyt Tetrachloro - m-xylene 74 .164 .1x(46-154)( 25-120 )08/20 / 99 08/25/9908/20 / 99 08/25/99A ILCT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDCT&E Environmental Services Inc .994255015Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-025-SLSoil/SolidClient PO#Printed Date/ TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date / TimeTechnical Director •91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 17 :3008/18 /99 16 :35tephen C . EdeSample Remarks :Sample analyzed for Dioxins (SW8290) by Triangle Laboratories of Durham, NC .AllowableParametertotal SolidsResultsPQL94 .7LimitsPrep AnalysisUnitsMethodDate Date InitXSM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSMetals by ICPCopper49 .34 .23mg/KgSW846 6010809/02/99 09/03/99 WTA0 .204 U0 .204mg/KgSW846-704108/24/99 08/27/99 KGF0 .6040 .204mg/KgSW846 706008/24/99 08/30/99 JMO0 .1290 .0204mg/KgSW846-713108/24/99 08/25/99 KGF9 .022 .04mg/KgSW846-742108/24/99 08/25/99 KGFMetals by Graphite FurnaceAntimonyMetals by Graphite FurnaceArsenicMetals by Graphite FurnaceCadmiumMetals by Graphite FurnaceLeade-TLI Project : 49337 Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)Client Sample : 99 .4255-15 Client Sample ID : 99-GAM -025-S L Analysis File : U316707Gambeil, AKClient Project :SOILSample Matrix :TLI ID : 244-42-5Sample Size :Dry Weight:GC Column :10.500S9.9658DB-53 .7 .8-TCDDI .2.3 .7 .8- PeCDD1 .2,3,4 .7 .8-HxCDD1 . 2. 3., 6. 7 ,.88-131 .2.3.7 .8 .9-HxCDD1,23.4 .6.7 .8-Hp(MI)1 .2 .? .4 .6.7 . 8 .9-0(DDDate Received: 08/21/1999Date :Extracted 08/29/1999Date Analyzed : 09/1111999Spike File : SPMTF22sICal : UF58319CoaCal:U993166Dilution Factor. n/aBlank File :U315501Analyst:Sw% Moisture : 5.1% Lipid : n/a% Solids : 94.9ND0.70.80.60 .60.6NDNDNDND1.39 .72.3 .7,5-TCDF1 .2 3 .7 .X-Pe('DF2.3 .4.7 .8-PeCDFI .2 .3 .4 .7 .8-HpCDFI .' 3.6 .7 .$-HpCDF?.3 .4.6 .7 .8-HxC'DF1?.3.7 .X 1)-HpCDFI .2.3.4 .6 .7 .8-HpCDFNDNDND1 .2NDNDNDI .2 .3 .4 .7 .8 .9-HpCDF12.3.4 .6 .7 .8 .94XDFNDENIPCTotal T('DDNDTotal PeCDDTotal Hx('DDford IIp('DDNDTotal 'IC I )ENDTotal Pe('I)FTotal Hx('DFTotal I tp('1)FND2.124.1237 :1940:53TB1 .2833 :1810 .9236 :18JBJB0.70.60.70.40.50.52.4ND2.30.940.840.71 .9J0.70.80.620.70.6Page 1 of 2har. 1"9t • I a. URS 615 •XTriangle Laboratories, Inca801 Capitola Drive • Durham , North Carolina 27713Phone (919) 544-5729 • Fax : (919) 544-5491Printed: 03 :17 09 /141199911TLI Project : 49337Client Sample : 99 .4255-15Method 8290 PCDD/PCDF Analysis (b)Analysis File : U316707Client Sample ID : 99-GAM-025-SLknerma 5Cone.:oov..yQC Llift12314961 .20 .7514471 .678 .182.896 .910212640%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%40%-130%25 %-130%0 .4425%-130%1 .040 .86"C, :-2 .3 .7 .8-TCDF"C, :-2.3 .7 .8-TC-DD1 3 C, :-1 . 2 .3 .7 .8-PcCDF"C, :- I .'3 .7 .8-PeCDD.2? .6.7 .8-HxCDF.-1"C,"C, :-1 .2 .? .6.7 .8-HxCDD"C,-- 1 .2.1-4 .6.7,S- HpCDF''C',--1 .' 3 .4 .67 .8-HpCDD"C, :-1 .2 .? .4 .6.7 .8.9-OCDD2-53487--2.3 .4.7 .8-PeCDF"C, . l .' 3 .4 .7 .8-HxCDF''C, :- 4 ._' .3 .4 .1 .8-HxCDD"(', :-I ' 3 .4 .7 .8 .9-HpCDF180166182267"('L-2_.3 .7 .8-TODD;'G-- l .2A7X1)-HxCDF"C, :-'_ .3 .1 .6 .7 .8-HxCDF' C,15716619420574 .40 .821 .461 .430 .521 .2325 :5226:3529 :4930:5133 :2434 :0436 :1737 :1812125%-130%89.640%-130%1 .4982.840%-130%0.5190.713340%-130%25%-130'0 .4413 .265.840%-130%21721310840%-130%0.5110640%-130%0 .5234:3933:530 .821 .1926:2534 :23"(', :-1 .2 .3 .4-TC DDc .-1 .2 .3 .7 .84 QQ-HxCDDData Reviewer.Phone (919) 544-5729 • Fax : (919 ) 544-549134.3133 :1834 :0037 :4826 :3609/1411999Page 2of2Triangl e Laboratoris, Inc .s801 Caprtola Drive • Durham . North Carolina 277131 .2440:53%on-ra ., 0•. WAS t a :oPrinted : 03 :17 09/14/19994 A 114L.CT&E Environmental Services Inc.Laboratory Division200 W . Porter DriveAnchorage , AK 9951a.1605Tel : (907) 562-2343Fax : (907) 561-5301Oil Spill Consultantsattention: Randy Easley209 E 51stAnchorage, AK 99503Account : Oil Spill ConsultantsContact : Randy EasleyProject: Gambell DACA85-97D-001ƒ DO 4Received: 08/18/99 16:35CT&E Ref# : 99 .4255Print Date : 09/20/999 :59Work order 99 .4255 was analyzed for Dioxinsby Triangle Laboratories Inc . of Durham, NC 27713-4411..126'Ahk tCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .# 994255016Client PO#Client NamePrinted Date/Time91309/09/99 16 :29Collected Date/Time 08/14/99 18 :47Received Date/Time08/18/99 16 :35Technical Directortey h„ i C . EdeOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name /# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID 99-GAM-026-SLMatrixSoil/SolidOrdered ByPWSIDReleased BySample Remarks :8270 - LCS/LCSD recovery for pyridine and3,3-dichlorobenzidine is biased low . The results for these compounds areestimated .8270 - Internal standard phenanthrene-d12 is biased low . The samples are non-detect . The results are not affected .RRO - Surrogate recovery outside controls due to matrix interference .ParameterTotal SolidsResultsPQL98 .4UnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init%SM18 2540G08/24/99 BJSRCRA MetalsArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumLeadMercury by Cold VaporSeleniumSilver5 .305 .950 .0202 U1 .333 .470 .0109 U0 .202 U0 .04192 .023 .670 .02020 .2022 .020 .01090 .2020 .0403mg / Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/ Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 7060SW846 60108SW846-7131SW846-7191SW846-7421SW846-7471SW846 -7740SW846 -776108/24/99 08/30/99 JMO08/26/99 08/31/99 WTA08/ 24/99 08 /25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/24/99 08/25/99 KGF08/25/99 08/25/99 RMV08/24/99 08/27/99 GCP08/24/99 08/25/99 KGFGasoline Range Organics1 .36 U1 .36mg/KgAK101 GRO08 /14/99 08/24/99 DAR%%AK101 GRO ( 50-150 )AK101 GRO (50-150 )08/14/99 08/24/9908/14/99 08/24/99Surrogates4-Bromofluorobenzene 1,4-Difluorobenzene 74 .194 .5A11F=L -CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255016Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Namel#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeParameterResultsPOLUnits91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708/18/99 16 :35AllowableMethod LimitsPrepDateAnalysissW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRSDate InitVOA by GC/ MS Method SW8260Dichlorodifluoromethane0 .014 UChloromethaneVinyl chlorideBromomethaneChtoroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-1,2-Dichloroethene0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .14 U0 .14 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .14 U1,1-Dichloroethane2-Butanone ( MEK)2,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,2 - DichloroetheneBromochloromethaneChloroform1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride1,1-DichloropropeneBenzene1,2-DichloroethaneTrichLoroethene1,2-DichloropropaneDibromomethaneBromodichLoromethane0 .1010 .014 U0 .014 U0 .14 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ethercis-1,3-DichloropropeneMethyl-2 - pentanone ( MIBK)oluene0 .14 U0 .014 U0 .14 U0 .014 U0 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .14mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .14mg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .140 .068mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .014mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .014mg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .0140 .0140 .0140 .14mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260sW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260sW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-826008/14 / 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14/ 99 08 /25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08 / 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS`C_'Ak-CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255016Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParametertrans - 1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2-TrichLoroethaneTetrachloroethene1,3-Dichloropropane2-Hexanonelibromochloromethane1,2-DibromoethaneChLorobenzene1,1,1,2-TetrachloroethaneEthytbenzeneP & M -Xyleneo-XyleneStyreneBromoformIsopropylbenzene ( Cumene )Bromobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichloropropanen-Propylbenzene2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene1,3,5-TrimethyLbenzenetert - Butylbenzene1,2,4-TrimethyLbenzenesec-ButyLbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyttoluene1,4-Dichtorobenzene1,2-DichLorobenzenen-Butytbenzene1,2-Dibromo-3 - chloropropane, 2,4-TrichlorobenzeneResultsPQLUnitsAllowableMethod LimitsPrepDate08/14/99 08 / 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 /99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/25/99 DRS0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014mg/KgSU846-82600 .014mg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .014 U0 .14 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .0140 .140 .0140 .0140 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-82600 .014mg/Kg0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014mg/Kg0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .14 U0 .014 U91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708/18/99 16 :350 .014mg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .014mg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0140 .0140 .0140 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .140 .014mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260SU846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260AnalysisDate Init08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14 / 99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/ 25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRSCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255016Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/ TimeReceived Date / TimeMatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeParameterHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-TrichlorobenzeneResultsUnitsMethod0 .0140 .014mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .014mg/KgSW846-8260SW846-8260SW846-8260POL0 .014 U0 .014 U0 .014 U91309 /09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708/18 /99 16 :35AllowableLimitsPrep AnalysisDateDate Init08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRS08/14/99 08/25/99 DRSSurrogates1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 DibromofLuoromethane Toluene-d8 4-Bromofluorobenzene 10810710198 .5XXXXSW846-8260SW846- 8260SW846-8260SW846-8260mg/Kgmg/KgAK102/103AK102/103XXAK102/103AK102/103mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270(74-123)(80-118)(79-130)(71-141)08/14/99 08/25/9908/14/99 08/25/9908/14/99 08/25/9908/14/99 08/25/99DRO/RRO CombinationDiesel Range OrganicsResidual Range Organics GC9 .35 U25 .69 .3515 .408/24/99 08/28/99 MMP08/24/99 08/28/99 MMPSurrogates5a Androstane d-Triacontane !125186(50-150)(50-150)08/24/99 08/28/9908/24/99 08/28/99Semivotatites by GC/MSN-NitrosodimethylaminePyridineAnilinePhenolBis(2 -Chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .310 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .310 .310 .311,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneJenzyl alcohol0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-827008/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ~,ACT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#994255016Client NameOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/#Client Sample IDGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026-SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date / TimeReceived Date / Time91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708 /18/99 16 :35MatrixOrdered ByPWSIDSoil/SolidTechnical Director : Stephen C . EdeAllowableParameter1,2-Dichlorobenzene2-Methylphenol (o-Cresol)bis(2-chloroisopropyt)ether3&4-Methylphenol (p&m-CresoL)N-Nitroso-di-n-propytamine4exachloroethanenitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenotBenzoic acidBis(2-ChLoroethoxy)methane1,2,4-TrichtorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChloroanilineHexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3-methylphenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2-MethytnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenot2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroanilineDimethytphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrototuene3-NitroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol4-NitrophenollibenzofuranResults0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .64 U0 .31 U0 .64 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U1 .6 U1 .6 U0 .31 UPQL0 .310 .31UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-82700 .31mg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82700 .31mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-82700 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .311 .60 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgsu846-82700 .31mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .640 .310 .640 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg0 .31mg/Kg1 .6mg/Kg0 .310 .310 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 -8270SW846-8270SW846- 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-82701 .60 .311 .61 .60 .31mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270LimitsPrepAnalysisDateDate Init08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/ 99 08 /24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 /99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ'A LCT& E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name /#Client Sample ID994255016Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026- SLClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time91309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708 /18/99 16 :35MatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameter2,4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenyl - phenyletherFluorene4-Nitroaniline?-Methyl-4,6 - dinitrophenolri-Nitrosodiphenylamine4-Bromophenyl - phenyletherHexachlorobenzenePentachtorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceneDi-n-butylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneAzobenzeneButylbenzylphthalate3,3-DichlorobenzidineBenzo ( a)AnthraceneChrysenebis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatedi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo[b]FluorantheneBenzo[k ] fluorantheneBenzo[a ] pyreneIndeno[1,2 , 3-c,d] pyreneDibenzota , hlanthraceneBenzo[g , h,ilperyleneResults0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U1 .6 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .64 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 U0 .31 UPQL0 .310 .310 .310 .310 .311 .60 .310 .310 .311 .60 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .640 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .310 .31UnitsMethodmg / Kgmg/Kgmg / Kgmg / Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /KgSW846 - 8270SW846- 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270mg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg/Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /Kgmg /KgAllowableLimitsmg /Kgmg/Kg%SW846 - 8270AnalysisDateInit08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZSW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-8270SW846-8270PrepDate08 / 22/99 08 /24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08 / 24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08 / 24/99 LZ08/22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08 / 22/99 08/24/99 LZ08/22 / 99 08 / 24/99 LZSurrogates!,4,6-Tribromophenol 83 .1( 18-122 )08/22 / 99 08/24/99.t4LCT&E Environmental Services Inc .Z 091309/09/99 16 :2908/14/99 18 :4708/18 /99 16 :35CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample ID994255016Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026- SLClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeMatrixSoil/SolidTechnical Director: Stephen C . EdeOrdered ByPWSIDParameterAldrinHeptachlor epoxideEndosulfan I4,4'-DDEDieldrinindrinEndosuLfan II4,4'-DDDEndrin aldehyde4,4'-DDTEndosutfan sulfateEndrin ketoneMethoxychlorToxapheneResultsPOL0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .0326 U0 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0326UnitsMethodmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081Amg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgAllowablePrepAnalysisLimitsDateDate08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081Amg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A%%SW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZ08/20 /99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/25/99 LZSurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl Tetrachloro-m-xylene 82 .671 .6Init(46-154)(25-120)08/20/99 08/25/9908/20/99 08/25/99AtL, CT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref .#Client NameProject Name/ #Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByPWSID913Client POD09/09/99 16 :29Printed Date/TimeCollected Date /Time 08/14/99 18 :4708/18 /99 16 :35Received Date/ TimeTechnical Director : Stephen C . Ede994255016Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-026-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsUnitsMethodXXXXXSW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846 - 8270SW846-82700 .003260 .003260 .00326mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082SW846 80820 .003260 .003260 .003260 .00326mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846 8082SW846 8082sw846 8082SW846 8082XSW846 80820 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .0003260 .000326mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A0 .0003260 .000326mg/Kgmg/KgPQLAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate Init( 24-88 )( 21-142 )( 30-103 )08/22 / 99 08/24/9908/22 / 99 08/24/9908/22 / 99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/9908/22/99 08/24/99SurrogatesPhenol-d6 Terphenyl - d14 '- Fluorobiphenyl < Surr>--Fluorophenot < Surr>Nitrobenzene - d5 73 .414278 .565 .773 .5(18-83)(18-109 )PCS's by GC ECDAroclor-12210 .00326 U0 .00326 UAroclor-1232Aroclor - 1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor - 1254Aroclor-12600 .00326 U0 .00326 U0 .00326 U0 .00326 U0 .00326 UAroclor - 101608/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20 /99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAA08/20/99 08/23/99 WAASurrogatesDecachlorobiphenyl < Surr>105( 53 .3-125 ) 08/20/99 08/23/99Pesticidesalpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma - Chlordanealpha - Chlordanegamma-BHC (Lindane)delta-BHC,eptachlor0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 U0 .000326 USW846-8081ASW846-8081ASW846-8081A08/20/ 99 08/25/99 LZ08/20/99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20/ 99 08/ 25/99 LZ08/20 / 99 08/25/99 LZA dL -0CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByCT&E Environmental Services Inc .994255017Oil Spill ConsultantsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-027-SLSoil/SolidTechnical Director02/05/200114 :0008/18/1999 16 :35ephen C . EdeReleased BySample Remarks :Corrected report : Prep date for 8260 corrected .ParameterResultsPQLAllowableLimitsPrepDateAnalysisDate InitUnitsMethod%SM20 2540Gmg/KgAK101 GRO08/24/9908/24/99 DAR%AK101 GRO 50-15008/24/9908/24/99 DAR%AK101 GRO 50-15008/24/9908/24/99 DARSW846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRSSW846-8260BSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22199 DRS08/22/99 DRSSolidsTotal Solids10008/23/99 BJSVolatile Fuels DepartmentGasoline Range Organics12 .62 .50rogates1,4-Difluorobenzene 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.269 .9Volatile Gas Chromatography/ Mass SpectroscopyDichlorodifluoromethane0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgChloromethaneVinyl chloride0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/Kg0 .0262 UBromomethane0 .262 UChloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethane0 .262 U0 .02620 .2620 .262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/Kg0 .0262mg/Kg0 .262 U0 .131 U0 .2620 .131mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0262 U0 .02620 .262mg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0262mg/Kg0.0262 U0 .0262I,1-Dichloroethane0.0262 Ucis-1,2-DichloroetheneBromochloromethane0.0262 U0 .0262 U1, 1 -DichloroetheneCarbon disulfideMethylene chloridetrans-l,2-Dichloroethene2-Butanone (MEK)2,2-Dichloropropane1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane)roform0 .262 U0.0262 U0 .0262 Ut,arbon tetrachloride0 .0262 UBenzene0 .0262 US W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSSW846-8260B08/22/99mg/KgSW846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/990 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRS0 .02620 .02620 .02620 .02620.0262mg/KgS W 846-8260B08/22/99mg/KgSW846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSCT&E Environmental Services Inc .'AhkIDCT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered By994255017Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-027-SLSoil/SolidParameterResultsClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeTechnical DirectorPOLAllowableLimits02 /05/2001 14 :0008/18/1999 16 :35Stephen C. EdePrep AnalysisDate Date InitUnitsMethodmg/KgS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSVolatil e Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectroscopy1, 1 -Dichloropropene0 .0262 U0 .02621,2-Dichloroethane0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgTrichloroethene0 .0262mg/Kg1,2-Dichloropropane0 .0262 U0 .0262 U08/22/9908/22/99 DRS0 .0262 Umg/Kgmg/KgS W 846-8260BDibromomethane0 .02620 .0262S W 846-8260BBromodichloromethane0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether0 .262 US W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/99 DRS0 .0262 U0 .0262 Umg/Kgmg/Kg08/22/991,1,2-Trichloroethane0 .2620 .026208/2219908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS0 .262mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260B08/22/990 .02620 .02620 .0262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRScis-1,3-Dichloropropene[ethyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)0 .262 Utrans-l,3-Dichloropropene0 .0262 U0 .0262 UTetrachloroethee0 .0262 UToluene1,3-Dichloropropane0 .0262 U0 .262 U0 .0262S W 846-8260BSW846-8260BS W 846-8260B0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B0 .262mg/KgS W 846-8260BDibromochloromethane1,2-Dibromoethane0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260B0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/Kg1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260BChlorobenzene0.0262 Umg/KgS W 846-8260BEthylbenzeneP & M -Xylene0 .0262 U0 .02620 .0262mg/Kg0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260BSW846-8260Bo-Xylene0 .0262 U0 .0262Styrene0 .0262 UBromoform0 .0262 U0 .02620 .0262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgIsopropylbenzene (Cumene)0 .0262 UBromobenzene1,2, 3-Trichloropropane0 .0262 Un-Propylbenzene0 .0262 U0 .02620 .02620 .02620 .02620 .02620 .02620 .0262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kg0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/Kg0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/KgS W 846-8260B2-Hexanone1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene',5-Trimethylbenzene.-Butylbenzene1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262 US W 846-8260BSW846-8260BS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260B08/22/99SW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRSSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRSS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS'AlLICT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255017Client PO#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDOil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-027-SLSoil/SolidPrinted Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time02/05/2001 14 :00Technical DirectorStephen C . EdeMatrix08/13/1999 16 :35Ordered ByParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodLimitsAllowable Prep AnalysisDate Date InitVolatile Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopysec-Butylbenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene4-Isopropyltoluene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzenen-Butylbenzene0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0.0262 U0 .02620 .02620 .02620 .0262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260BSW846-8260BSW846-8260BSW846-8260BSW846-8260BSW846-8260B0 .0262 U0 .02620 .02621,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane0.262 U0 .2621,2,4-Trichlorobenzene0 .0262 U0.0262 U0 .02620 .0262mg/Kg0 .0262 U0 .0262 U0 .0262mg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260B101%SW846-8260B", xachlorobutadiene.,hthalene1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene0 .0262mg/Kgmg/Kgmg/KgSW846-8260BSW846-8260BSW846-8260B08/22/9908/22/9908/22199 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS08/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS80-11808/22/9908/22/99 DRSSW846-8260B08/22/99 DRSSurrogatesDibromofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 106Toluene-d8 99 .9%%SW846-8260BSW846-8260B74-12379-13008/22/9908/22/9908/22/99 DRS08/22/99 DRS4- Bromo fluoro benzene 100%SW846-8260B71-14108/22/9908/22/99 DRSCT&E Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered By994255018Oil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-028-SLOther LiquidsClient PO#Printed Date/TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeTechnical Director _ .02/05/200114 :0008/13/1999 16 :35Stephen C. EdeSample Remarks :Corrected report : Sample matrix changed to other liquid, sample was a vial of Methanol .ParameterResultsPQLPrepDateAnalysisDate InitAK101 GRO08/24/9908/24/99 ELBUnitsMethodmg/LAllowableLimitsVolatile Fuels DepartmentGasoline Range Organics0 .0900 U0 .0900Surrogates1,4-Difluorobenzene 90 .7%AKIO1 GRO 50-15008/24/9908/24/99 ELB4-Bromofluorobenzene 81 .7%AK IOI GRO 50-15008/24/9908/24/99 ELB0 .001000 .00100mg/LSW846-8260Bmg/L08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM0 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMVolatile Gas Chromatography/ Mass SpectroscopyDichlorodifluoromethaneChloromethane0 .00100 UVinyl chlorideBromomethane0 .00100 U0 .00100 U0 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260B08/20/99Chloroethane0 .00100 U0 .00100mg/LTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-Dichloroethene0 .00100 U0 .00100 U0 .00500 U0 .0100 US W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMtrans- 1,2-Dichloroethene1, 1 -DichloroethaneS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMSW846-8260BSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMcis-I ,2-Dichloroethene0.00100 U0 .001000 .001000 .00100mg/L2,2-Dichloropropane0 .00100 U0 .00100 U0.00100 Umg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L08/20/9908/20/99Methylene chlorideCarbon disulfide0 .001000 .001000 .005000 .01000 .00100SW846-8260BSW846-8260B2-Butanone (MEK)0.0100 U0 .0100mg/LSW846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMBromochloromethane0 .00100 U0 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260BChloroform0 .00100 U0 .00100 U0 .00100 US W 846-8260BSW846-8260B1, 1 -Dichloropropene0 .00100 Umg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM1, 1, 1 -TrichloroethaneCarbon tetrachloride0 .001000 .001000 .001000 .0010008/20/9908/20/99n ‚nzene0 .00100 U0 .00100mg/LDichloroethaneTrichloroethene0 .00100 U0 .00100 Umg/Lmg/LS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B1,2-Dichloropropane0 .00100 U0 .001000 .001000 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260B0 .00100 Umg/Lmg/L08/20/99 SPM08/20/9908/20/99 SPMSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPMSW846-8260B08/20/99S W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/9908/20/99 SPML1 ..ME Environmental Services Inc .CT&E Ref.#994255018Client NameProject Name/#Client Sample IDMatrixOrdered ByOil Spill ConsultantsGambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 499-GAM-028-SLOther LiquidsParameterResultsClient PO#Printed Date /TimeCollected Date/TimeReceived Date/TimeTechnical DirectorPQLUnits Method02/05/200114 :0008/18/1999 16 :35Stephen C . EdeAllowable PrepAnalysisLimitsDate Date InitVolatile Gas Chromatography/Mass SpectroscopyDibromomethane0.00100 UBromodichloromethane0.00100 U2-Chioroethyl Vinyl Ethercis- 1,3-Dichloropropene0.0100 U0.00100 UToluene0.00100 U0.00100 Utrans-1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2-Trichloroethane0.00100 UTetrachloroethene)ichloropropane0 .00100 U0 .00100 Uiioromochloromethane0 .00100 U1,2-DibromoethaneChlorobenzene0 .00100 U0 .00100 U1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane0 .00100 UEthylbenzeneP & M -Xylene0 .00100 U0 .00100 Uo-XyleneStyrene0 .00100 U0 .00100 UBromoform0 .00100 UIsopropylbenzene (Cumene)0 .00100 UBromobenzene0 .00100 U0 .00100 U1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2,3-Trichlorop ropanen-Propylbenzene0 .00100 U0 .00100 U0 .001000 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM0 .00100mg/LSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM0 .001000 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260B08/20/99 SPMmg/L0 .00100mg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/990 .001000 .001000 .001000 .00100mg/Lmg/L0 .00100mg/Lmg/LSW846-8260BSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/Lmg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/LS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/Lmg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/Lmg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/LSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPMmg/L08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM0 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001001, 3 , 5-Trimethy lb enzenetert-Butylbenzene0 .00100 U0 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001000 .001001,3-Dichlorobenzene0 .00100 U0 .00100 U' - .,)propyltoluene)ichlorobenzene0 .00100 U1,2-Dichlorobenzene0 .00100 Un-Butylbenzene0 .00100 U08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/Lmg/L0 .00100 U0 .00100 U08/20/99 SPM08/20/9908/20/990 .01000 .001000 .00100sec-Butylbenzene08/20/990 .001000 .001000.00100 U1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B2-Chlorotoluene4-Chlorotoluene0 .00100 U0 .00100 Umg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260BSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/9908/20/9908/20/9908/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMmg/LSW846-8260BSW846-8260Bmg/LSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPMS W 846-8260BS W 846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/9908/20/9908/20/99 SPMS W 846-8260Bmg/LSW846-8260B08/20/9908/20/99 SPM08/20/99 SPM`G'ANIL 4CT&E Environmental Services Inc .Client PO#CT&E Ref.# 994255018Client NamePrinted Date/Time 02/05/2001 14 :00Collected Date/TimeReceived Date/Time 08/18/1999 16 :35Technical Director Stephen C . EdeOil Spill ConsultantsProject Name/# Gambell DACA85-97-D-0010 DO 4Client Sample ID 99-GAM-028-SLOther LiquidsMatrixOrdered ByParameterResultsPQLUnitsMethodAllowable Prep AnalysisDateLimitsDateInit08/20/99 08/20/99SPM08/20/99 08/20/9908/20/99 08/20/99SPM08/20/99 08/20/9908/20/99 08/20/99SPM08/20/99 08/20/99SPM08/20/99 08/20/99SPMVolatile Gas Chromatog raphy/Mass Spectroscopy1,2-D ibromo- 3-ch loropropane1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene0 .00100 U 0 .00100 mg/L SW846-8260B0 .00100 U 0 .00100 mg/L SW846-8260B0.00100 U 0 .00100 mg/L SW846-8260B0.00100 U 0 .00100 mg/L SW846-8260BHexachlorobutadieneNaphthalene1,2,3-Trichloro benzene4-Methyl- 2-pentanone (MIBK)2-Hexanone0.00100 U 0 .00100 mgfL SW846-8260B0 .0100 U 0 .0100 mg/L SW846-8260B0 .0100 U 0 .0100 mg/L SW846-8260BSPMSPM:rogatesDibromofluoromethane 98 .2% SW846-8260B1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 99 .3% SW846-8260B% SW846-8260B96 .64-Bromofluorobenzene 99 .2Toluene-d8% SW846-8260B08/20/99 08 /20/99 SPM08/20 /99 08 /20/99 SPM08/20 /99 08 /20/99 SPM08/20 /99 08/20/99 SPMAppendix GData Deliverables for Project SamplesPlease Note : Data deliverables package for project samples is in a separate binder .Appendix HSafety and Health Phase-Out ReportAppendix HSafety and Health Phase-Out ReportSafety and Health Phase -Out ReportDebris Removal and Containerized Hazardous Waste Removal and Toxic Waste RemovalDelivery Order No . 004, Contract No . DACA85-97-D-0010Gambell, AlaskaScope of WorkFrom July 5, 1999, through August 18, 1999, Oil Spill Consultants removed the following wastefrom formerly used defense sites at Gambell, Alaska :Hazardous and Toxic Waste (HTW) . Approximately, 26 .8 tons of HTW (battery, parts,dried paint, drums, and transformer carcasses) were collected from five locations atthe project site .•Metal Debris . Based on field weights, 142,234 pounds of metal debris consisting ofrunway matting, cable, fuel tanks and equipment parts were removed from sitesidentified by USAEDA .•Contaminated Soil . Workers using picks and shovels excavated 52 tons ofcontaminated soil from Sevuokuk Mountain .•Stained Soil . A total of 20 tons of petroleum-stained soil were excavated from severalsites at Gambell .This waste was shipped from the project site to state and EPA-approved disposal facilities inthe Lower 48 following EPA and U .S . Department of Transportation guidelines .Safety PerformanceFrom start to finish, 5,629 man-hours were required to complete this project . Local personnelresiding in Gambell, Alaska, provided 61 percent (3,434 man-hours) of the project labor .There were no accidents, near misses, spills or equipment failures during this project . This isa noteworthy achievement in view of the environmental conditions at the project site . Thescope of work required Oil Spill Consultants to remove contaminated soil and metal debris soilfrom Sevuokuk Mountain (about 600 ft . above sea level) . Large boulders and narrow trailsprecluded the use of heavy equipment on the mountain top . Dense fog frequently limitedvisibility to 50 ft . or less . Despite these conditions the work was complete without any safetyproblems because:• Daily safety meetings addressed site hazards and emphasized safety precautions .• Experienced supervisors were used .• Local residents were familiar with the terrain and accustomed to working in theenvironmental conditions at the project site .• The government QAR provided insight, which helped Oil Spill Consultants resolveH-2problems that were unique to the Gambell environment . For example, when it wasrecognized that the boulders on Sevuokuk Mountain limited heavy equipment and truckto access Site 4/Area 4B, the QAR recommended using Argos (small track-mountedvehicles) to haul the excavated soil and debris down the mountain . Implementing thisrecommendation prevented vehicle roll-over accidents that could have resulted if truckswere used .During the 1999 summer season, Gambell residents experienced three serious accidents thatwere not related to this project . One local resident was injured when a rifle discharged whileshe was removing fresh game from a small boat . Another resident drove a wooden stakethrough his hand while performing maintenance at this home . A young child experienced aneye injury while playing in her home .In general, the accident frequency is high in Alaska's bush communities . However, by adheringto the requirements set forth in the site-specific safety and health plan for this project andproviding experienced supervision, it was possible to complete an accident-free project withlocal labor .Lessons LearnedThe following lessons were learned regarding safety during this project :•Limit crew hours . Due to the requirement to have all waste removed and packagedprior to the arrival of the southbound barge at Gambell, Alaska, from Seattle,Washington, we elected to work seven 12-hour days per week . After the first 21 days,crew morale rapidly declined, and constant friction existed between various crewmembers . Since low morale and friction could compromise safety, it would be prudentto limit the normal workday at remote sites to 10 hours a day, six days a week .•Conduct site visit prior to submitting cost proposal . The scope of work prepared by thegovernment for this project neglected to identify wet tundra in Site 10 and boulders inSite 4 . As a result, inappropriate equipment was identified for soil excavation at Site 4and for transporting soil and debris through Site 10 . Since inappropriate equipmentcould cause accidents, contractors should always conduct a site visit for projects inremote areas .Exposure MonitoringPrior to excavation, a portable photoionization detector (PID) was used to field screen areaswith stained soil . During this project, all PID readings were zero . The PID was also used tofield screen the drums that were removed from Site 10 . All of the drums contained large holescreated by rust and contained a few inches of rainwater . The PID readings from these drumswere zero .Signatureer/Assistant Site Safety and Health OfficerH-3Appendix IChemical Data Quality ReviewLABORATORY DATA CONSULTANTS, INC.7750 EI Camino Real, Suite 2C Ca isbad, CA 92009 Phone : 760/634-0437 Fax : 760/634-0439LDC Project# : 4332U .S . Army Corps of EngineersAlaska DistrictBLDG 21-702Elmondorf AFB, AK 99506Attn : Mr. Bret WaltersJanuary 19, 200081 JANIn USubject: Gambell HTW Debris RemovalDear Mr. Walters,Enclosed is our EPA Level 3 Data Review Report for the uGambell HTW Debris Removal'project . The analyses were performed by Quanterra Environmental Services inAnchorage, Alaska, CT & E Environmental Services, Inc . in Anchorage, Alaska, andTriangle Laboratories Inc . in Durham, North Carolina . . The laboratory data was receivedon December 30, 1999 under Sample Delivery Group No . 994255 . The laboratory splitdata was received on December 8, 1999 under Sample Delivery Group No . 064096 .Please feel free to call me at (760) 6340437 if you have any questions .Richard M . AmanoPresident/PrincipalChemistRECEIVEDJAN 2 4 20004332COV .ARMREVIEW OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY RESULTSGambell HTW , Debris RemovalProject# 99-092 /LDC# 4332This report details the findings of an EPA Level 3 documentation review of analyticalchemistry results generated in support of the Gambell HTW, Debris Removal project .Analyses were performed by Quanterra Environmental Services in Anchorage, Alaska,CT & E Environmental Services, Inc . in Anchorage, Alaska, and Triangle Laboratories,Inc. in Durham, North Carolina . Samples were analyzed for GC/MS Volatiles by EPASW 846 Method 8260B, GC/MS Sernivolatiles by EPA SW 846 Method 8270,Organochlorinated Pesticides by EPA SW 846 Method 8081, PolychlorinatedBiphenyls by EPA SW 846 methods 8082, Metals by EPA SW 846 Methods6010/7000, Gasoline Range Organics by Alaska Method AK101, Diesel RangeOrganics & Residual Range Organics by Alaska Methods AK102/AK103, and Dioxinsby EPA SW 846 Method 8290 . Samples are referenced under the following SampleDelivery Groups : 064096 and 994255. See the Sample Analysis Table (Attachment 1)for the number of samples reviewed and the Sample Validation Table (Attachment 2)for the sample identifications and analyses for the primary samples .The QC criteria used for review purposes is that specified in the National FunctionalGuidelines for Organic/Inorganic Data Review, February 1994 .Where specificguidance is not available, the data has been evaluated in a conservative mannerconsistent with industry standards using professional experience . The following itemswere evaluated during the review :• Holding Times• Sample Preservation• Cooler Temperatures• GC/MS Instrument Performance Check• Initial and Continuing Calibration• Blanks• Surrogates• Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates• Laboratory Control Samples• Detection and Quantitation LimitsOnly issues which require comment o,r action are discussed in this report . Datadeficiencies are arranged by method, and presented as numbered findings . Potentialeffects of data anomalies have been described where possible .1LaboratoryData Consultants, Inc .ReviewofAnalyticalDataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalI. Overall Data AssessmentOut-of-control events experienced by the laboratory have warranted the qualification ofa portion of the data set as estimated (J) and some detectable results were qualified asestimated (J) and are discussed in detail by finding . Based upon the informationreviewed, the overall data quality is considered acceptable with the noted limitations .The HRGC/HRMS instrument performance check, Initial calibration, and routinecalibration data were not provided for the dioxin/dibenzofuran analysis for SDG 994255and therefore were not reviewed .II . Chain of Custody/Cooler Temperatures /PreservationThe chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures andsample preservation . All appropriate samples were preserved and all cooler temperaturesmet validation criteria .III . GC/MS Volatiles by EPA SW 846 Method 8260BFor GC/MS volatile organic analysis , holding times, instrument calibrations , instrumentperformance checks , blanks , internal standards , field QC , and all accuracy and precisionresults were within validation criteria with the following exceptions :Finding 1 : Continuing calibration percent differences (%D) between the initialcalibration RRF and the continuing calibration RRF were within the QClimits with the following exceptions :DateCompound%a (limits )Associated Samples8/26/992 -Butanone2-Chloroethylvinyl ether42..7 (c25 .0)2T_0 (525 .0)AN samples in SOG 064096JJ8/20/99Chloroethane26.6 (525 .0 )99-GAM-028-SL256433JFlagAction:Samples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a technical deficiency .Finding 2 :Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable . No volatilecontaminants were found in the method blanks with the followingexceptions :2Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Gambell HTVV. Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataMethod Blank ID256479AnalysisDate8/22/99CompoundTIC (RT In minutes)Concentration0 .238 mg/KgMethylene chlorideAssociated Samples99-GAM-009-SL99-GAM-01 0SL99-GAM-011 SL99-GAM-01 2-SL99-GAM-01 3-SL99-GAM-01 4-SL99-GAM-01 5-SL99-GAM-01 7-SL99-GAM-01 8-SL99-GAM-01 9-SL99-GAM-02r--SL99-GAM-027-SL2564338/ 20/990.0018 mg/L0.0019 mg/LMethylene chlorideBromomethane99-GAM-028-SLSample concentrations were compared to concentrations detected in the method blanks .The sample concentrations were either not detected or were significantly greater (> 1 OXfor common contaminants, >5X for other contaminants) than the concentrations foundin the associated method blanks with the following exceptions :Sample99-GAM-026-SLCompoundTIC (RT in minutes)ReportedConcentrationMethylene chloride0.101 mg/KgTModified FinalConcentration0.101U mg/KgFinding 3: Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by themethod . All surrogate recoveries (% R) were within QC limits with thefollowing exceptions :SampleSurrogate%R (Umits)CompoundFlag99-GAM-009-SLBromofluorobenzene69 .3 (71-141)All TCL compoundsJ99-GAM-014-SLBromafluorobenzene64 .6 (71-141)All TCL compoundsJ99-GAM-0I5-SLBromofluorobenzene60(71-141)AU TCL compoundsJAction :Samples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a protocol violation .3 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Gambell HTW, Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataSampleSurrogate%R (Umits )CompoundFlag99-GAM-016 SLBra mofluo robe nz ene144 (70 130)All TCL compoundsJ (all detects)Action:Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .Finding 4 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :SampleCompoundAU samples in SDGs064096 and 994255AU TCL compoundsCriteriaFlagMS/MSO required.NoneFindingNo MS/MSD associated with thesesamples.For the samples listed in the table above, surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report, sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .Finding 5 : Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix asapplicable . Percent recoveries (% R) and relative percent differences(RPD) were within QC limits with the following exceptions :LCS 10(AssociatedSamples )256434/256435(99-GAM-028-SL256433)Action :CompoundICS%R (Omits)LCSD%R (Omits)RPD(Umits)FlagMethylene chloride139 (71-138)146 (71-138)-J (all detects)Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .Samples 99-GAM-027-SL and 99-GAM-028-SL were identified as trip blanks . No volatilecontaminants were found in these blanks .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL were identified as field duplicates . Novolatiles were detected in any of the samples .4Laboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Gamb.ll HTW, Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataSamples 99-GAM-014-SL (original ) and 99 -GAM-016 -SL (referee ) and samples 99-GAM015-SL ( original ) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee ) were compared . No volatiles weredetected in any of the samples .IV. GC/MS Semivolatiles by EPA SW 846 Method 8270For GC/MS semivolatiles organic analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations,instrument performance checks, blanks, and all accuracy and precision results werewithin validation criteria with the following exceptions :Continuing calibration percent differences (%D) between the initialcalibration RRF and the continuing calibration RRF were within QClimits with the following exceptions :Finding 1 :CompoundDate9/9/99N-Nitrosodimet ytamine%.D (Umits)Associated Samples34 .9 (525)All samples in SOG 064096-Action :FlagJjiSamples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a technical deficiency.Finding 2 : Matrix spike ( MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :SampleAll samples in SOGs064096 and 994255CompoundAll TCL compoundsFindingNo MSIIMSD associated with thesesamples .CriteriaFlagMS/MSD required.NoneFor the samples listed in the table above , surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report , sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is co nsidered a protocol violation .Finding 3 : Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix asapplicable . Percent recoveries (% R) and relative percent differences(RPD) were within QC limits with the following exceptions :5Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalLCS 10(AssociatedSamples )CompoundBS990825E(All samples in SOG 064096 )AnilinePyridine256464 /256465(AU samples in SDG 994255 )3 ,3'-DichlorobenzidinePyridineAction:LCSLCSORPO% R (Limits)%R (Umits )( Umits)Flag-12 (510)16 (510)JJ46.3 (54-94 )2 .12 (10-32)Samples were qualified as estimatedconsidered a protocol violation .47 .6 (54-94)JJ2.19 (10-32)(J) as indicated above . This isLCS ID(AssociatedSamples )256464/256465(All samples in SOG 994255)CompoundLCS%R (Omits)LCSD%R (Limits)RPD(Omits)FlagButylbenzyiphthalateDi-n-octylphthalateBis(2-ethyihexyl)phthalate164 (52-108)124 (62-103)Ill (63-110)180 (52-108)128 (62-103)-J (ad detects)J (all detects)J (al detects)Action:Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .Finding 4:All internal standard areas and retention times were within QC limitswith the following exceptions :Sample99-GAM-01 G-SLInternal StandardsChrysene-dl 2Perylene-dl 2Area ( Omits )374446 (479142-1916566)110378 (252634-1010534)6CompoundFlagPyreneButylbenzyiphthalateJJ3 .3'-DichlorobenzidineJBenzo (a)anthraceneJChryseneJBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateDi-noctylphthalateBenzo (b)fluorantheneJJJBenzo (k)fluorantheneJBenzo (a)pyreneIndeno (1 .2.3-cd)pyreneDibenz(a.h)anthraceneJJJBenzo (g,h,i)peryleneJLaboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Review of Analytical DataSample99-GAM-011 -SL99-GAM-01 2-SL99-GAM-013-SLGambell HTW, Debris RemovalInternal StandardsPerylene-d12Perylene-dl 2Perylene-d12Area (Umtts)186395 (252634-1010534)243384 (252634-1010534)191381 (252634-1010534)CompoundDi-n-octylphthalateJBenzo (b)fluorantheneBenzo ( k)fluorantheneBenzo ( a)pyreneJPerylene-dl 2220558 (252634-1010534)JJJBenzo (g,h.)peMeneJDi-n-octylphthaiataBenzo ( b)fluorantheneBenzo ( k)fluorarttheneJJBenzo(a )pyreneIndeno (1,2.3cd) pyreneDibenz(a .h)anthraceneBenzo (g,h,)peryleneJJJDi-n-octylphthalateBenzo(k)fluorantheneJlndeno (1 .2.3-ed)pyreneJDibenz ( a.h)anthraceneBenzo (g,h,)peryleneJJDi-rwctylphthalateBenzo (b)fluorantheneJJJBenzo (g,h,i)perylene99-GAM-0I7-SLPerylene-dl2216575 (252634-1010534)238092 (252634-1010534)7JBenzo (a)pyreneDibenz(a.h)anthracenePerylene-d12JJJJBenzo (k)fluorantheneBenzo (a)pyreneIndeno (1,2,3cd)pyrene99-GAM-01 5SLJIndeno (1,2 .3-cd)pyre neDibenz(a.h)anthraceneBenzo( b)fluoranthene99-GAM-014-SLFlagJJJJDi-n-octylphthatateBenzo( b)fluorantheneBenzo( k)fluorantheneBenzo( a)pyreneIndeno(1 .2.3-cd)pyreneDibenz( a.h)anthraceneJJJJJBenzo (g .h,i)peryleneJ01-n-octylphthalateBenzo (b)fluorartheneBenzo (k)fluorantheneJJJBenzo (a)pyreneJlndeno (1,2 .3cd)pyreneJDibenz (a.h)anthraceneBenzo (g .h.i)peryleneJJJLaboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataSample99-GAM-01 8-SLGambell HTW, Debris RemovalInternal StandardsPerylene-d12Area (Llmlts )237086 (252634-1010534)CompoundDi-n-octylphthalateBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo( k)fluorantheneBenzo(a)pyrenelndeno (1 .2.3-cd) pyreneDibenz ( a.h)anthraceneBenzo ( g,h,)perylene99-GAM-019-SL99-GAM-02r.--SLPerylene-d12Perylene-d12228312 (252634-1010534)232377 (252634-1010534)FlagJJJJJJJDi-noctylphthalateJBenzo (b)fluorantheneBenzo (k)fluorantheneBenzo (a)pyreneIndeno (1,2 .3cd) pyreneDibenz (a.h)an hraceneJBenzo ( g.h.)peryleneJDi-n-octylphthalateJBenzo ( b)fluorantheneBenzo ( k)fluorantheneJJBenzo(a)pyreneIndeno (1 .2,3cd) pyreneJJDibenz ( a .h)anthraceneJBenzo (g,h. )peryleneJJJJJSurrogates were diluted out in sample 99-GAM-016-SL . No data qualifications wereperformed based on diluted surrogate results .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99-GAM -014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nosemivolatiles were detected in any of the samples .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 99 -GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM015-SL ( original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No semivolatiles weredetected in any of the samples .VI . Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA SW 846 method 8081For GC Organochlorine Pesticides analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations,blanks, and all accuracy and precision results were within validation criteria with thefollowing exceptions :Finding 1 :Matrix spike ( MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :8 Laboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW. Debris RemovalSampl .--~All samples in SDGsCompoundAll TCL compounds064096 and 994255FindingNo MS/ MSD associated with thesesamples.CriteriaFlagMS/MSD required .NoneFor the samples listed in the table above, surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report, sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .Finding 2 :Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix asapplicable . Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences(RPD) were within QC limits with the following exceptions :LCS ID(Associate dSamples )S9908251 LCS/LCSDWI samples in SDG 064096)Action :CompoundLCS%R (Umits )LCSD% R (Umits )RPO(Umits)FlagEndosulfan sulfate64(65-138)64(65-138)-JSamples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a protocol violation .Surrogates were diluted out in samples 99-GAM-012-SL and 99-GAM-018-SL No dataqualifications were performed based on diluted surrogate results .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nochlorinated pesticides were detected in any of the samples .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM015-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No chlorinated pesticideswere detected in any of the samples .VII . Polychlorinated Biphenyls by EPA SW 846 method 8082For GC Polychlorinated Biphenyls analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations, blanks,and all accuracy and precision results were within validation criteria with the followingexceptions :9Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Gambell HTW , Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataFinding 1 :Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by themethod . All surrogate recoveries (% R) were within QC limits with thefollowing exceptions :SampleColumnSurrogate%R (Umits )99-GAM-009-SLNot specfiedDecachlorobiphenyl130 (53-125)Action :CompoundFlagAll TCL compoundsJ (all detects)Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .Surrogates were diluted out in sample 99-GAM-018-SL . No data qualifications wereperformed based on diluted surrogate results .Finding 2 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate ( MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :SampleAll samples in SDGs064096 and 994255CompoundAll TCL compoundsFindingNo MS/MSD associated with thesesamples-CriteriaFlagMS/MSD required .NoneFor the samples listed in the table above, surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report, sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99 -GAM-014-SL and 99 -GAM-015-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nopolychlorinated biphenyls were detected in any of the samples with the followingexceptions :10Laboratory Data Consultants, inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration (D .t.eticun limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-014-SLCompoundArodor-1260Dilution :Prep Date:Analysis data :0 .03170 .8988/ 20/998/22/990 .0034U99-GAM-015-SLDilution :0 .934Prop Data :8/20/99Analysis data: 8 /22/990 .01110 .0035UDifferenceDisagreement/Major DisagreementFactor (X)(D/MD)2.9-The comparability of the field duplicate sample data was considered technicallyacceptable.Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 9.3-GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM015-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No polychlorinatedbiphenyls were detected in any of the samples with the following exceptions :Concentration (D.t.cticwn limit) (mg/Kg)Compound99-GAM-014-SL99-GAM-016-SLDilution:0 .898Prop Data : 8/20/99Analysis data: 8/22/99D181utlon :1 .0Prop Date: 8/25/99Aasaiysis data: 9/7/99Factor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)NC-Dlff . r.nceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)NC-Difference-11For-12600.03170.0034U0.038U0.0038UConcentration (Det.cfios1an limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM -0I5-SLCompoundArodor-1260Dilution :Prop Date:Analysis data :0 .9348/20/990 .01110 .0035U8/22/9999-GAM-0I6-SLD tlon :1 .0Pr+. p Date : 8/25/99Analysis data :9/7/990 .038U0 .038UThe comparability of the QA split sample data was considered technically acceptable .In cases where the detection limit of a non-detect result is greater than a detected result,the comparison of the data is not technically significant . These cases are flagged witha "NC" (not calculable) notation .11Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalVIII . Gasoline Range Organics by Alaska Method AK101For gasoline range organic analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations, blanks, fieldQC, and all accuracy and precision results were within validation criteria with thefollowing exceptions :Finding 1 : Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by themethod . All surrogate recoveries ( %R) were within QC limits with thefollowing exceptions :SampleSurrogate%R (Umits )CompoundFlag99-GAM -009-SL4-8romofluorobenzene41 .8 (50 -150)Gasoline range organicsJ99-GAM -0 1 1 SL4-Bromoftuorobenzene47.2 (50-150 )Gasoline range organicsJ99-GAM-01 4-SL4-8ro mofluoro benzene37.2 (50-150)Gasoline range organicsJ99-GAM-01 5-SL4-8ro mofluoro benzene27.3 (50-150)Gasoline range organicsJ99-GAM -016-SL4-Bromofluorobenzene40(50-150)Gasoline range organicsJAction:Samples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a protocol violation .Finding 2 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :SampleAll samples in SDGs064096 and 994255LCompoundGasoline range organicsFindingNo lu1S/MSD associated with thesesamples .CriteriaFlagMS/MSD required .NoneI--J1For the samples listed in the table above , surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report , sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .12Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc.Gambell HTW , Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataSamples 99-GAM-027-SL and 99-GAM-028-SL were identified as trip blanks . No gasolinerange organics were found in these blanks with the following exceptions :Trip Blank ID99-GAM-027-SLConcentration ( mg/Kg)CompoundGasoline range organics12 .8Samples 99-GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nogasoline range organics were detected in any of the samples .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM015-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No gasoline rangeorganics were detected in any of the samples .IX. Diesel Range Organics and Residual Range Organics by Alaska MethodsAK102/AK103For diesel range and residual range organic analysis , holding times , instrumentcalibrations , blanks , field QC, and all accuracy and precision results were withinvalidation criteria .Finding 1 : Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable . No totalpetroleum hydrocarbons as diesel contaminants were found in themethod blanks with the following exceptions :Method Blank IDExtractionDate5931 XXXMB8/24199CompoundDiesel range organicsConcentrationAssociated Samples4 .71 mg/KgAll samples in SDG 994255Sample concentrations were compared to concentrations detected in the method blanks .The sample concentrations were either not detected or were significantly greater ( >5Xblank contaminants) than the concentrations found in the associated method blanks withthe following exceptions :Sample99-GAM-011 SLCompoundDiesel range organics13ReportedConcentrationModified FinalConcentration20.5 mg/Kg20.5U mg/KgLaboratory Data Consultants. Inc .Gambell HTW, Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataSample99-GAM-0I7SLCompoundDiesel range organicsReportedConcentrationModified FinalConcentration15 .3 mg/Kg15 .3U mg/KgFinding 2 : Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by themethod. All surrogate recoveries (% R) were within QC limits with thefollowing exceptions :SampleS9908241 MBAction :SampleSurrogateo-Terphenyl%R (Limits)52(50-150)CompoundDiesel range organicsFlagJSamples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a protocol violation .Surrogate%R (Umits )CompoundFlag99-GAM-016-SLTriacontane160 (50- 150)Residual range organicsJ (all detects)99-GAM-014-SLn-Triacontane217 (50- 150)Diesel range organicsResidual range organicsJ ( all detects)J (all detects)99-GAM-019-SL5a-Androstanen-Triacontane176 (50- 150)189 (50- 150)Diesel range organicsResidual range organicsJ ( all detects)J (all detects)99-GAM-026-SLn-Triacontane186 (50-150)Diesel range organicsResidual range organicsJ (all detects)J (all detects)Action :Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .Surrogates were diluted out in samples 99-GAM-009-SL, 99-GAM-010-SL, and 99-GAM018-SL. No data qualifications were performed based on diluted surrogate results .Finding 3 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions :14Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataSampleAll samples in SDGs064096 and 994255Gambell HTW, Debris RemovalCompoundFindingDiesel range organicsResidual range organicsNo MSIMSD associated with thesesamples .CriteriaFlagMS/MSO required .NoneNOAeFor the samples listed in the table above, surrogate, laboratory control sample andlaboratory control sample duplicates were used to assess precision and accuracy . Sincethese were acceptable with the exceptions noted in this report, sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99 -GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-0 15-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nodiesel range organics or residual range organics were detected in any of the sampleswith the following exceptions :Concentration ( Detectnon limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-014-SL99-GAM-015-SLDilution :Prep Date:Analysis date :0 .9528/24/998/28/99Diesel range organics84 .09 .91 U68.8Residual range organics59216 .4U303CompoundOfution :0 .872Prop Date:8/24/99Analysis date :8/28/99DifferenceDisagreement/ Major DisagreementFactor (X)(DMD)9 .91U1 .2-16.4U2 .0The comparability of the field duplicate sample data was considered technicallyacceptable .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM01 5-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No diesel range organicsor residual range organics were detected in any of the samples with the followingexceptions:3sLaboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration (Dst.rction limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM - 014-SL99-GAM-016-SLDilution :0 .952Prep Date :Analysis date :8/24/998/28/99Diesel range organics84.010 .7U724 .6111 .2Residual range organics59217 .711270111.)2.2-1 .08/24/998/28/99DifferenceDisagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)724 .6111 .0270111.11 .1Compound1 .0Dilution:6/24/99Prep Date :Analysis date : 8/28/99DifferenceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)Concentration ( Detraction limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-015-SL 99-GAM-016-SLDilution :0 .872 ( Dilution:Prep Date : 8/24/99 Prep Date :Analysis data :8/28/99 Analysis date :CompoundDiesel range organics68 .89.91Residual range organics30316 .41- -- IU-Factor (X)JThe comparability of the QA split sample data was considered technically acceptable .X. Metals by EPA SW 846 Methods 6010 and 7000For metals analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations, instrument performancechecks, blanks, internal standards, and all accuracy and precision results were withinvalidation criteria with the following exceptions :Finding 1 :Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable . Dataqualification by the preparation blanks (PBs) was based on themaximum contaminant concentration in the PBs in the analysis of eachanalyte . No contaminant concentrations were found above the IDL inthe initial, continuing and preparation blanks with the followingexceptions :1 6 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Gembell HTW, Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataMethod Blank IDICB/CCSAnalyt.TAssociate d SamplesLead0.1 ugJL1 .3 ug/L99-GAM-009-SL99-GAM-01 0SL99-GAM-011 SL99-GAM-01 2-SL99-GAM-013-SLBarium0.2 ug/LChromium.5 ug/L299-GAM-014-SL99-GAM-01 5-SL99-GAM-01 7-SLCadmiumICB/CCBMaximumConce ntration99-GAM-018-SL99-GAM-019-SL99-GAM-026-SLSample concentrations were compared to the maximum contaminant concentrationsdetected in the PBs . The sample concentrations were either not detected or weresignificantly greater ( >5X blank contaminants) than the concentrations found in theassociated method blanks .Finding 2 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable .SampleAna"TFindingAll samples in SDGCopperNo MS /MSD associated with these064096Antimonysamples.All samples in SDG064096All TAL metalsNo MS / MSD associated with thesesamples.CriteriaFlagMS/MSD required.NoneNoneMS/ MSD required.NoneFor the samples listed in the table above, laboratory control samples were used toassess precision and accuracy . Since these were acceptable, sample results were notqualified based on this finding . This is considered a protocol violation .Finding 3 : Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate ( MSD) percent recoveries(%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits withthe following exceptions:17Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW , Debris RemovalSpike ID(AssociatedSamples )MS (%R)MSD (%R)RPD(Limits )( Limits)(Limits)Flag-JAnalyteE9H21 01 61-002MS /MSD(All samples in SOG 064096)Cadmium77 (75-125)Samples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above . This isconsidered a technical deficiency .Action :Spike ID(AssociatedSamples )AnalyteE9H21 01 61-002MS/MSD(All samples in SOG 064096)Action:ChromiumLeadMS (%R)(Limits)MSD (%R)( Limits )RPD( Limits)Flag155 (75-125)268 (75-125)198 (75-125)-J (all detects)J (all detects)Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a technical deficiency .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL and samples were identified as fieldduplicates . No metals were detected in any of the samples with the following exceptions :Concentration ( Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-014-SLAna"Dilution :Prop Date :Analysis date :1, 10, 2008/26/998125-31,9999-GAM-015-SLDilution :1, 4, 100Prop Date: 8/26/99Analysis date :8/25-31 /99Factor ( X)Disagreement/ Major Disagreement(D/MD)DIfferenceArsenic1 .750 .0492U1 .600 .0492U1 .1-Barium57 .30 .0550U66.70 .0550U1 .2-Cadmium0.6590 .0072U1 .570 .0072U2.4OChromium13 .20.0532U23.90.053201 .8Lead2120.0615U3110.0615U1 .518-Laboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Review d Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration (Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-014-SLAnalyt.Dilution : 1, 10, 200Prop Date :8/25/99Analysis date : 8/25-31 /9999-GAM-015-SLDilution : 1, 4, 100Prep Data :8/26/99Analysis date : 8/25-31199Diffe renceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)Mercury0 .1010.005U0 .1150.005U1 .1Selenium0 .12700.127U0 .4020 .0724U3 .2MD1 .620 .0069U0.1690.0069U9 .6MODifferenceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)SilverConcentration ( Detection limit) ( mg/Kg)99-GAM-020-SLAnalyt.Dilution : 1,10Prep Date:8/26,9/2/99Analysis date : 8 /25-9/3 /9999-GAM-021-SLDilution : 1,10Prop Oat. : 8/26,9/2/99Analysis date :8/25-9 /3/99Arsenic0.9780 .0492U0 .6420 .049201 .5-Cadmium0 .09650.007200 .09270 .0072U1 .0-Copper63.90.335033.20 .33501 .9Lead16.10 .0615U22.20.0615U1 .4-The comparability of the field duplicate sample data was considered technicallyacceptable with the exceptions of Cadmium, Selenium, and Silver in sample pair 99GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM-015-SL . No specific reason for this difference was identifiedduring the review of QA/QC results . For the soil samples, sample homogeneity orsubsampling could possibly account for this problem .Samples 99-GAM-014-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM01 5-SL (original) and 99-GAM-016-SL (referee) were compared . No metals were detectedin any of the samples with the following exceptions :19Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration ( Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-014-SLAna"Dilution :1, 10, 200Prop Date : 8/26/99Analysis date:8/25-31 /9 999-GAM-0I 6-SLDillution :1, & 2Prop Date : 8/23/99Analysis date :8/24-25/99Factor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)DifferenceArsenic1 .750 .049208 .32.31)4 .7MDBarium57 .30.0550057 .04 .6111 .0-Cadmium0.6590.007201 .201 .20NCChromium13 .20.0532024 .72 .301 .9-Lead2120.06151)1971 .201 .1-Mercury0 .1010.00500 .12O.10U1 .2Selenium0.127U0.07241)1 .31 .2010.21 .620 .00691)2.302.30NCSilverMDConcentration (Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-015-SLAnalyt.Dilution :Prop Date :Analysis date:1, 4, 1008/26/998/25-31 /9999-GAM-0I 6-SLDiiu6on : 1, & 2Prop Date:8/23/99Anatysis date :8/24-25 /9 9Factor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)MDDiffe renceArsenic1 .600.049208.32 .305 .2Barium66.70.0550U57.04 .601 .2Cadmium1 .570 .007201 .21)1 .2U1 .3-Chromium23 .90 .0532024 .72.301 .0-Lead3110 .0615U1971 .201 .620Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration ( Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-0 15-SLDilution :AnalytePrep Date:Analysis data :1, 4, 1008/26/998125-31/9999-GAM-01 6-SLDilrotion :1, & 28/23/99Prop Date:Analysis date: 8/24-25 /99DifferenceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)Mercury0.1150.00500 .120.1001 .0Selenium0.4020 .0724U1 .31 .2U3 .2DSilver0.1690.006902 .31)2 .30NC.DifferenceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)Concentration ( Detection limit) ( mg/Kg)99-GAM -020-SLAna"Dilution : 1,10Prep Date :8/26,9 /2/99Analysis date:8/25-9 /3/9999-GAM-022-SLDilution :IPrep Date :8/23/99Analysis date: 8/25/99Arsenic0.9780 .049201 .11 .001 .1Cadmium0.09650 .007200 .63U0.631)NC-Copper63 .90 .335065 .71 .001 .0-Lead16.10.0615036 .50 .50(12.3DDifferenceFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)Concentration ( Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM -021-SLAnalyteDilution : 1,10Prep Date:8/26,9/2 /99Analysis date: 8125-9/3/9999-GAM-022-SLDiluon :IPrep Date : 8/23/99Analysis date :8/25/99Arsenic0 .6420 .049201 .11 .001 .7-Cadmium0 .09270 .0072U3.631.10.630NC-Copper33 .20 .335U-65.71 .01)2 .0-21Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGanibeil HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration ( Detection limit) (mg/Kg)99-GAM-021-SLDilution:Prep Date :Analyt.1,108/26,9 / 2/99Analysis date :8 /25-9/3/99Lead22.20.06151.199-GAM-022-SLDilution :IProp Date:8/23/99Analysis date :8 / 25/9936.5DifferenceDisagreement/Major DisagreementFactor (X)(D/MD)0 .50U1 .6The comparability of the QA split sample data was considered technically acceptablewith the exceptions of Arsenic and Selenium in sample pair 99-GAM-014-SL and 99-GAM016-SL, Arsenic, Selenium, and Silver in sample pair 99-GAM-015-SL and 99-GAM-016SL, and Lead in sample pair 99-GAM-020-SL and 99-GAM-022-SL . No specific reason forthis difference was identified during the review of CA/QC results . For the soil samples,sample homogeneity or subsampling could possibly account for this problem . In caseswhere the detection limit of a non-detect result is greater than a detected result, thecomparison of the data is not technically significant . These cases are flagged with a "NC"(not calculable) notation .XI . Dioxins by EPA SW 846 Method 8290For HRGC/HRMS dioxin/dibenzofuran analysis, holding times, instrument calibrations,instrument performance checks, blanks, internal standards, field QC, and all accuracyand precision results were within validation criteria with the following exceptions :Finding 1 :All of the routine calibration percent differences (%D) between theinitial calibration RRF and the routine calibration RRF were less thanor equal to 20 .0% for unlabeled compounds and less than or equal to30.0% for labeled compounds with the following exceptions :Dab9/4/99Compound"C-OCOD%OAssociated Samples32Method blankFlagJAction :Samples were qualified as estimated (J) as indicated above. This isconsidered a protocol violation .Finding 2:Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable . Nopolychlorinated dioxin /dibenzofuran contaminants were found in themethod blanks with the following exceptions :22Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Gambeil HTN , Debris RemovalReview of Analytical DataMethod Blank IDExtractionDateMethod blank8/25/99TU BlankCompoundConcentrationAssociated SamplesAli samples in SDG 0640961,2.3 .4,6 .7,8-HpCDD3 .3 pgjgTotal HpC00OCOD3 .3 pg/g1 ,2,3 .4,6.7,8-HpCOD0 .80 pg/goC002,3,7 .8-TCDF0.81 pg/g0.76 pg/g0.71 p9/91 .7 p9/g0.80 P9/90.76 pg/g0.71 Mg8/29/997 .0 pgjg1,2,3 .4,6.7 .8-HpCDFTotal HxCODTotal HpCDOTotal TCDFTotal HpCDFAY samples in SDG 994255Sample concentrations were compared to concentrations detected in the method blanks .The sample concentrations were either not detected or were significantly greater ( >5Xblank contaminants) than the concentrations found in the associated method blanks withthe following exceptions :SampleCompoundReportedModified FinalConcentrationConcentration3 .5U pg/g99-GAM-020-SL2.3 .7 .8-TCDF3.5 pgjg99-GAM-025-SL1,2 .3 .4,6.7.8-HpCD01,2 .3 .4 .6.7.8-HpCDFTotal HpCDD1 .3 pg/g1 .31 .1 pg/g2.4 pgjg2.4U pg/92.3 pg/g2.3U pgjgTotal HxCDD6.6 pg/g6 .6U pgjg99-GAM-024-SLFinding 3 :Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples werereviewed for each matrix as applicable with the following exceptions:SampleAll samples in SDGs064096 and 994255CompoundAll TCL compoundsFindingNo MS/MSD associated with thesesamples .23CriteriaFlagMS /MSD required .NoneLaboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalFor the samples listed in the table above, laboratory control samples were used toassess precision and accuracy . Since these were acceptable with the exceptions notedin this report, sample results were not qualified based on this finding . This is considereda protocol violation .Finding 4 :All internal standard recoveries were within QC limits with the followingexceptions :Sample99-GAM-021 -SL99-GAM-023-SLInternal Standards%R (Limits)"C-1 .2,3 .4,6,7,8-HpCDD146 (25-130)"C-1 .2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDO150 (25-130)CompoundFlag1,2 .3.4,6 .7,8-HpCDDTotal HpCDDJ (all detects)J ( al detects)1 .2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDDJ (all detects)Total HpCDDJ (all detects)Action : Sample results reported as detectable were qualified as estimated (J) asindicated above . This is considered a protocol violation .No field blanks were identified in these SDGs .Samples 99-GAM-020-SL and 99-GAM-021-SL were identified as field duplicates . Nopolychlorinated dioxins /dibenzofurans were detected in any of the samples with thefollowing exceptions :Concentration ( Detection limit) (ppt)Compound99-GAM-020-SL99-GAM-021-SLDilution :IPrep Date :8/29/99Analysis date :9/11/99Dilution:1Prep Date : 8/29/99Analysis date:9/11/99Dtffer. nceFactor (X)1,2 .3,7 .8-PeCDD2 .6-2.2-1 .21,2 .3,4,7.8-HxCDD3 .8-3.0-1 .31 .2 .3,6,7,8-HxCDD14 .1-8.9-1 .61,2 .3,7,8,9-HpCDD10 .9-8.2-1 .31,2,3 .4,6,7.8-HpCDD266-151-1 .824Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)-Laboratory Data Consultants . Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambol] HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration ( Detection limit) (ppt)Compound99-GAM -020-SL99- GAM-021-SLDilution :IProp Date :8/29/99Analysis date :9 /11/99Dilution :1Prop Data : 8/29/99Analysis data :9/11/99Dlttersnc.Factor () )Disagreement/Major Disagr. .m .nt(D/MD)1 .6-OCOD1250-8002 .3 .7.8-TCDF0 .74-0 .92-1 .21,2.3,7, 8-PeCDF0.6U0.6U0 .97 EMPC'-1 .6-2 .3,4,7, 8-PeCDF1 .2-1 .7-1 .4-1,2.3,4.7, 8-HxCDF4 .3-4 .6-1 .11,2.3,6,7,8d-ixCDF1 .7-1 .8-1 .1-2.3,4,6,7,8-HxCOF2.9-2.9-1-1,2.3 .4, 6,7.8-HxCDF107-74 .1-1 .4-1 .2.3,4, 7,8,9-HpCDF6.5-4.8-1 .4OCOF596-436-1 .4Total TCDD1 .7-1 .5-1 .1-Total PeCOD24 .3-19.1-1 .3-Total HxCDD97 .9-67.1-1 .5-Total HpCDD461-263-2-Total TCDF24 .9-26.7-1 .1Total PeCDF8.6-12.8-1 .525-Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW . Debris RemovalConcentration (Dwtection limit) (ppt)Compound99-GAM-020-SL99-GAM-021 -SLDilution:IPrep Date : 8/29/99Analysis date : 9/11/99Dilution :1Prep Date : 8/29/99Analysis date : 9/11/99DifferenceFactor (X)Total HxCOF85 .5-59 .4-1 .4Total HpCDF526-362-1 .5Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)_•EMPC = estimated maximum possible concentrationThe comparability of the field duplicate sample data was considered technicallyacceptable .Samples 99 -GAM-020-SL ( original ) and 99-GAM-022- SL (referee) and samples 99-GAM021-SL ( original ) and 99-GAM-022-SL (referee) were compared . No polychlorinateddioxins / dibenzofurans were detected in any of the samples with the following exceptions :Concentration (D .. action limit) (ppt)Compound99-GAM -020-SL99-GAM-022-SLDilution :IPrep Date :8/29/99Analysis date :9/11/99Dilution :IPrep Data:8/25/99Analysis date : 9/11/99DifferenceDisagreement/Major DisagreementFactor (X)(D/MD)2,3,7.8-TCOD0 .8U0.8U0 .60-NC-1,2 .3 .7,8-PeCDD2 .6-2 .2U2.2U1 .2-1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDD3 .8-3 .3-1 .2-1,2.3,6.7,8-HxCDD14 .1-12-1 .2-1,2.3,7,8,9-HxCDD10 .95 .1-2.1-1 .2.3 .4 .6.7,8-HpCDO266250-1 .1-OCOD12501100-1 .1--26Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambol[ H1W, Debns RemovalConcentration (Detection limit) (ppt)Compound99-GAM-020-SL99-GAM-022-SLDilution :1Prop Date :8/29/99Analysis date : 9/11/99Dilution :1Prop Date :8/25/99Analysis date :9/11/99Factor (X)Disagreement/Mayor Disagreement(D/MD)Difference2,3,7,8-TCOF0.74-1 .2-1 .6-2,3,4 .7 .8-PeCOF1 .2-1 .5U1 .5UNC-1 .2,3,4,7.8-HxCDF4 .3-2.9U2.9U1 .5-1,2,3,6 ,7,8-HxCDF1 .7-2.1U2 .1UNC-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF2.9-1 .8U1 .8U1 .61,2 .3.4,6,7 .8-HpCOF107-96-1 .1-1,2 .3.4,7,8 .9-HpCDF6.5-5.0-1 .3-OCDF596-570-1-Total TCDD1 .7-7 .6-4 .5DTotal PeCOD24 .3-4.5U4 .5U5 .4MDTotal HxCDD97 .9-68-1 .4Total HxCDD461-430-1 .1Total TCOF24 .9-47•-1 .9Total PeCOF8 .6-11-1 .3Total HxCOF85 .5-61-1 .4-Total HpCOF526-470-1 .1-27-Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambeli HTW , Debris Remove)Concentration (D.t.ction limit) (ppt)99-GAM - 021-SL99-GAM-022-SLDilution :Prop Date :Analysis date :18/29/999 / 11/992 .3,7,8-TCDD0 .6U0.6U0.60-11,2.3 .7, 8-PeCOD2.2-2.2U-I1,2,3 .4, 7,8-HxCOD3 .0-3 .3-1 .11,2,3 .6,7,8-HxCDD8.912-1 .31,2,3 .7, 8 .9-HxCDD8.2-5 .1-1 .61 .2.3,4 .6 .7 . 8-HpCDO151-250-1 .7OCDD800-1100-1 .42.3,7 , 8-TCDF0 .92-1 .21,2.3,7, 8-PeCOF0.97 EMPC •-1 .6U1 .6UNC2.3 .4 .7, 8-PeCOF1 .7-1 .51)1 .5U1 .11,2.3 .4,7,8-HxCDF4 .6-2 .91)-1 .61,2 .3.6 .7.8 -HxCDF1 .8-2.1U-NC2,3 .4,6,7,8-HxCDF2 .9-1 .81)-1 .6-1,2 .3,4 , 6.7,8-HpCOF74 .196-1 .3-1,2,3.4 .7,8 .9-HpCOF4 .8-5.0-1OCDF436-570-1 .3CompoundDilution :IProp Data: 8/25/99Analysis date :9/11/99DifferenceFactor ( X)1 .3Disagreement/Major Disagreement(DMD)•--28 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc .Review of Analytical DataGambell HTW, Debris RemovalConcentration ( Detection limit) (ppt)99- GAM-022-SL99-GAM-021-SLCompoundDilution :IProp Oats :8/29/99Analysis date :9/11/99Dilution :Prep Date :Analysis date :18/25/999/11/99OlfforoncsFactor (X)Disagreement/Major Disagreement(D/MD)Total TCOO1 .5-7 .6-5 .1MDTotal PeCOD19 .1-4 .5U4.5U4 .2DTotal HxCDD67.1-68-1-Total HpCDD263-4301 .6-Total TCDF26.7-471 .7-Total PeCOF12.8-11-1 .2-Total HxCOF59 .4-61-1-Total HpCDF362-470-1 .3-•EMPC = estimated maximum possible concentrationThe comparability of the QA split sample data was considered technically acceptablewith the exceptions of Total TCDD and Total PeCDD in sample pair 99-GAM-020-SL and99-GAM-022-SL and sample pair 99-GAM-021-SL and 99-GAM-022-SL. No specificreason for these differences was identified during the review of QA/QC results . For thesoil samples, sample homogeneity or subsampling could possibly account for thisproblem . In cases where the detection limit of a non-detect result is greater than adetected result, the comparison of the data is not technically significant . These cases areflagged with a "NC" (not calculable) notation .29Laboratory Data Consultants . Inc . -
ACAT FOIA Repository 12
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 12, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2003
Pages: 15
Document Title: Public meeting slides and notes for Proposed Remedial Action Plan for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
PowerPoint slides and a few notes with community questions for the Proposed Remedial Action Plan in July 2004; also includes a few notes from an earlier meeting in 2003. Slides focus on a handful of sites that will require excavation or other work.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 12, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2003
Pages: 15
Document Title: Public meeting slides and notes for Proposed Remedial Action Plan for Gambell
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
PowerPoint slides and a few notes with community questions for the Proposed Remedial Action Plan in July 2004; also includes a few notes from an earlier meeting in 2003. Slides focus on a handful of sites that will require excavation or other work.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat12SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 12" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Proposed Plan for Remedial ActionGambell Formerly Used Defense SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaAgendan Welcome/Introductions7:00 pm7:10 pmn Questions7:40 pmBREAK8:00 – 8:15 pmn Safety Around Ammunition 8:15 pmn Questions8:30 pmn Open Discussion9:00 pmn Adjournment10:00 pmn Proposed Plan OverviewJuly 21, 2004Public MeetingGambell, AK2Proposed PlanPublic Process under CERCLAn Summarizes all sites evaluated duringn Conduct a Public Meeting to present anthe investigation process, includingsites proposed for No Further Actionn Describes environmental conditionsn Describes cleanup alternativesconsideredn Presents recommended cleanupalternativesn Requests public comment3Evaluation Criterian Overall protection of human health and theenvironmentn Compliance with regulationsn Short term effectivenessn Long term effectiveness and permanencen Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volumen Implementabilityn Costn Community acceptancen State acceptance5overview of the Proposed Plan and receiveoral or written commentsn Hold a 30-day Public Comment Periodn Consider and respond to comments inResponsiveness Summaryn Prepare Decision Document whichdescribes the final selected remedyn Publish Public Notice for the Decision4DocumentCleanup Levelsn Soil and groundwater cleanup levels arerisk-based and designed to be protectiveof human health and the environmentn All Sitesn ADEC Table B Soil Cleanup Levels, Under 40Inch Zone, Ingestion pathwayn Sites 5 and 12n ADEC Table B Soil Cleanup Levels, Under 40Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater Pathway6n ADEC Table C Groundwater Cleanup LevelsF10AK069603_08.10_0017_a200-1e1Preferred AlternativesPreferred Alternatives (con’t)n Recommendations:n Recommendations:n Remove arsenic-contaminated gravelfrom under former concrete pad (Site 7)n Remove exposed metal debris from theAirfield (Site 8A)n Remove small arms ammunition fromthe Beach Burial Site (Site 8D)n Remove lead-contaminated soil fromsouth of Troutman Lake (Site 12)n Collect an additional groundwater samplefrom the Village Water Supply andsurrounding Monitoring Wells (Site 5)n No Further Action at remaining Sites74B4E4A5BERING SEA11910WestBeachBering SeaFormerCommunicationsFacilityArmy Landfills4B17Former Military36Burial SiteMilitary2Drum Storage LandfillArea27 FormerVillageFormer7 Power4EWater4A Quonset HutsFacilityCableSupply2625A25BDebrisS. Housing 16Low20Drainage8B24Area518FormerBuried21Debris19Buried TramwayFormer15Diatomaceous DebrisMain4D FormerEarthCampTransformersHighSchoolCityHall Washeteria1120ni9 AsphaltDrumsN12±to14Troutman LaketiocaA irstr ip138AMarstonMattingmu8DN1000010002000 Feet9500³Site 7 – Military Power FacilityPreferred AlternativeFormerAir ForceRadar Site1BCAAHousing4C28Air ForceLanding Area1A224DOld VillageAreaTroutman Lake8AArmy Landing Area23 Debris fromHigh School8C Navy Landfill050010Air Force Tr ail23Army Trail1B2772625B 25A 16 202624188B19 2115Airs tripNorth Beach1CSevuokuk Mountain1A176ns Cable Route1C22Com238C8101000 FeetSB27-1SB27-2³SB27-3³HouseQ. BuildingMetal FreightContainers (former)Site 7#n Concrete pad removed in 2003SS41#SS40n Underlying gravels contained elevated levels ofarsenic attributed to wood preservative fromthe buried support timbersn Maximum arsenic concentration is 34.9 mg/kgn ADEC cleanup level is 5.5 mg/kgMW 26#³ SB7-18ðSB17³Concrete Slab(removed 2003)MW2407SL001 # ð07SL002 # # # 07SL00407SL003MW 25³ð SB7-20##07SL005#n Excavate arsenic-contaminated gravelSB7-19³FuelPipelineMW27ðn Transport off-site to permitted landfill111221314151617183Site 8A - Airport RunwayMarsten Mattingn Remove exposed metallic debrisfrom east side of runwayn Transport and dispose off-site at apermitted landfill or recycling facility1920212223244Site 8D - Beach Ammunition DumpPreferred Alternativen Excavate pits and separate smallarms rounds from the graveln Transport and dispose off-site at apermitted landfill2526Site 12 - North Nayvaghat LakesDisposal Site Preferred Alternativen Excavate lead-contaminated soiln Transport off-site to permittedhazardous waste landfill (lower 48)n Surface soils contain Leadn Maximum concentration 1,530 mg/kgn Applicable ADEC cleanup level is 400mg/kg27282930Troutman LakeUnnamed PondSite 12North AreaSite 8DSite 12South AreaNNorth NayvaghatLakes50005001000 Feet531Site 5 – Former TramwayPreferred Alternative321994 GW contours4.75Aquifer boundary3.4¬ Oct 1998 GW contoursNMW14ð3.54.8MW 30n Collect one additional groundwaterðsample from the Village Water SupplyWell and the surrounding MonitoringWellsn No Further Action3.74.853.64.0ArchaelogicalSite4.1ATVMW 314.95MW 28Trai l3.83.9ð 4.9ðAT VTrailMW 15ðNewVillageWell#SB34³SB36³#ðToe ofSevuokukMountain32ð MWðMW16³ SB33#MW 2950050 FeetSpring333435366Remaining Sites –Preferred AlternativeOther Sites Evaluatedn No contamination above ADEC Table Bn No Further ActionMigration to Groundwater cleanup levels and/orn Levels of Contaminants below ADECn Surface debris removed (1997, 1999)cleanup criterian Surface debris removed under previousremoval actionn Remaining buried debris ineligible forremoval using the FUDS programn NALEMP activity planned for 2004 and2005 to continue buried debris removalnSite 1A and 1B North BeachnSite 17 Army LandfillsnSite 4C and 4D Sevuokuk MtnnSite 18 Main CampnSite 8B and 8C West BeachnSite 20 SchoolyardnSite 9 Asphalt Barrel CachenSite 24 S. of Municipal BldgnSite 10 Sevuokuk Mtn TrailnSite 25A South Housing UnitsnSite 11 Communications CablenSite 25B Low Drainage AreanSite 13 Radar Power StationnSite 14 Navy Plane Crash Site37Other Sites EvaluatednSite 16 Municipal Building SiteSouthwest of ArmorynSite 26 Possible Debris BurialnSite 27 Drum Storage Area38nSite 28 Disturbed GroundOther Sites Evaluatedn No contamination above ADEC Table Bn Remaining debris not eligible for cleanupIngestion cleanup levelsn Surface debris and/or contaminated soilsremoved in 1997, 1999under the FUDS program, planned forNALEMP cleanup activitiesn Site 1C North Beach (underwater debris)n Site 15 Troutman Lake (underwater debris)n Site 2 Former Military Housingn Site 19 Diatomaceous Earthn Site 4A Former Quonset Hutsn Site 21 Toe of Sevuokuk Mountainn Site 4B Former USAF Radar Stationn Site 22 Former CAA Housingn Site 6 Military Landfilln Site 23 Debris moved from High School39TIMELINEconstruction40QUESTIONS?AUGUST 23, 2004:Public Comments DueSEPTEMBER 2004:Responsiveness SummaryOCTOBER 2004:Decision DocumentFALL/WINTER 2004:Design Remedial ActionEARLY 2005:Advertise/Select ContractorSUMMER 2005:FieldworkWINTER 2005:Draft Report41427Safety Around Military Ammunitionn Types of ammunition:n Small arms, mostly 0.30-caliber roundsn Old military items such as hand grenades mayalso be presentn Description:n Military munitions have a full metal jacket/sheathn Typically inert but 0.30-caliber rounds maycontain tracer elements.n Ammunition that has been doused in gasoline ordiesel fuel and burned, buried in high-moisturecontent gravels, or immersed in water forextended periods is unlikely to be functional 43Safety Around Military AmmunitionSafety Around Military AmmunitionNEVER TRY TOSHOOTDISCARDEDAMMUNITIONWITH A RIFLEYou could seriously injureyourself or damage yourrifle!44Safety Around Military AmmunitionNEVER TOSSAMMUNITIONINTOA FIRENEVER PLACESMALL ARMSROUNDS IN ANOVENOld rounds aren’tfirecrackers - they couldexplode and cause injury toyourself or others!Trying to dry out oldammunition is not worththe risk of explosion orstarting a fire!4546Safety Around Military AmmunitionEmergency Contact InformationIf items other than small arms ammunition arediscovered, you should immediately contact yourVillage Public Safety Officer (VPSO)City of GambellPolice Department & VPSO985-5333Do not pick up or move the item!Write down the location of thepotentially dangerous item.§ Mark the site and provide areference using known landmarksso it can be found again.§ Photograph the item, if possible§§Military Hand Grenades47Nome Alaska State Trooper Post(907) 443-2835U.S. Army 716th Ordnance CompanyFort Richardson, Alaska(907) 384-7600 or24hr Emergency Line (907) 384-7603488p"'~l;'r~ +- ~ j o~~ ~ ~ lo\""'\ ,'l\.,f1rl'1 I+Lf;) ,I.- tJP J11)(_Po;,t'-'1)r"'-"V\i~ ~lt."' tJ r:s-- ~~ rz (\f\ l ~2[r:..t_Scr1l.. "L i l j'~i.AA -
ACAT FOIA Repository 13
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 13, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 74
Document Title: Feasibility Study: Gambell, St Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Feasibility Study for Gambell, form letter inviting feedback, and three comments on the F.S.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 13, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 74
Document Title: Feasibility Study: Gambell, St Lawrence Island, Alaska
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Feasibility Study for Gambell, form letter inviting feedback, and three comments on the F.S.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat13SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 13" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United States ArmyCorps of EngineersAlaska DistrictPO Box 6898Anchorage, AK99506-6898Feasibility StudyGambellSt. Lawrence IslandAlaskaFINALFebruary 2004F10AK069603_04.09_0500_a200-1eExecutive SummaryThis Feasibility Study evaluates alternatives for potential future remedial actions atselected sites (4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8, and 12) in Gambell, Alaska. These sites wererecommended for potential remedial action in the 2001 Supplemental RemedialInvestigation (MWH, 2002) and the EE/CA (USACE, 2002). The Feasibility Study wasconducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), using the standard evaluation criteria. Thestudy provides information sufficient to support an informed risk management decisionregarding the most appropriate remedy for each Gambell site. The Native Village ofGambell is located on St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of the Bering Sea,approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. During the 1950s, the militaryconstructed and operated facilities in Gambell as part of a surveillance and intelligencegathering network. The sites have undergone remedial investigation and prior removalactions. Petroleum and/or metals-contaminated soils were identified at Sites 4A, 4B, 6,7, and 12. An evaluation of the site-specific exposure pathways indicated that ingestionof soils was the most relevant exposure pathway. The level of petroleum contaminationin soils at Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 12 do not exceed ADEC cleanup levels based on theingestion pathway. However, Site 12 has lead-contaminated soil, which exceeds theresidential soil cleanup level. Debris that poses a physical hazard is present at Site 8 andSite D. The alternatives evaluated included: no-action; removal of debris only (Site 8and D); off-island disposal of debris (Site 8 and D) and lead-contaminated soil (Site 12);and off-island disposal of debris (Site 8 and D) and in situ treatment of lead contaminatedsoil.FinaliiTable of ContentsExecutive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... iiList of Acronyms ...........................................................................................................................................v1.Introduction..........................................................................................................................................11.1Purpose and Organization of Report ...........................................................................................11.2Background Information ..............................................................................................................11.2.1Site Description .......................................................................................................................21.2.2Site History..............................................................................................................................31.2.3Nature and Extent of Contamination .......................................................................................41.2.3.1Site 4A – Quonset Huts Near Former USAF Radar Site ...............................................41.2.3.2Site 4B –Former USAF Radar Site ................................................................................51.2.3.3Site 6 – Military Landfill................................................................................................71.2.3.4Site 7 – Former Military Power Facility ........................................................................81.2.3.5Site 8 – West Beach/Army Landfill ...............................................................................91.2.3.6Site 12 – Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site .......................................................................92.Identification and Screening of Technologies..................................................................................122.1Remedial Action Objectives........................................................................................................122.1.1Site 4A – Quonset Huts Near Former USAF Radar Site.......................................................132.1.2Site 4B – Former USAF Radar Site.......................................................................................142.1.3Site 6 – Military Landfill .......................................................................................................142.1.4Site 7 – Former Military Power Facility................................................................................152.1.5Site 8 – West Beach/Army Landfill.......................................................................................162.1.6Site 12 – Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal Site...............................................................................162.2Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)..............................................172.2.1Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs .....................................................................................172.2.2Location-specific ARARs and TBCs.....................................................................................182.2.3Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs .......................................................................................182.3Identification of General Response Actions, Remedial Technologies and Process Options......182.3.1General Response Actions.....................................................................................................182.3.2Identification and Screening of Remedial Technologies .......................................................192.3.3Evaluation of Technologies and Selection of Representative Technologies .........................192.3.3.1No Action.....................................................................................................................192.3.3.2Limited Actions............................................................................................................192.3.3.3Containment .................................................................................................................212.3.3.4On-Island Treatment ....................................................................................................212.3.3.5Off-site Disposal ..........................................................................................................223.Development and Screening of Alternatives....................................................................................243.1Descriptions of Alternatives .......................................................................................................243.1.1Alternative 1 : No Action ......................................................................................................243.1.2Alternative 2 : Removal of Exposed Debris Only .................................................................243.1.3Alternative 3: Off-Island Disposal ........................................................................................24Finaliii4.Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................................................................264.1Individual Analysis of Alternatives.............................................................................................264.1.1Alternative 1 – No Action .....................................................................................................274.1.1.1Evaluation ....................................................................................................................274.1.2Alternative 2 – Removal of Exposed Debris Only ................................................................284.1.2.1Evaluation ....................................................................................................................284.1.3Alternative 3 – Off-Island Disposal of Lead Contaminated Soil and Exposed Debris .........294.1.3.1Evaluation ....................................................................................................................294.2Comparative Analysis ................................................................................................................314.2.1Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment...................................................314.2.2Compliance with ARARs ......................................................................................................314.2.3Short-Term Effectiveness ......................................................................................................314.2.4Long-Term Effectiveness ......................................................................................................324.2.5Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment.........................................324.2.6Implementability....................................................................................................................324.2.7Cost........................................................................................................................................32Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................33List of TablesTable 2-1: Technology Screening SummaryTable 2-2: Summary of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsTable 4-1: Cost Comparison SummaryList of Figures and PhotographsFigure 1-1: Gambell, Alaska, Location MapFigure 1-2: Gambell Vicinity MapFigure 1-3: Location of Village Water SupplyFigure 2-1: Technology ScreeningAppendixAppendix A - Cost Estimates for Feasibility StudyAppendix B – Figures from Previous ReportsFinalivList of AcronymsAACADECADOTPFAlaska DistrictARARATVbgsBIABTEXCERCLACFRDERPDoDDROE&EEE/CAFSFUDSGROHTSAMWMWHmg/kgmg/LNALEMPNCPNDO&MOEOSCIPAHPCBPIDRAORCRARIRROSARASBSPIPTALTBCTECFinalAlaska Administrative CodeAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationAlaska Department of Transportation and Public FacilitiesUnited States Army Engineer District, Alaskaapplicable and relevant or appropriate requirementsall-terrain vehiclebelow ground surfaceBureau of Indian Affairsbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenesComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActCode of Federal RegulationsDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramUnited States Department of Defensediesel range organicsEcology & EnvironmentEngineering Evaluation / Cost AnalysisFeasibility StudyFormerly Used Defense Sitesgasoline range organicsHistorical Time Sequence AnalysisMontgomery Watson or monitoring wellsMontgomery Watson Harzamilligrams per kilogrammilligrams per literNative American Lands Environmental Mitigation ProgramNational Contingency Plannon-detectoperations and maintenanceordnance and explosivesOil Spill Consultants, Inc.polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonpolychlorinated biphenylphotoionization detectorremedial action objectiveResource Conservation and Recovery ActRemedial Investigationresidual range organicsSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actsoil boringStrategic Project Implementation PlanTarget Analyte Listto be consideredTopographic Engineering Center, USAEDvTRPHUSACEUSAFUSEPAURSVOCFinaltotal recoverable petroleum hydrocarbonsUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUnited State Air ForceUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyURS Corporationvolatile organic compoundvi1. IntroductionThe United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Alaska District, has performed aFeasibility Study (FS) at several sites in Gambell, Alaska. These sites include 4A, 4B, 6,7, 8 and 12. The Gambell site is a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), and is not listedon the National Priorities List (NPL). This project was authorized by the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP) of the United States Department of Defense(DoD), and was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).1.1 Purpose and Organization of ReportThe FS report is intended to provide information sufficient to support an informed riskmanagement decision regarding which remedy appears to be most appropriate for theGambell sites. The FS is based on data collected during previous investigations and willbe used during preparation of the Proposed Plan and, following public comment on theProposed Plan, the Record of Decision for the site remedy. The development of the FSfollows guidance for conducting a feasibility study under CERCLA (USEPA, 1988), andalternatives were developed and evaluated using standard criteria.The purpose of the FS is to develop remedial action objectives (RAOs); identify andscreen general response actions, remedial technologies, and process options; and developand evaluate remedial alternatives.The FS report is organized as follows. Section 1.0, Introduction, presents the purposeand approach of the FS and a summary of previous investigations. Section 2.0,Identification and Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options, containsremedial action objectives; the identification of general response actions, remedialtechnologies and process options; and screening of remedial technologies and processoptions. Section 3.0, Development of Alternatives, is a summary of the development ofeach of the alternatives chosen for Gambell. Section 4.0, Analysis of Alternatives,includes a detailed analysis of alternatives; a comparative analysis of remedialalternatives; and conclusions. Section 5.0, References, contains a list of documents usedin preparation of the FS. Appendix A contains applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements (ARARs).1.2 Background InformationThe site history and previous investigation information contained in this FS have beensummarized from reports documenting previous investigation results from the Gambellarea. More detailed site descriptions and background information, including results offield investigations, can be found in the documents listed below:•Work Plan, 2001 Supplemental Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. MWH Americas, Inc., September 2001.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 1February 2004••••••••••Final Remedial Action Report for Debris Removal and Containerized HazardousWaste and Toxic Waste Removal, Gambell, Alaska. Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.,February 15, 2001.Final Strategic Project Implementation Plan, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Montgomery Watson, December 2000.GIS-Based Historical Time Sequence Analysis (Historical Photographic Analysis),Gambell Sites, St. Lawrence Island Alaska. United States Army Corps of Engineers,Engineer Research and Development Center, TEC, September 2000.Site 5 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. MontgomeryWatson, 1999.Final Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Montgomery Watson, December 1998.Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Montgomery Watson, December 1997.Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. Montgomery Watson, November 1995.Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. MontgomeryWatson, January 1995.Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. Ecology & Environment (E&E), February 1993.Site Inventory Report, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. E&E, December 1992.1.2.1 Site DescriptionGambell is located off the coast of western Alaska on the northwest tip of St. LawrenceIsland, in the western portion of the Bering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwestof Nome, Alaska, and 39 air miles from the Siberian Chukotsk Peninsula (Figure 1-1).The village of Gambell, at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sea level, issituated on a gravel spit that projects northward and westward from the island (Figure 12). St. Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., in Gambell, Alaska,and Savoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-Native land on St.Lawrence Island is limited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambelland Savoonga (MW, 1995a).The Village of Gambell is inhabited primarily by Native St. Lawrence Island Yupikpeople, who lead a subsistence-based lifestyle. The Gambell area supports habitat for avariety of seabirds, waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area. Thearea surrounding the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, above the Village of Gambell, supportsa large bird rookery. The birds and bird eggs serve as a subsistence food source for localinhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is used extensively for subsistencehunting of whales, walrus, seals, sea birds, and fish.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 2February 20041.2.2 Site HistorySeveral phases of a release investigation and/or removal actions have been conducted atGambell. URS Corporation (URS) conducted a file search and preliminaryreconnaissance of the Gambell area in 1985. The site reconnaissance included aninventory of all materials left by the military and collection of a limited number of soiland water samples. In 1991 and 1992, Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) conducteda more detailed site reconnaissance visit and interviewed individuals living at Gambellduring the period of DoD occupation. E&E then prepared a Chemical Data AcquisitionPlan for investigation of 18 areas of concern (sites) based on information gathered duringthe interviews and information reported in the URS document (E&E, 1993).Montgomery Watson (MW) implemented the Chemical Data Acquisition Plan in 1994 aspart of a Phase I Remedial Investigation (RI). The objectives of the 1994 RI were togather sufficient chemical, geophysical, and hydrological data to characterize the natureand extent of contamination at the sites.A Phase II RI was conducted in 1996 to fill data gaps from the Phase I RI. The followingsites were included in the RI: Site 1 (Area 1A and 1B), Site 2, Site 3, Site 4 (Area 4Band 4D), and Site 5. The investigation included collection of soil and groundwatersamples to further delineate the extent of contamination, a debris reconnaissance, and ageophysical survey. All visible surface debris was removed from the island in 1997(MW, 1997).After the 1997 removal action, frost jacking forced additional debris to surface. Duringthe 1999 field season, Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI) performed cleanup activities atGambell including Sites 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13. The fieldworkaccomplished the removal of 26.8 tons of hazardous and non-hazardous containerizedwastes such as asphalt drums, paint, generators, batteries, empty drums, and transformercarcasses; removal of 71 tons of exposed metal debris such as runway matting, cable, fueltanks and equipment parts; and excavation of 72 tons of contaminated soil.During 2000, under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program(NALEMP), the Native Village of Gambell conducted strategic project planningactivities, including the completion of community questionnaires and geophysicalsurveys. Based upon the results of the geophysical surveys and questionnaires, severalnewly identified sites were targeted for further investigation (MW 2000).In 2000 and 2001, the Army Engineering and Support Center (Huntsville) conductedextensive research and investigations to locate possible ordnance and explosives (OE)materials left behind by the military. At the request of the Huntsville office, theTopographic Engineering Center (TEC 2000) completed a review of historical aerialphotos and other documentation as part of the ordnance investigation. The HistoricalTime Sequence Analysis (HTSA) combined data from historic aerial photographs withcurrent maps of Gambell to identify and confirm areas of possible former military use.During the OE field surveys, very little OE was found, consisting primarily of highlyweathered 30-caliber small arms ammunition at a beach burial pit southwest of TroutmanLake (Area D of Site 8).Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 3February 2004A Supplemental Remedial Investigation was conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza(MWH 2002) during the 2001 field season, to investigate the nature and extent ofcontamination based on new information in the HTSA (TEC 2000), the NALEMPStrategic Project Implementation Plan (MW 2000), and the Final Remedial ActionReport (OSCI 2001). The HTSA identified four new sites for investigation - Sites 25B,26, 27, and 28. Additional soil and groundwater data was also collected at Sites 6, 7, 16,and 25A. The results of previous confirmation sampling data were verified for areaswhere contaminated soils had been removed - Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 8, and 12.The Summary Report for the 2001 Supplemental RI recommended further action at thefollowing sites: 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 12. The recommended actions were removal of soil“hot spots” based on the presence of metals and/or fuel contamination. The SummaryReport recommended “no action warranted” at the remaining sites: 8, 16, 18A, 24, 25A,25B, 26, 27, and 28. However, the RI report did not give consideration to the small armsammunition debris buried in the beach gravels at Area D within Site 8.1.2.3 Nature and Extent of ContaminationThe nature and extent of contamination or hazard debris at Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8, and 12are described in the following sections. The descriptions are based on a review ofprevious investigation results.1.2.3.1 Site 4A – Quonset Huts Near Former USAF Radar SiteSite 4A, located on Sevuokuk Mountain, formerly contained two Quonset huts (seeFigure 1-2). During the 1994 RI, surface soil samples were collected from Site 4A andanalyzed for fuel-related contaminants, PCBs, solvents, and dioxins. No contaminantswere detected above method detection limits. In 1999, OSCI removed metal debris,drums, and 1,877 pounds (0.93 tons) of visibly stained soil from Site 4A. OSCI collectedconfirmation soil samples following the removal action. The soil samples were collectedfrom within and outside the two Quonset hut footprints, following removal of the framesand contaminated soil. The confirmation samples contained DRO at concentrations of upto 1,310 mg/kg, arsenic concentrations from 1.6 to 8.3 mg/kg, chromium concentrationsup to 422 mg/kg, and lead concentrations up to 311 mg/kg. There is no significantvolume of contaminated soil remaining at Site 4A. Site 4A consists of large boulders ontop of bedrock with small amounts of soil.During 2001, supplemental investigation was done at Site 4A to verify the 1999confirmation sampling results because the referenced latitude and longitude coordinateswere not documented by OSCI. Thirty-six surface soil samples (nine each from fourtriangular grids) were collected and screened in the field using a photo-ionizationdetector (PID) and PetroFlag™ screening kits. The four triangular sampling grids wereestablished using the approximate locations of the 1999 samples as the grid centerpoints.Four soil samples (one from each of the four grids with the highest field screeningresults) were submitted for laboratory analysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, and ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals. Two samples corresponding toGambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 4February 2004previous samples were analyzed for hexavalent chromium, because of the high totalchromium results detected in the 1999 samples.The 2001 sampling results confirmed the 1999 sampling results for arsenic. In 1999,arsenic concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 8.3 mg/kg; in 2001, arsenic concentrationsranged from 1.6 to 3.9 mg/kg. For both sets of samples, results generally exceeded thedefault ADEC Method 2 Migration to Groundwater arsenic cleanup level of 2 mg/kg.However, these observed concentrations may be due to naturally occurring levels ofarsenic. Arsenic results generally exceeded 2 mg/kg at all soil-sampling locations(surface and subsurface) in the Gambell area during the 2001 Supplemental RI, as well asprevious investigations. All arsenic sample results are for total arsenic. A backgroundsurface soil sample collected northeast of Site 4B had arsenic results of 1.3 and 2.0 mg/kg(duplicate).High chromium levels (up to 422 mg/kg) identified during the 1999-sampling event werenot confirmed by 2001 sample results (up to 12.1 mg/kg total chromium). The two 1999sample locations with the highest chromium concentrations were resampled in 2001. Theresults were less than 12.1 mg/kg for total chromium and non-detect for hexavalentchromium. The ADEC Method 2 cleanup level for total chromium is 26 mg/kg.The 1999 sampling results had lead concentrations of up to 311 mg/kg. The highest leadconcentration detected in 2001 was 44 mg/kg. The Method 2 cleanup level for lead (400mg/kg) was not exceeded in either sample set.The 2001 sampling results for DRO confirmed the 1999 sampling results. DRO resultsfrom 1999 ranged from 15.3 to 1,310 mg/kg and in 2001 ranged from 7.2 to 970 mg/kg.None of the samples exceeded the Method 2 Ingestion cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg.The 2001 sampling results for RRO did not match the 1999 sampling results. RROresults from 1999 ranged from 47.7 to 930 mg/kg and in 2001 ranged from 21 to 110mg/kg. However, none of the RRO sample results exceeded the 11,000 mg/kg Method 2ingestion cleanup level.The Quonset hut frames were not sampled for lead paint or asbestos during the initialinvestigation. However, soil samples collected in 1994 around the fallen Quonset hutswere non-detect for asbestos.No other analytes were detected during the 2001 sampling event at concentrationsexceeding the Method 2, under 40-inch zone, migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels.1.2.3.2 Site 4B –Former USAF Radar SiteSite 4B, the Former United States Air Force (USAF) Site, is also located on SevuokukMountain and covers an area approximately 375 feet by 500 feet (see Figure 1-2). Thissite housed buildings that burned and caused ordnance to explode and scatter debris.Analysis of soil samples collected during the Phase II RI, in 1995, showed elevated levelsof metals and dioxins. Soil and debris removal actions were performed by OSCI in 1999.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 5February 2004The OSCI Site 4B map (OSCI Figure 6, shown in Appendix A) showed an areaapproximately 29 by 37 feet, partly covered by boulders, and with localized heavystaining and an oily substance. This area had 52 tons of soil excavated in 1999 to a depthof approximately 24 inches. Confirmation samples collected after the soil excavationshowed DRO at concentrations ranging from non-detect to 13,900 mg/kg. Theconcentration of dioxins also decreased as a result of removing the soil. The OSCI reportstates that the concentration of dioxins dropped by 75%.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 4B to verify the 1999 confirmationsampling results because the referenced latitude and longitude coordinates were notdocumented by OSCI. Thirty-six surface soil samples (nine each from the four triangulargrids) were collected and screened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screeningkits. Four soil samples (one from each of the grids) with the highest field screeningresults were submitted for laboratory analysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, and RCRA metals.The 2001 sample results confirmed the 1999 sample results for arsenic. In 1999, arsenicconcentrations ranged from 0.604 to 1.57 mg/kg; in 2001, arsenic concentrations rangedfrom 1.4 to 4.3 mg/kg. For both sets of samples, results did not exceed the Method 2arsenic ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. All arsenic results are for total arsenic.The 1999 and 2001 lead sampling results at Site 4B did not agree. The highest leadconcentrations were 396 and 96 mg/kg in 1999 and 2001, respectively. The Method 2residential cleanup level for lead (400 mg/kg) was not exceeded in either sample set.The 2001 sample results for DRO confirmed the results for the 1999 samples. High DROconcentrations in 2001 (10,000 and 2,000 mg/kg) corresponded to high DROconcentrations in 1999 (13,700 and 643 mg/kg). Only the 13,700 mg/kg detection in1999 exceeded the Method 2 Ingestion cleanup level (10,250 mg/kg).GRO sample results from 2001 contained two notable differences from the 1999 sampleresults. The 1999 sample 99GAM021SL had a GRO concentration of 34.7 mg/kg, butthe corresponding 2001 sample had a GRO concentration of 310 mg/kg, slightlyexceeding the Method 2 migration to groundwater cleanup level for GRO of 300 mg/kg.Furthermore, the 2001 result was flagged as biased low, indicating that the actual GROconcentration may have been higher than 310 mg/kg. In 1999, the GRO result for sample99GAM023SL was non-detect (ND) (2.68 mg/kg), and the corresponding 2001 sampleresult was 240 mg/kg. Both results are below the Method 2 cleanup level.No other analytes were detected in the 2001 samples at concentrations exceeding theMethod 2, under 40-inch zone, migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels, including RRO.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 6February 20041.2.3.3 Site 6 – Military LandfillSite 6 is located north of Gambell High School and east of the new housing area (seeFigure 1-2). This landfill was used to dispose of building materials, vehicles, machinery,drums, and miscellaneous debris. An investigation was performed in 1994. Exposeddrums (7,897 pounds) and other metal debris (1,748 pounds) were removed in 1999 byOSCI. A confirmation soil sample (99GAM026SL) collected from the approximatecenter of the removed drum stockpile had low levels of RRO and arsenic; no other fuelrelated contaminants, solvents, PCBs, or pesticides were detected.In 2001, community concerns, aerial photos and prior investigation results promptedsupplemental RI fieldwork at Site 6 to verify the 1999 confirmation sampling results andto further define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination. Toconfirm the 1999 sampling results, nine surface soil samples from a triangular grid werecollected and screened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. The twosoil samples with the highest field screening results were submitted for laboratoryanalysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, and RCRA metals.To further define the nature and extent of soil contamination, five soil borings (three asscheduled in the work plan plus two discretionary boreholes) were advanced to frozensoil. Soil boring locations were selected, in part, by the locations of depressionsidentified from aerial photographs in the HTSA report. The two discretionary boreholes(SB6-12 and SB6-13) were placed to help delineate the extent of contaminationsuspected at borehole SB6-11. Boreholes were continuously split-spoon sampled, andeach sample was field-screened using a PID. Soil samples were collected for laboratoryanalysis at the near-surface and at the near-bottom of each borehole, and from midborehole locations in two of the boreholes based on the highest PID readings. Sampleswere submitted for laboratory analysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, and TAL metals.Groundwater was not encountered in any of the five soil borings at Site 6 during theSeptember 2001 sampling event. Groundwater was previously encountered in two of fivesoil borings installed in June 1994. Groundwater was measured at 8.0 feet bgs in SB6and 8.0 feet bgs in SB8. All soil borings drilled in 1994 and 2001 were drilled topermafrost. Figure 3-1 in Appendix B shows the location of soil borings drilled at Site 6in 1994 and 2001. The figure was originally prepared for the 1995 RemedialInvestigation Report. The locations of soil borings drilled in 2001 have been added.The 2001 surface soil grid sample results confirmed the 1999 sample results for arsenic.In 1999, arsenic was found at a concentration of 5.3 mg/kg; in 2001, arsenicconcentrations ranged from 6 to 7.7 mg/kg. For both sets of samples, results exceededthe default Method 2 arsenic cleanup level of 2 mg/kg. Additionally, previouslyanalyzed soil samples from various depths in all Site 6 boreholes exceeded Method 2cleanup levels for arsenic, with concentrations ranging from 3.7 to 13.2 mg/kg. Allarsenic results are for total arsenic.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 7February 2004In borehole SB6-10, the soil sample collected from 2 feet below ground surface (bgs)contained antimony, total chromium, and nickel at concentrations of 7.3, 59, and 120mg/kg, respectively. These concentrations exceeded the Method 2 migration togroundwater cleanup levels for antimony (3.6 mg/kg), total chromium (26 mg/kg), andnickel (87 mg/kg). Unlike arsenic, these metals did not consistently exceed screeninglevels in other samples from the site, suggesting that the concentrations of antimony, totalchromium, and nickel may be related to debris or former military activities.DRO was found at a concentration of 1,200 mg/kg at 7 feet bgs in SB6-11. In SB6-12,the two DRO sample at 8 feet bgs had concentrations of 200 and 300 mg/kg. None of theresults exceeded the Method 2 Ingestion cleanup level (10,250 mg/kg). SB6-9, SB6-10and SB6-12 were drilled to 10 feet bgs, SB6-11 was drilled to 7.5 feet bgs, and SB6-13was drilled to 6.8 feet bgs.No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrations exceeding theMethod 2, under 40-inch zone, migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels.1.2.3.4 Site 7 – Former Military Power FacilityThe Former Military Power Facility was reportedly demolished and buried north of thepresent Gambell Municipal Building. The burial site of this former military facilitycomprises Site 7 (see Figure 1-2). Electrical transformers were also reportedly disposedat this site. Additionally, Gambell residents have reported that the military may havedumped partially full barrels of oil or other petroleum products on the ground near thissite. During previous investigations, DRO was detected in shallow soils atconcentrations up to 1,950 mg/kg. Benzene (19 micrograms per liter - µg/l in MW-24)and DRO (19.4 mg/l in MW-25) were detected in groundwater samples from Site 7 in1994.Five soil borings were drilled in 1994 and four were completed as monitoring wells. Oneof the three monitoring wells (MW26) was abandoned due to lack of water. The threesoil borings were drilled in 2001 to 10, 7.2 and 6.2 feet bgs. Groundwater was notencountered in the soil borings drilled in 2001. All soil borings were drilled topermafrost in 1994 and 2001. Figure 3-1 in Appendix B shows the location of soilborings and monitoring wells installed at Site 7 in 1994 and 2001. The figure wasoriginally prepared for the 1995 Remedial Investigation Report. The locations of soilborings drilled in 2001 have been added.DRO was detected in soil samples collected while drilling MW-24, MW-25, and MW-26in 1994. Generally the DRO concentrations were higher (180 to 1,840 mg/kg) in shallow(2.5 to 5 feet bgs) soils and lower (13 to 400 mg/kg) in deeper (10 to 14 feet bgs) soilsamples. The same pattern was observed in soil samples collected from SB 7-20 in 2001.The DRO concentration was 710 mg/kg at 2 feet bgs and 160 mg/kg (duplicate was 460mg/kg) at 7 feet bgs. None of the DRO results exceeded the Method 2 Ingestion cleanuplevel for DRO (10,250 mg/kg).Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 8February 2004In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 7 to further define the nature andextent of fuel and groundwater contamination, to determine the source of soilcontamination, and to evaluate the presence of PCBs. To determine the nature and extentof soil contamination, three soil borings were advanced to frozen soil. Soil boringlocations were selected, in part, by the locations of pits and buildings identified from1955 aerial photographs in the HTSA report. Soil samples were collected for laboratoryanalysis at the near-surface and at the near-bottom of each borehole, and from midborehole locations in two of the boreholes. Samples were submitted for laboratoryanalysis of DRO, RRO, PCBs, and Target Analyte List metals.The Site 7 borehole soil samples contained arsenic in concentrations ranging from 4.5 to10.2 mg/kg in the 2001 Supplemental RI. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 1 to 4mg/kg in the 1994 RI. The 1994 results are less than the ADEC Method 2 arsenicingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Six of the eleven arsenic results in 2001 exceededthe ADEC Method 2 arsenic ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. All arsenic results arefor total arsenic.Because of community concerns, regarding a report that transformers had been buried atSite 7, PCB samples were collected during the 2001 RI. PCBs were not detected in theseSite 7 samples. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrationsexceeding the Method 2, under 40-inch zone, migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels.1.2.3.5 Site 8 – West Beach/Army LandfillSite 8 encompasses the area surrounding the airstrip from west beach (north of theairfield), east to the western edge of Troutman Lake, and south to the northern shore ofNayvaghaq Lake. The site has been investigated and all detected analytes were belowADEC Method 2 cleanup level, except for arsenic. Surface debris removed by OSCI in1999 included scattered metal, small quantities of wood and concrete, drums containingtar, and an exposed layer of metal landing mat (Marston matting) approximately 30 feetwide and 4,500 feet long. Removal of the Marston matting was stopped because buriedelectrical lines interfered with the excavation. There is 1,820 lineal feet of metal landingmat remaining on site.Small-arms ammunition rounds are located at Area D along the beach south of TroutmanLake. Approximately 800 rounds were removed from Area D in July 2000. The FinalGambell Site EE/CA (USACE, 2002) states that additional rounds remain inapproximately 100 cubic yards of soil.1.2.3.6 Site 12 – Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteSite 12 is located north of Nayvaghaq Lake on the southwest side of an all-terrain vehicle(ATV) trail. The site is divided into a north area and a south area. The north areacontained approximately 120 drums, battery remnants, and household refuse. The southarea contained approximately 50 drums, 18 of which were found to be full of garbage.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 9February 2004The debris and drums were removed by OSCI in 1999. The OSCI report states that mostof the drums at Site 12 were punctured and empty. All drums were empty or contained afew ounces of rainwater (OSCI, 2001).Two monitoring wells were installed at the site in 1994. Permafrost was encountered inMW-17 and MW-18 at 5.5 and 6.0 feet bgs, respectively. Water was measured in MW17 and MW-18 at 2.5 and 4.0 feet bgs, respectively. Samples collected in 1994 includeone surface water sample from Nayvaghaq Lake, three surface soil samples, and twosubsurface soil samples. The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH,priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons(TRPH) were detected in the three surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 22to 75 mg/kg. The concentrations of metals detected in all soil samples were belowbackground. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples. Groundwater andsurface water samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and prioritypollutant metals. DRO was detected in the surface water sample at a concentration of0.06 mg/L, below ADEC Table C levels. The only analytes detected in the groundwaterwere metals, which were below background. Background levels for groundwater andsurface water were determined from a sample taken from MW-14 located at the base ofSevoukuk Mountain. The only other analytes detected in the surface water were metals,which were below background.OSCI removed 798 pounds of metal debris, 8,702 pounds of HTW debris, and 7,237pounds of stained soil during the 1999 fieldwork. Following the debris removal,confirmation soil samples were collected. The OSCI map of Site 12 (OSCI, 2001)showed confirmation sample locations 99GAM009, -010, and -011SL, which hadconcentrations of DRO and lead of up to 463 mg/kg and 562 mg/kg, respectively.Arsenic concentrations in these samples ranged from 3.06 to 6.02 mg/kg, and the highesttotal chromium concentration was 20 mg/kg in 1999. GRO was not detected at Site 12 in1999.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 12 to verify the 1999 confirmationsampling results. Because exact locations of the 1999 samples were not surveyed orpermanently marked, triangular sampling grids were established using the approximatelocations of the 1999 samples as the grid center points. The grids approximated theprevious sample locations, which were not recorded. To confirm the 1999 samplingresults, 27 surface soil samples (9 each from 3 triangular grids) were collected andscreened in the field using a PID and PetroFlag™ screening kits. Locations andorientations of the triangular grids were decided in the field based on site observations.The four soil samples with the highest field screening results (the highest from each gridplus the next highest) were submitted for laboratory analysis of GRO, DRO, RRO, andRCRA metals.The 2001 sampling results confirmed the 1999 sampling results for arsenic. In 1999,arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.06 to 6.02 mg/kg; in 2001, arsenic concentrationsranged from 6.0 to 9.4 mg/kg. For both sets of samples, several results exceeded thearsenic ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 10February 2004The 1999 confirmation sampling results for total chromium were not corroborated by the2001 sample results. In 1999, the highest total chromium concentration was 20 mg/kgversus 162 mg/kg in 2001. The 2001 results exceeded the ADEC Method 2 migration togroundwater cleanup level for total chromium (26 mg/kg)The lead level (562 mg/kg) found during the 1999 sampling event was confirmed by the2001 sampling results (7 mg/kg up to 1,530 mg/kg lead). For both sets of samples,results exceeded the residential lead cleanup level of 400 mg/kg.DRO levels (up to 463 mg/kg) found during the 1999 sampling event were not confirmedby 2001 sampling results (up to 46 mg/kg DRO). None of the DRO results exceeded theMethod 2 Ingestion cleanup level (10,250 mg/kg). The 2001 GRO results generallyconfirmed the 1999 GRO sample results. In 1999, GRO was not detected at Site 12; in2001, GRO was not detected in the primary sample but was detected at the lowconcentration of 13 mg/kg in a duplicate surface soil sample.No other analytes were detected in the 2001 samples at concentrations exceeding theMethod 2, under 40-inch zone, migration-to-groundwater cleanup levels.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 11February 20042. Identification and Screening of TechnologiesThis section identifies the remedial action objectives (RAOs), general response actions,technology types, and specific process options for each site. Identification of theseelements was conducted following USEPA’s Guidance for Conducting RemedialInvestigation and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (USEPA 1988).Remedial action objectives are medium-specific (soil, groundwater, surface water, etc.)objectives for protecting human health and the environment. RAOs are discussed inSection 2.1. After RAOs have been established, Section 2.2 identifies the generalresponse actions, technology types, and applicable process options for each site,including volumes and areas of media to be remediated. The various technologies andprocess options are then screened in Section 2.3.2.1 Remedial Action ObjectivesThis section evaluates the applicable soil cleanup levels for each site. During theremedial investigation phase, concentrations of contaminants in soil were compared tothe ADEC Method 2, Table B cleanup levels (under 40 inch zone, migration togroundwater cleanup pathway). The migration to groundwater pathway is typicallyselected for comparison purposes, since it is usually the most conservative cleanup value.The migration to groundwater pathway assumes that contaminants in soil are likely toimpact a potential drinking water source. A site-specific evaluation of the exposurescenarios and pathways demonstrates that the migration of contaminants from each site toa drinking water source is unlikely to occur.The sites evaluated in this Feasibility Study – 4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8, and 12 – do not containgroundwater that could potentially be used as a current or future source of drinkingwater. The sites located at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain – Sites 4A and 4B – aresituated on a bedrock outcropping. Very little soil is found at the top of SevuokukMountain and groundwater is expected to run off the side of the mountain or enterbedrock fractures. It is unlikely that groundwater from Sites 4A and 4B could impact theaquifer at the base of the mountain. Figure 1-3 shows the location of the village watersupply well in relation to Sites 4A and 4B.Sites 6 and 7 are located near the east end of the Village of Gambell. Groundwaterencountered at these sites has been limited in quantity, and only sporadically detected.All soil borings were drilled to permafrost. In 1994, groundwater around Sites 6 and 7was measured to flow north from Troutman Lake to the Bering Sea. Appendix Bincludes Figure 3-1 from the 1995 Remedial Investigation. Also included in Appendix Bare Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4, which show the cross-sections noted on Figure 3-1. Theshallow groundwater, when present, is found on top of the permafrost and is within theactive layer. The active layer is defined as the interval of soil that freezes and thaws eachyear. Soil below the active layer either remains frozen (permafrost) or unfrozen.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 12February 2004Groundwater found on top of permafrost is usually not considered drinking water.Monitoring wells installed in this area typically have low recovery. Groundwater was notencountered in any of the eight borings drilled at Sites 6 and 7 in 2001.Site 12 is located south of Troutman Lake and north of Navaqaq Lake. The onlygroundwater encountered at this location in 1994 was at very shallow depths (2.5 and 4.0feet bgs). No contaminants were detected in groundwater samples collected in 1994.Groundwater in this area is likely influenced by saltwater intrusion (brackish water ofNayvaghaq Lake). Field observations indicate the water is most likely melted porewateron top of an active permafrost layer, or surface water infiltration that is perched above thepermafrost.It is unlikely that groundwater from the gravel spit will be used as a source of drinkingwater. Groundwater in the gravels is often saline, sporadically distributed, difficult torecover in useable quantities, and located over permafrost. Drinking water wells installedin the gravel have been abandoned in the past. A recent article from the Nome Nuggethad the following quote: “Our drinking water problem goes back to the 1930s and theold well dug by the BIA down by the old school which eventually went dry. Feasibilitystudies have more recently shown that we can obtain a better quality drinking water if wetap into Troutman Creek.” The current drinking water source is located at the base ofSevoukuk Mountain (see Figure 1-3).Therefore, the migration to groundwater pathway can be eliminated as a reasonableexposure route for all sites considered in this FS. The relevant ADEC cleanup levels arethe Method 2, Table B, under 40-inch zone, ingestion or inhalation pathway. The ADECMethod 2 cleanup levels are also considered conservative compared to Method 3 orMethod 4, which would likely result in higher cleanup levels. Further information isincluded below in the discussion of RAOs for each site.The default ADEC Method 2 cleanup level for arsenic is 2 mg/kg (under 40 inch zone,migration to groundwater pathway). Arsenic has been detected at concentrations abovethis level in almost every soil sample analyzed throughout the remedial investigation(1994-2001) at Gambell. The presence of arsenic in soil/gravel at Gambell may benaturally occurring. Since the arsenic concentrations are consistent across the site, anddo not appear associated with past military activity; arsenic is not considered acontaminant of concern which requires further remedial action.2.1.1 Site 4A – Quonset Huts Near Former USAF Radar SiteThe ADEC Method 2 ingestion cleanup level is appropriate and protective of humanhealth at Site 4A. Groundwater at the site is not used for private or public drinkingwater. It is very unlikely that a drinking water well would be installed at Site 4A. Thissite is at the top of Sevoukuk Mountain (615 feet above sea level). Bedrock eitheroutcrops here, or is very shallow, and the site abuts a steep natural slope. This geologicsetting would likely require a very deep well to reach a groundwater aquifer.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 13February 2004Water resulting from rainfall or snowmelt at the site is an unlikely potential source ofdrinking water due to the accessibility of the site. Water potentially impacted by Site 4Acontamination cannot reasonably be expected to be transported to the village watersupply at the base of mountain farther to the south.Water near Site 4A likely flows to the northwest, the direction of the slope at Site 4A (seeFigure 1-3). Unconsolidated gravels at the base of the mountain constitute adiscontinuous aquifer. The flow of groundwater along the base of Sevuokuk Mountainwas assessed in 1994 and 1998, and found to flow to the north-northeast, away from thevillage water supply well. Site 4A is located roughly 1/2 mile northwest from the villagewater supply well. Monitoring wells MW-13 and MW-14 are located in theunconsolidated gravels near the area where groundwater from Site 4A would be expectedto flow down the side of the mountain. MW-13 is located almost directly down slopefrom Site 4A. MW-14 is south of MW-13 (closer to the village water supply) anddetermined to be upgradient of MW-13. DRO was not detected in the most recent (1994)sampling results from MW-13 and MW-14. These two monitoring wells could functionas sentry wells to the drinking water aquifer.The Method 2, under 40-inch zone ingestion cleanup level for DRO is 10,250 mg/kg.The highest levels detected at Site 4A do not exceed the ingestion cleanup level. Nofurther work is recommended for Site 4A.2.1.2 Site 4B – Former USAF Radar SiteThe ADEC Method 2 ingestion cleanup level is appropriate and protective of humanhealth at Site 4B. Conditions at Site 4B are similar to those at Site 4A, with Site 4Bbeing even further north, farther from the village water supply. Groundwater at the site isnot used for a private or public drinking water system, or within the zone of contributionor recharge area for a private or public drinking water well. Groundwater at the site isnot a reasonably expected potential source of drinking water due to the location of thesite. It is very unlikely that a drinking water well will be installed at Site 4B.Groundwater potentially impacted by Site 4B is not reasonably expected to betransported to a groundwater source. Groundwater from Site 4B likely flows to thenorthwest, and into the Bering Sea (see Figure 1-3).The Method 2, under 40-inch zone, ingestion, cleanup level for DRO is 10,250 mg/kg.The highest DRO concentration detected at Site 4B in 1999 was 13,700 mg/kg. Thehighest DRO concentration detected in 2001 was 10,000 mg/kg. The Method 2, under40-inch zone, ingestion cleanup level for GRO is 1,400 mg/kg. The highest GROdetection was 310 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ingestion cleanup level. Because ofthe removal action that occurred in 1999, there is only a small amount of soil remainingat Site 4B. No further work is recommended for Site 4B.2.1.3 Site 6 – Military LandfillGambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 14February 2004The Method 2 Ingestion cleanup level is appropriate and protective of human health atSite 6. Groundwater at the site is not used for a private or public drinking water system.Nor is it within the zone of contribution or recharge area for a private or public drinkingwater well. Groundwater was encountered in two out of three soil borings in 1994 and innone of the five soil borings drilled in 2001. Figure 1-3 shows where groundwater hasbeen encountered and the estimated groundwater flow direction. Groundwater at the siteis not a reasonably expected potential source of drinking water due to the limited quantityof groundwater at the site. It is very unlikely that a drinking water well will be installedat Site 6. Groundwater potentially impacted by Site 6 is not reasonably expected to betransported to another groundwater zone of contribution since groundwater at Site 6would flow to the Bering Sea, 1200 feet north. Pore water samples were collected in1994 from four soil borings at Site 6. The samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. DRO was the only analyte detected. Theconcentration of DRO ranged from 0.079 to 0.88 mg/L in three of the samples and wasnon-detect in the fourth. These concentrations do not exceed the ADEC Table CGroundwater Cleanup Level of 1.5 mg/L. Groundwater observed at Site 6 is found overpermafrost and is not usually considered drinking water.The media of concern at Site 6 are surface and subsurface soils. In borehole SB6-10, thesoil sample collected from 2 feet below ground surface (bgs) contained antimony, totalchromium, and nickel at concentrations of 7.3, 59, and 120 mg/kg, respectively. Theseconcentrations are less than Method 2 ingestion cleanup levels for antimony (41 mg/kg),total chromium (300 mg/kg), and nickel (2000 mg/kg). Arsenic concentrations insubsurface soil samples collected in 2001, ranged from 3.7 to 13.2 mg/kg. 7 of the 14arsenic results were less than the ADEC Method 2 ingestion cleanup level for arsenic(5.5 mg/kg).DRO has not been detected at levels exceeding the Method 2 ingestion cleanup level(10,250 mg/kg) at Site 6.Except for arsenic, no contaminants have been detected above ADEC Method 2 IngestionCleanup Levels. No further work is recommended for Site 6.2.1.4 Site 7 – Former Military Power FacilityThe Method 2 ingestion cleanup level is appropriate and protective of human health atSite 7. Groundwater at the site is not used for a private or public drinking water system,or within the zone of contribution or recharge area for a private or public drinking waterwell. Groundwater at the site is not a reasonably expected potential source of drinkingwater due to the limited quantity of groundwater. Groundwater was encountered in twoout of five soil borings in 1994 and in none of the three soil borings drilled in 2001. It isunlikely that a drinking water well will be installed at Site 7. Groundwater observed atSite 7 is found over permafrost and is not considered drinking water. Groundwaterpotentially impacted by Site 7 is not reasonably expected to be transported to anothergroundwater source since groundwater at Site 7 would flow to the Bering Sea, 2000 feetnorth.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 15February 2004The media of concern for Site 7 is subsurface soil. DRO has not been detected at levelsexceeding the Method 2 ingestion cleanup level (10,250 mg/kg) at Site 7. The Site 7borehole soil samples contained arsenic in concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kgin the 2001 Supplemental RI. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 1 to 4 mg/kg in the1994 RI. The 1994 results are less than the ADEC Method 2 arsenic ingestion cleanuplevel of 5.5 mg/kg. Six of the eleven arsenic results in 2001 exceeded the ADEC Method2 arsenic ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg.Except for arsenic, no contaminants have been detected above ADEC Method 2 IngestionCleanup Levels. No further work is recommended for Site 7.2.1.5 Site 8 – West Beach/Army LandfillThe media of concern at Site 8 is exposed debris, including Marsten matting and smallcaliber ammunition rounds.The first remedial action objective at Site 8 is to complete the removal of Marstenmatting along the east side of the runway. The OSCI Final Remedial Action Report(OSCI, 2001) notes that 1,820 lineal feet of Marsten matting remain.The second remedial action objective at Site 8 is to remove small arms rounds from AreaD along the beach south of Troutman Lake. Approximately 800 rounds were removedfrom Area D in July 2000. The Final Gambell Site EE/CA (USACE, 2002) states thatadditional rounds need to be removed from approximately 100 cubic yards of soil. Therounds will have to be sifted or hand-picked from the gravelly soils.2.1.6 Site 12 – Nayvaghaq Lake Disposal SiteThe ADEC Method 2 ingestion cleanup level is appropriate and protective of humanhealth at Site 12. Groundwater at the site is not used for a private or public drinkingwater system, or within the zone of contribution or recharge area for a private or publicdrinking water well. Groundwater was observed in two monitoring wells installed in1994, at 2.5 and 4 feet bgs. The site is located 100 to 200 feet west (cross gradient) ofthe Septic Disposal Area. It is very unlikely that a drinking water well will be installed atSite 12. Groundwater potentially impacted by Site 12 is not reasonably expected to betransported to another groundwater zone.The media of concern at Site 12 is surface soil. The highest total chromiumconcentration detected in 1999 at Site 12 was 20 mg/kg; in 2001, total chromiumconcentrations ranged up to 162 mg/kg. The 2001 results were less the Method 2Ingestion cleanup level for total chromium of 300 mg/kg. In 1999, arsenic concentrationsranged from 3.06 to 6.02 mg/kg; in 2001, arsenic concentrations ranged from 6.0 to 9.4mg/kg. For both sets of samples, several results exceeded the arsenic ingestion cleanuplevel of 5.5 mg/kg.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 16February 2004The elevated lead level (562 mg/kg) found during the 1999 sampling event wasconfirmed by 2001 sample results (up to 1,530 mg/kg lead). For both sets of samples,results exceeded the residential lead cleanup level of 400 mg/kg.Elevated DRO levels (up to 463 mg/kg) found during the 1999 sampling event were notconfirmed by 2001 sample results (up to 46 mg/kg DRO). DRO has not been detected atlevels exceeding the Method 2 Ingestion cleanup level (10,250 mg/kg) at Site 12.Except for lead and arsenic, contaminants at Site 12 do not exceed the ADEC Method 2Ingestion Cleanup Levels. Additional work will be required to address the elevatedconcentration of lead in the soil.The following RAOs were developed for the Site 12:1. Prevent surface soil from continuing to act as a source of lead contamination tohuman and ecological receptors.2.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)A review of potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) andto be considered (TBCs) was performed to facilitate selecting remedial alternatives.ARARs are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantiveenvironmental protection requirements, criteria or limitations, established under federalor state law, that specifically address or regulate a hazardous substance, pollutant,contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance associated with the plannedremedial actions. If existing ARARs do not ensure protectiveness in all situations or siteconditions, then advisories, criteria, or guidelines will be used as TBCs to set cleanuptargets. ARARs and TBCs can be divided into three categories: (1) chemical-specific,(2) location-specific, and (3) action-specific.This project is a remedial action to address specific risks and hazards at the Gambell site.The following text describes ARARs and TBCs that affect tasks to be conducted under theremedial action, as proposed.2.2.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCsChemical-specific requirements are based on health or risk-based concentrations inenvironmental media (e.g. water or soil) for specific hazardous chemicals. Theserequirements may be used to set cleanup levels for the chemicals of concern in thedesignated media. The proposed chemical-specific action levels for contaminated soilare based on the State of Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Controlregulations , 18 AAC 75, Tables B1 and B2 (see Table 2.2).The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) may also provide chemical specific actionlevels. TSCA is the primary Federal statute regulating the use of certain chemicals andsubstances, including asbestos, PCBs, radon and lead.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 17February 20042.2.2 Location-specific ARARs and TBCsLocation-specific ARARs and TBCs are related to the geographical or physical position ofthe site. These requirements may limit the type of actions that can be implemented and maypose additional constraints on cleanup actions. No location-specific ARARs or TBCs wereidentified for the Gambell site. However, remedial actions must be coordinated with thelocal landowners, municipality, and tribal government.2.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs and TBCsAction-specific ARARs and TBCs are requirements that define acceptable treatment anddisposal procedures for hazardous substances. ARARs and TBCs set generalperformance, design or other similar action-specific controls or restrictions on particularkinds of activities related to management of hazardous substances or pollutants.Removal of the lead-contaminated soil must comply the requirements for identificationand proper disposal of hazardous wastes under RCRA (see Table 2.2). The process forinvestigating contaminated sites, selecting remedial actions, and implementing remedialactions is defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation andLiability Act (CERCLA), as amended by Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct, October 17, 1987.2.3 Identification of General Response Actions, Remedial Technologies and ProcessOptionsSites 4A, 4B, 6, and 7 do not require additional response actions, therefore they are notevaluated further in this FS. Section 2.1 established RAOs for Sites 8 and 12. Generalresponse actions, remedial technologies, and process options are developed below forSites 8 and 12.General response actions include the following: no action, limited actions, containment,on-island treatment, and off-site treatment or disposal. Remedial technologies includetypes of actions (i.e., biological treatment, thermal treatment, and capping). Processoptions may include “specific types” of treatment. The general response actions,remedial technologies, and process options which meet the RAOs identified for Sites 8and 12 are described in the following sections.2.3.1 General Response ActionsThe general response actions applicable to the Gambell sites are the following:•••No ActionLimited ActionsContainmentGambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 18February 2004••On-Island TreatmentOff-Site Disposal2.3.2 Identification and Screening of Remedial TechnologiesThe remedial technologies identified for each general response action are shown on Table2-1. The No Action general response action includes no remedial technologies. Threetechnologies were identified for the Limited Action general response action: site controls,institutional controls, and monitoring. One technology was identified for theContainment general response action: capping. Three technologies were identified forthe On-Island Treatment general response action: physical, thermal, and biologicaltreatment. Two technologies were identified for the Off-site Disposal general responseoption: off-island treatment and landfilling.2.3.3 Evaluation of Technologies and Selection of Representative TechnologiesThis section presents an evaluation of the remedial technologies and process optionsidentified in the previous section. The effectiveness, implementability, and relative costof each remedial technology type and process option will be reviewed. The costinformation at this stage is based on engineering judgment. Relative capital andoperation and maintenance (O&M) costs are used rather than detailed estimates. Thecosts are presented in low, medium, and high terms relative to other process options inthe same remedial technology type. This evaluation will provide a selection of remedialtechnologies and process options that will be considered for further evaluation. Asummary of the process options that were retained or eliminated from furtherconsideration is presented in Figure 2-1.2.3.3.1 No ActionNo Action is required for consideration in the FS process by the National ContingencyPlan (NCP) as a baseline condition. The No Action option is retained for furtherevaluation. There are no capital costs associated with this option, and minimal costs forproject closeout activities only.2.3.3.2 Limited ActionsLimited Actions are designed to minimize exposure to hazardous materials and debris byrestricting site access or land use. Three remedial technologies for institutional controlswere screened: site controls, institutional controls, and long-term monitoring.Site ControlsEffectiveness. Access restrictions (such as fencing) can prevent exposure to surface soil,exposed debris, and the small arms burial pit. Access restrictions would not preventerosion or migration of contaminated soils.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 19February 2004Implementability and Cost. No implementability limitations have been identified forinitiating access restrictions at Site 12. However, installation of fencing near the runwayat Site 8 would require coordination with and approval from the landowner, the AlaskaDepartment of Transportation and Public Facilities. Construction of fencing mayadversely affect maintenance of airport lighting/navigation aids or snow removalactivities. Installation of fencing around Area D would also impede snow machine travelduring the winter, when obstacles are difficult to observe in poor weather conditions.The construction costs are relatively low.Evaluation. Access restrictions are not retained for further evaluation, because they arenot effective at reducing long term potential risk to human health, would likely meet withlocal opposition, and would require extensive coordination and permission from theADOTPF.Institutional ControlsEffectiveness. Use restrictions are potentially effective methods to prevent exposure bysensitive populations (for example, children) or to prevent chronic exposure to soils. Userestrictions, such as deed or zoning restrictions, could prevent ingestion of soil from thesite by restricting specific site uses. For example, restrict future use of the area to nonresidential use. Use restrictions would probably have little effect on preventinginteraction with exposed debris near the airport and the west beach.Implementability and Cost. One implementability limitation identified for userestrictions is the lack of a mechanism for recording and enforcing the restriction. Thecost is relatively low.Evaluation. Access restrictions are not retained for further evaluation, because they arenot implementable and would likely meet with local opposition.Monitoring/Natural AttenuationEffectiveness. Soil sampling can be an effective technique for monitoring the progress ofnatural attenuation. However, soil-sampling results can vary significantly due to samplelocations, and sampling and analytical methods. Monitoring is only applicable forcontaminants that have the potential to naturally degrade over time. It is not likely thatmetals contamination in soil will measurably degrade over time. Monitoring/naturalattenuation is not applicable to the exposed metal debris at Site 8 and the small armsammunition at Area D.Implementability and Cost. No implementability issues have been identified for soilsampling. Due to the long distance to the Gambell site, the cost for sampling ismoderate.Evaluation. Monitoring soil for metals is not retained for further evaluation due to thelimited effectiveness of the process.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 20February 20042.3.3.3 ContainmentContainment is designed to limit exposure to hazardous materials by creating a barrierbetween the impacted soil or debris and potential receptors. The only remedialtechnology considered for containment is capping.CappingThe process options are:••Compacted Clay – Compacted clay covered with sand and gravelSynthetic liner – Synthetic membrane without secondary barrierEffectiveness. Capping can be effective at minimizing exposure and minimizing theamount of surface water recharge to ground water at the site. Contaminants wouldremain on-site if this process option were selected.Implementability and Cost. Significant implementability limitations and relatively highcosts have been identified for capping. The severe weather conditions in Gambell, whichincrease the probability of damage from frost heaving and erosion, will impact the designconsiderations and construction costs. Yearly maintenance and monitoring costs toensure a successful cap would result in relatively high costs for this technology. Inaddition, constructing a cap over exposed debris on the slope adjacent to the airfieldwould require coordination with and approval from the ADOTPF.Evaluation. Containment is not retained for further evaluation, because of the highpotential maintenance costs.2.3.3.4 On-Island TreatmentThree on-island soil treatment technologies are considered: physical, thermal andbiological treatment. Each of the process options listed requires excavating the soil fortreatment. These technologies do not apply to the exposed metal debris at Site 8 or thesmall arms ammunition at Area D.Physical/ChemicalThe process options considered for the physical/chemical remedial technology are:••Soil Solidification/Stabilization –Binders such as cement/ash, silicates, orpozzolans are added to the soil to physically limit the solubility or mobility of themetals.Chemical Stabilization – Chemicals are added to the soil to convert heavy metalsinto mineral crystals, lowering the leachability of the metals.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 21February 2004Effectiveness. Soil solidification/stabilization effectively immobilizes heavy metals byincorporating the contaminants into an inert matrix. Chemical stabilization chemicallybonds the heavy metals into a mineral crystal.Implementability and Cost. Implementability issues have been identified for physicaltreatment of the soil. It would be difficult and costly to implement asolidification/stabilization remediation system for a small quantity of soil at this remotesite. The cost to mobilize the equipment and supplies necessary to implement physicalstabilization, would be nearly the same as excavation and removal. Compared tophysical binders, smaller amounts of chemical stabilizer would be required, reducingshipping costs.Evaluation. Physical treatment of the soil in situ is not retained for further evaluation.Chemical stabilization of the soil is retained for further evaluation, because it appears to apotentially cost effective method for reducing the mobility of the contaminants.ThermalThermal processes are not effective at reducing concentrations of, or destroying metals incontaminated soil. Thermal processes are not retained for further consideration becausethey are not applicable technologies for lead-contaminated soil.BiologicalBiological remediation would have no impact on the concentration of metals (lead) in thesoil, and is not retained for further consideration.2.3.3.5 Off-site DisposalTwo off-site disposal technologies are considered: landfilling and thermal treatment.Each of the process options listed requires excavating and transporting the soil and debrisoff-island for treatment or disposal.LandfillingThe process option considered for the landfilling technology is:•Landfilling – Dispose of scrap metal in an approved, off-island, solid wastelandfill, dispose of metals-contaminated soil in an approved hazardous wastelandfill.Effectiveness. While landfilling would not remove contaminants from the soil, it is aneffective method of disposal. Landfilling would permanently remove the exposed debrisfrom the island.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 22February 2004Implementability and Cost. Landfilling is relatively difficult to implement for largevolumes of soil or debris due to the challenge of shipping materials off-island. However,large volumes of soil are not expected based on current information, and the amount ofdebris is moderate. An additional challenge would be locating a landfill to take the leadcontaminated soil. Given the concentration of total lead in the soil, it is assumed the soilwould require disposal at a hazardous waste landfill. There are no landfills permitted toaccept RCRA wastes in Alaska. The scrap metal could also be taken to a recycler. Thecosts would be moderate.Evaluation. Landfilling is retained for further evaluation.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 23February 2004Table 2-1Gambell Technology ScreeningMediaGeneralResponse ActionNo ActionTechnology Process OptionNo ActionSite ControlsLimited ActionsInstitutional ControlsMonitoring/Natural AttenuationTechnologiesfor Soil orContainmentCappingSedimentSolidification/StabilizationOn-IslandThermal TreatmentTreatmentBiologicalLandfill DisposalOff-Island Action- Retained for the development of alternatives- Eliminated from further considerationSite 8Site 12TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATEREQUIREMENTSStandard, Requirement, orDescriptionCriteriaCHEMICAL-SPECIFICAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationOil and Hazardous SubstancesEstablishes cleanup criteria for POL and nonPollution Control, as amendedPOL contamination in soil. The Method 2,January 30, 2003, 18 AAC 75.Table B1, Under 40-Inch Zone, IngestionMethod 2, Tables B1 and B2,Pathway applies to this particular action for theUnder 40-Inch Zone, Ingestionidentified chemicals of concern:PathwayDRO – 10,250 mg/kgRRO – 10,000 mg/kgGRO – 1,400 mg/kgAntimony – 41 mg/kgChromium – 300 mg/kgLead – 400 mg/kgNickel – 2,000 mg/kgToxic Substances Control Act, 15 The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ofU.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq (1976)1976 was enacted by Congress to give EPA theability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicalscurrently produced or imported into the US.CommentMay be relevant andappropriate to contaminatedsoils, for the identifiedchemicals of concern.May be relevant andappropriate to contaminatedsoils, for the identifiedchemicals of concern.Resource, Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA).Identification and Listing ofHazardous Waste (40 CFR 261)Establishes criteria for identification ofmaterials as hazardous waste under RCRA.To be considered potentiallyapplicable to contaminatedsoil.EPA Region 9 PreliminaryRemediation Goals (PRGs)Provides risk-based preliminary remediationgoals for soil ingestion and inhalation underresidential and industrial exposure scenarios.Also provides soil screening levels formigration to groundwater.To be considered potentiallyapplicable to contaminatedsoil.EPA Region 3 Risk BasedConcentrations (RBCs)Provides risk-based concentrations for soilTo be considered potentiallyunder residential and industrial exposureapplicable to contaminatedscenarios, fish, ambient air, and tap water. Also soil.provides screening levels for migration togroundwater.ACTION-SPECIFICResource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)Identification and Listing ofEstablishes Criteria for identification ofHazardous Waste (40 CFR 261) materials as hazardous waste under RCRA.Lead-contaminated soil mustbe properly identified as asolid or hazardous waste.Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation andLiability Act (CERCLA),amended by SuperfundAmendments andReauthorization Act October 17,1987. Title 42, Chapter 103LOCATION-SPECIFICNone identifiedEstablishes a process for investigating andaddressing contaminated sites.May be relevant andappropriate to contaminatedsoils, for the identifiedchemicals of concern.Remedial actions will require coordination with Work activities near thethe local landowners, municipality, and tribalairfield must be coordinatedgovernment.with the ADOTPF.Figure 2-1Technology ScreeningGeneral ResponseActionRemedialTechnologyNo ActionNo ActionProcess OptionNo ActionInstitutionalControlsLimited ActionLimited ActionSite ControlsLong-TermMonitoringContainmentOn-siteTreatmentOff-siteDisposalEffectivenessImplementabilityCostCommentsDoes not reduce contaminant concentrationsor prevent migration of contamination. Doesnot achieve RAOs in timely manner.Easy to implement; however, state andcommunity acceptance is unlikely.No CostDoes not reduce contaminant concentrationsor prevent contaminant migration. Whenused alone, does not achieve RAOs in atimely manner. Effectiveness at preventingfuture exposure depends on continuedimplementation.Access restrictions (such as fencing) canprevent exposure to surface soil. Accessrestrictions do not reduce the volume orconcentration of contaminants on site.Long-term monitoring is not effective atremoving or degrading contamination.State and community acceptance is unlikely,unless active treatment metals. Enforcementof the restrictions may be difficult without alocal authority to implement.LowState and community acceptance is unlikely.Regular maintenance of a fence or otherbarrier would be expensive given thedistance to the site.Easy to implement, however, state andcommunity acceptance of monitoring alone isunlikely.Construction of an impermeable cap wouldrequire that large quantities of constructionmaterials be brought to the site. This wouldinclude some materials not available inGambell. The cap would need to beprotected from vehicular traffic.Soil excavation is relatively easy toimplement at Site 12.LowEliminated from consideration due toimplementability issues.ModerateEliminated from consideration due toimplementability issues.ModerateEliminated from consideration due toimplementability issues.ModerateRetained for further consideration.Excavation may be combined with a varietyof ex situ treatment technologies in thedevelopment of alternatives.Stabilization/solidification eliminated fromfurther consideration due to implementabilityissues.Thermal treatment is eliminated from furtherconsideration due to high concentrations oflead-contaminated soil.An impermeable cap would reduce themigration of soluble contaminants togroundwater. It would not remove or destroycontaminants.ContainmentImpermeableCapExcavationExcavationPhysicalTreatmentStabilization/SolidificationPhysicalTreatmentThermalTreatmentChemicalTreatmentChemicalTreatmentBiologicalTreatmentBiologicalTreatmentBiological technologies are effective atremoving degraded diesel fuel from soil.Biological remediation would have no impacton the concentration of metals in the soil.Off-siteDisposalLandfillingEffective for a variety of contaminants. Ifcontaminants are not destroyed and aremixed with other wastes, could createadditional liability for the Army.All ex situ technologies rely on excavation toaccess contaminated soils. To be effective,excavation must be combined with treatmenttechnologies.Soil stabilization/solidification can beeffective at immobilizing metals in soil.Thermal technologies can be effective atremoving VOCs from soil and less effective atremoving degraded diesel. Thermalremediation would have no impact on theconcentration of metals in the soil.Chemical technologies can be effective atreducing the toxicity and mobility ofcontaminants.=Technology or process option eliminated from further consideration.=Technology or process option retained for further consideration.Required under CERCLA as a baselineagainst which remedial alternatives arecompared. Because ADEC residentialcleanup levels are exceeded, this is not aviable option for lead-contaminated soil.Eliminated from consideration due toimplementability issues.Gambell is a remote location to ship, setupand operate a stabilization/solidificationsystem.Gambell is a remote location to ship, setupand operate a thermal treatment system.HighGambell is a remote location to apply achemical treatment. The remoteness willresult in higher costs and the extremeweather conditions will slow treatment.Gambell is a remote location to setup andoperate a biological treatment system. Theremoteness will result in higher costs and theextreme weather conditions will slowtreatment.Moderate difficulty to implement for smallvolumes of soil. Key implementability issuesinclude transporting soil from remote locationto RCRA-permitted landfill.ModerateRetained for further consideration.HighEliminated from consideration due toimplementability issues.HighRetained for further consideration. Offsitedisposal offers suitable location for metalscontaminated soil, and is particularlyappropriate in dealing with small volumes ofwaste.High3. Development and Screening of AlternativesIn this section, general response actions and the process options chosen to represent thevarious technology types are combined to form alternatives for the Gambell sites.Alternatives were developed to represent a range of potential remedial actions.The alternatives include:• No action (Alternative 1);• Removal of exposed debris only (Alternative 2); and• Off-island disposal of exposed debris and contaminated soil (Alternative 3).• In-situ treatment of contaminated soil and off-island disposal of exposeddebris (Alternative 4).3.1 Descriptions of AlternativesThe following sections describe the conceptual designs for these alternatives and thebasis for the design approach. The conceptual designs of the alternatives presented inthis section are based on the best available information at the time that this report wasprepared.3.1.1 Alternative 1 : No ActionThe No Action Alternative involves no additional actions at the site. This alternative isrequired by the NCP.3.1.2 Alternative 2 : Removal of Exposed Debris OnlyThe Removal of Exposed Debris Only Alternative includes removal of exposed debris,including Marsten matting from Site 8 and small caliber ammunition from Site D. Nocontaminated soil would be removed under this alternative. Metallic debris would bedisposed off site.3.1.3 Alternative 3: Off-Island DisposalThe Off-Island Disposal Alternative includes the following:•••Excavation of metals (lead) contaminated soil from Site 12.Removal of exposed debris, including marsten matting from Site 8 and smallcaliber ammunition from Site D.Off-island disposal of debris and metals-contaminated soil.3.1.4 Alternative 4: In-situ Soil Treatment and Off-Island Disposal of DebrisThe In-Situ Soil Treatment Alternative includes the following:Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 24February 2004•••In-situ chemical treatment of metals (lead) contaminated soil from site 12.Removal of exposed debris, including marsten matting from Site 8 and smallcaliber ammunition from Site D.Off-island disposal of debris and ammunition.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 25February 20044. Detailed Analysis of AlternativesThis section provides the results of the evaluation for the alternatives developed for theGambell Sites in Section 3.0. First the individual analysis of alternatives is presentedusing the seven evaluation criteria described in Section 4.1. A comparative analysis ofalternatives is then presented using the same evaluation criteria.4.1 Individual Analysis of AlternativesThis section presents an analysis of each of the alternatives by comparing them to sevenspecific criteria:•••••••Overall protection to human health and the environmentAttainment of cleanup standards and compliance with applicable state and federallaws, and local requirements.Short-term effectivenessLong-term effectivenessReduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatmentImplementabilityCostThese factors are described below:Overall protection to human health and the environment. This assessment focuses onwhether a specific alternative achieves adequate protection of human health and theenvironment, and describes how site risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled throughtreatment or institutional controls.Attainment of cleanup standards and compliance with applicable state and federal laws,and local requirements. This addresses the federal, state, and/or local requirementswhich are applicable or relevant and appropriate for a specific alternative and how thealternative meets these requirements.Short-term effectiveness. Short-term effectiveness considers the protection of publichealth, worker health and the environment during the construction and implementation ofa remedy until remedial action objections are met.Long-term effectiveness. Long-term effectiveness considers the effectiveness of eachalternative in maintaining protection of human health and the environment after responseaction objectives have been met. The magnitude of remaining risk from untreated soil ortreatment residuals, if any, and the adequacy and reliability of controls for providingprotection from residuals, are considered in this assessment.Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. This criterion considersthe type and quantity of residuals that will remain following treatment, and the degree toGambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 26February 2004which the treatment reduces the hazards posed by the site. Where possible, numericalcomparisons before and after remediation are presented.Implementability. The technical and administrative feasibility of each alternative isevaluated in this criterion. Technical feasibility includes the ability to construct thesystem used, the ability to operate and maintain the equipment, and the ability to monitorthe effectiveness of operations. Administrative feasibility refers to the ability to obtainnecessary permits and approvals from applicable regulatory agencies and the likelihoodof favorable community response.Cost. The capital cost associated with the development and construction, and the annualO&M costs of each alternative are evaluated in this step. The cost estimates are preparedfor guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available atthe time of the estimate. The actual cost of remediation depend on many variables,including volume of contaminated soil, concentration and total mass of contaminantstreated, distance to contaminated site, cleanup levels, health and safety regulations, laborand equipment costs, and the final project scope. As a result, the final project costs willvary from the estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility and fundingneeds must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to helpensure proper evaluation and adequate funding. Costs are expected to be within therange of accuracy typical of FS-level costs estimates (-30 to +50 percent).4.1.1 Alternative 1 – No ActionAnalysis of the No Action Alternative is required by the NCP. This alternative involvesno further action at the site and is sometimes referred to as the “walk-away” alternative.4.1.1.1 EvaluationOverall protection. The No Action Alternative does not reduce the risk currently posedby the Gambell sites. The contaminant concentrations at Site 12 exceed regulatorylimits, and may pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. The exposeddebris would continue to pose a physical hazard to local residents.Compliance with ARARs. The No Action Alternative does not comply with theidentified ADEC soil cleanup levels for lead at Site 12, since there would be no reductionin the concentration or quantity of contaminants in soil at that site.Short-term effectiveness. There are no short-term risks posed by the site orimplementation of Alternative 1, since there are no actions included in this alternative.Long-term effectiveness. The No Action Alternative does not reduce the long-term risksassociated with the site.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 27February 2004Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. The No Action Alternative will not reducethe toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated soil. The No Action Alternative wouldnot reduce the physical hazards associated with the exposed debris.Implementability. No technical or administrative implementability issues have beenidentified for the No Action Alternative. This alternative will likely be met with localopposition.Cost. The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $39,700.4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Removal of Exposed Debris OnlyThe Removal of Exposed Debris Only Alternative only includes removal of exposeddebris from Site 8 and small caliber ammunition from Site D. Site 8 debris includesMarsten matting located along the eastside of the runway. Site D debris includes thebeach ammunition dump located 1 1/3 miles south of the runway. Debris would betransported to an off-site landfill or sent to a recycling facility. There is no soil removalincluded with this alternative.4.1.2.1 EvaluationOverall protection. The Removal of Exposed Debris Only Alternative reduces thephysical hazard posed by the debris. However, this Alternative does not reduce thepotential risk associated with the lead-contaminated soils present at Site 12.Compliance with ARARs. The Removal of Exposed Debris Only Alternative complieswith ARARs by requiring disposal of the debris in an approved landfill. However, thisalternative does not comply with identified ADEC soil cleanup levels at Site 12, sincelead-contaminated soil is left in place.Short-term effectiveness. There are no short-term risks posed by implementation ofAlternative 1. Since there are no know chemical hazards in the areas where debrisremoval would occur, implementation of this alternative would be protective of publicand worker health. A health and safety plan will be followed to ensure general safeworking conditions.Long-term effectiveness. The Removal of Exposed Debris Only Alternative effectivelyreduces the long-term physical hazard posed by the debris. Site 8 and Site D do notcurrently pose a chemical hazard. However, this alternative does not reduce the longterm risks associated with Site 12.Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. The Removal of Exposed DebrisAlternative will reduce the volume of exposed debris at Site 8 and Site D. Thisalternative will not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated soil at Site12.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 28February 2004Implementability. Implementation of this alternative will require coordination with theState of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF). Electricalwiring for the runway lights will need to be rerouted to allow removal of the Marstenmatting. There may also be working hour restrictions due to runway operations. Theremay be difficultly encountered when trying to sift the .30 cal ammunition from thegravels. There should be no difficultly locating an approved off-site landfill or recyclingfacility once the debris is removed.Cost. The estimated cost for Alternative 2 is $370,000.4.1.3 Alternative 3 – Off-Island Disposal of Lead Contaminated Soil and ExposedDebrisThe Off-Island Disposal Alternative includes excavation of metals-contaminated soilfrom Site 12, and removal of exposed debris from Site 8 and Site D. Site 12 contains soilcontaminated with lead. Site 8 debris includes marsten matting located along the eastside of the runway. Site D debris includes the beach ammunition dump located 1 1/3miles south of the runway. Debris and contaminated soil would be transported to an offsite landfill, or sent to a recycling facility.4.1.3.1 EvaluationOverall protection. Alternative 3 would remove the risk posed by Site 12 by excavatingsoil containing lead above regulatory concentrations. This alternative also reduces thephysical hazard posed by the debris at Site 8 and Site D.Compliance with ARARs. This alternative would reduce the level of contamination tomeet ARARs that apply to the Gambell site. All contaminated soil and debris would beremoved and properly disposed at an approved off-site landfill.Short-term effectiveness. There is a potential for exposure to site workers whileexcavating, transporting and treating the contaminated soil. Following a health andsafety plan and using appropriate personal protective equipment, would minimizeexposure of site workers to contaminants. Additional measures would be taken toprevent exposure to residents entering the areas during implementation of the alternative.The short-term risks are manageable.Long-term effectiveness. The residual risk posed by the site would be reduced by thisalternative because the contaminated soil and exposed debris would be removed.Institutional controls would not be necessary since no soil with contaminants aboveregulator levels would remain on site.Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume. The lead-contaminated soil would not betreated, so there would be no reduction in the toxicity, mobility or volume.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 29February 2004Implementability. Implementation of the debris removal portion of this alternative willrequire coordination with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and PublicFacilities (DOTPF). Electrical wiring for the runway lights will need to be rerouted toallow removal of the Marsten matting. There may also be working hour restrictions dueto runway operations. There may be difficulty encountered when trying to sift the .30 calammunition from the gravels. There should be no difficulty locating an approved off-sitelandfill or recycling facility once the debris is removed. There should be no difficultyexcavating or transporting the lead contaminated soil from Site 12. There should also beno difficulty locating an approved landfill for the contaminated soil.Cost. The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $418,200.4.1.4 Alternative 4 – In-situ Treatment of Lead Contaminated Soil and Off-IslandDisposal of Exposed DebrisThe In-situ Treatment Alternative includes treatment of metals-contaminated soil fromSite 12, and removal of exposed debris from Site 8 and Site D. Site 12 contains soilcontaminated with lead. Site 8 debris includes marsten matting located along the eastside of the runway. Site D debris includes the beach ammunition dump located 1 1/3miles south of the runway. Debris would be transported to an off site landfill, or sent to arecycling facility. Soil at Site 12 would be treated to chemically bind the leadcontamination into a compound, reducing the leachability of the metals.4.1.4.1 EvaluationOverall protection. Alternative 4 would reduce the risk posed by Site 12 by treating soilcontaining lead above regulatory concentrations. This alternative also reduces thephysical hazard posed by the debris at Site 8 and Site D.Compliance with ARARs. This alternative would not reduce the level of contaminationand would not meet all ARARs that apply to the Gambell site. All debris would beremoved and properly disposed at an approved off-site landfill.Short-term effectiveness. There is a potential for exposure to site workers while treatingthe contaminated soil. Following a health and safety plan and using appropriate personalprotective equipment, would minimize exposure of site workers to contaminants.Additional measures would be taken to prevent exposure to residents entering the areasduring implementation of the alternative. The short-term risks are manageable.Long-term effectiveness. The residual risk posed by the site would be reduced by thisalternative because the leachability of the contaminants in soil would be reduced andexposed debris would be removed. Institutional controls would not be necessary sincethe leachability of contaminants in soil would be reduced.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 30February 2004Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume. The lead-contaminated soil would betreated in-situ, resulting in a reduction in the toxicity and mobility of the contaminants.The volume of the contaminated soil would not be reduced.Implementability. Implementation of the debris removal portion of this alternative willrequire coordination with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and PublicFacilities (DOTPF). Electrical wiring for the runway lights will need to be rerouted toallow removal of the Marsten matting. There may also be working hour restrictions dueto runway operations. There may be difficulty encountered when trying to sift the .30 calammunition from the gravels. There should be no difficulty locating an approved off-sitelandfill or recycling facility once the debris is removed.There should be no difficulty applying chemical treatment to lead contaminated soil atSite 12. The lead contamination is not expected to extend more than 2 to 4 feet into thesubsurface.Cost. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $432,800.4.2 Comparative AnalysisIn this section of the FS, the alternatives developed in Chapter 3 and evaluated withrespect to specific criteria in Section 4.1 are compared to one another to allow forselection of the remedial action at the Gambell sites.4.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentAlternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the chemical risk posed to human health and theenvironment since no actions would be taken to address the lead-contaminated soil.Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 address the physical hazard posed by exposed debris. Alternative3 would be most protective because the lead-contaminated soil would be permanentlyremoved and disposed off-site. Alternative 4 would be less protective than Alternative 3,because the treated soil would remain in place.4.2.2 Compliance with ARARsAlternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce or remove lead contaminants in soil at Site 12 andwould therefore not meet ARARs. Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs since thelead-contaminated soil would be removed from Site 12 and disposed off-island.Alternative 4 would not comply with ARARs, since the concentration of lead in soilwould not be reduced. Additional tests would have to be performed on the soil followingtreatment to document the reduced leachability of the lead.4.2.3 Short-Term EffectivenessGambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 31February 2004None of the alternatives represent an unacceptable risk to the community, workers or theenvironment during implementation.4.2.4 Long-Term EffectivenessAlternative 3 has the highest long-term effectiveness because this alternative has thehighest potential to permanently remove the lead-contaminated soil. Alternatives 1 and 2provide the least long-term effectiveness since neither includes action to reduce theamount of lead-contaminated soil. Alternative 4 has a long-term effectiveness that is lessthan Alternative 3 because Alternative 4 leaves the treated soil on-site. Alternative 4 hasa long-term effectiveness that is greater than Alternatives 1 and 2, because Alternative 4treats the lead contaminated soil in-situ.4.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through TreatmentAlternatives 1 and 2 do not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the leadcontaminated soil. Alternative 3 reduces the volume of contaminants left on site throughremoval. Alternative 4 reduces the mobility and toxicity of the lead, but not the volume.4.2.6 ImplementabilityAll of the alternatives can be implemented using commercially available services.Alternative 1 and 2 could be easily implemented and few technical challenges would beexpected. Alternative 3 is more challenging. This alternative includes excavation andoff-island disposal of the metals contaminated soil. Alternative 4 would be the mostchallenging to implement. Alternative 4 would require the application and mixing of areagent with the lead contaminated soil.4.2.7 CostTable 4-1 presents a summary of the total estimated costs for each of the alternatives.Alternative 1 has the lowest cost ($39,700) and Alternative 2 has the second lowest cost($370,000). Alternative 4 has the highest costs ($432,800) and Alternative 3 has thesecond highest cost ($418,200). Overall, the additional cost to remove and dispose of thelead-contaminated soil is not significantly higher than Alternative 2 (Remove of ExposedDebris Only) and less than Alternative 4 (Treat Lead Contaminated Soil In-situ).4.2.8 Preferred AlternativeAlternative 3 is the preferred alternative. Alternative 3 is less complex than Alternative 4and will permanently reduce the risk posed by lead contaminated soil at Site 12.Alternative 4 may reduce the mobility and toxicity of the lead, but it will not reduce thevolume of lead contaminated soil.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 32February 2004AlternativesAlternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 2 - RemoveExposed Debris OnlyAlternative 3 - RemoveExposed Debris and LeadContaminated SoilAlternative 4 - Treat LeadContaminated Soil andRemove Exposed DebrisGambell Feasibility StudyDraftTable 4-1Cost Comparison SummaryActionsCategoriesProject Close outProject Close OutCostsTotal:$39,700Total:$53,400$184,400$117,600$14,600$370,000Total:$77,300$192,100$131,100$17,700$418,200Total:$77,300$192,100$145,700$17,700$432,800Work Plans and ReportsMobilization/DemobilizationOff-site disposal ofField Workdebris in landfillProject ManagementWork Plans and ReportsOff-site disposal of Mobilization/Demobilizationdebris and soil in Field WorklandfillProject ManagementWork Plans and ReportsOn-site treatment of Mobilization/Demobilizationsoil and off-siteField Workdisposal of debris Project ManagementNovember 2003BibliographyEcology and Environment, Inc. (E&E). 1992. Inventory Report, Gambell, FormerlyUsed Defense Site, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Contract No. DACA85-91-D003. December.E&E. 1992. Site Inventory Report, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. December.E&E. 1993. Chemical Data Acquisition Plan, Site Inventory Update, Gambell, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. February.Golder Associates Inc. (GAI). 1994. Final Report Geophysical Survey Investigation –St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, USA. November 3.GAI. 1996. Geophysical Survey Investigation, Gambell, Alaska. August 22.Montgomery Watson (MW). 1995a. Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. January.MW. 1995b. Remedial Action Alternatives Technical Memorandum, Gambell, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. November 6.MW. 1995c. Building Demolition and Debris Removal Technical Memorandum,Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. December 8.MW. 1997. Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. Final. December.MW. 1998. Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Final. December.MW. 1999a. Site 5 Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.MW. 1999b. Final Investigation of Geophysical Anomaly, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. Final. December.MW. 2000. Strategic Project Implementation Plan, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. Final. December.MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH). 2002. Summary Report 2001 Supplemental RemedialInvestigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Final. May.Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI). 2001. Remedial Action Report for Debris Removaland Containerized Hazardous Waste and Toxic Waste Removal, Gambell, Alaska.Final. February 15.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 33February 2004United States Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center,Topographic Engineering Center (TEC). 2000. GIS-Based Historical TimeSequence Analysis (Historical Photographic Analysis), Gambell Sites, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. Final. September.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002. Engineering Evaluation / CostAnalysis (EE/CA), Gambell sites, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Final.November.United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. Guidance forConducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.EPA/540/G-89/004. Interim Final. October.URS Corporation and Rittenhaus-Zeman & Associates (URS). 1985. DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP), Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska, Geotechnical, Geophysical, Soil, and Groundwater Quality Studies,Prepared for URS Engineers, W-4581. August.Gambell Feasibility StudyFinal❏ Page 34February 2004Appendix ASUMMARY SHEETActivityCostAlternative 1 - No ActionReportingCoordinationTravel$23,700$13,000$3,000Total$39,700Alternative 2 - Debris Removal OnlyPlanning and Pre-Mob ActivitiesMobilizationField WorkDemobilizationReportingProject ManagementTotal$33,300$88,000$117,600$96,400$20,100$14,600$370,000Alternative 3 - Contaminated Soil and Debris RemovalPlanning and Pre-Mob ActivitiesMobilizationField WorkDemobilizationLab SamplesReportingProject ManagementTotal$47,400$90,500$127,100$101,600$4,000$29,900$17,700$418,200Alternative 4 - Contaminated Soil Treatment and Debris RemovalPlanning and Pre-Mob ActivitiesMobilizationField WorkDemobilizationLab SamplesReportingProject ManagementTotal$47,400$90,500$141,700$101,600$4,000$29,900$17,700$432,800Project Close OutGambell Feasibility StudyItemHoursRateTotalPrepare Draft Site Closeout ReportProject ManagerEnvironmental EngineerOE Technician IIIClerical20802040$70.00$70.00$60.00$29.75$1,400$5,600$1,200$1,190Prepare Responses to commentsProject ManagerEnvironmental EngineerOE Technician IIIClerical10201010$70.00$70.00$60.00$29.75$700$1,400$600$298Review ConferenceProject ManagerEnvironmental Engineer88$70.00$70.00$560$560Community Involvement ActivitiesProject ManagerEnvironmental Engineer2020$70.00$70.00$1,400$1,400Attend RAB meetingProject ManagerEnvironmental Engineer2424$70.00$70.00$1,680$1,680Coordinate with RegulatorsProject ManagerEnvironmental Engineer4020$70.00$70.00$2,800$1,400Prepare Final Site Closeout ReportProject ManagerEnvironmental EngineerOE Technician IIIClerical16401020$70.00$70.00$60.00$29.75$1,120$2,800$600$595SubtotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Travel Costs (2 persons)Profit (10%)Grand Total$28,983$4,347$3,000$3,333$39,663Round up to nearest hundred$39,700Planning and Pre-Mob ActivitiesGambell Feasibility StudyItemNumberSite D - Subsurface OE ClearanceWork Plan and Health/Safety PlanPreparation1Site 8 - Marsten Matting Debris CleanupPrepare Draft Health and Safety PlanEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistClericalPrepare Draft Work PlanEnvironmental EngineerChemistClericalPrepare Responses to commentsEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistChemistClericalReview ConferenceEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistChemistPrepare Final Health and Safety PlanEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistClericalSubcontractingScope of WorkEnvironmental EngineerCost EstimatorContract SpecialistNegotiationsEnvironmental EngineerContract SpecialistAwardContract SpecialistBarging SubScope of WorkEnvironmental EngineerCost EstimatorContract SpecialistNegotiationsEnvironmental EngineerContract SpecialistAwardContract SpecialistTDU SubScope of WorkEnvironmental EngineerCost EstimatorContract SpecialistUnitRateTotalLump Sum$12,000.00$12,00044040$70.00$50.75$29.75$280$2,030$1,190201620$70.00$59.50$29.75$1,400$952$5958888$70.00$50.75$59.50$29.75$560$406$476$238444$70.00$50.75$59.50$280$203$23822020$70.00$50.75$29.75$140$1,015$595410$70.00$59.50$57.75$280$60$044$70.00$57.75$280$2314$57.75$231004$70.00$59.50$57.75$0$0$23104$70.00$57.75$0$2314$57.75$231400$70.00$59.50$57.75$280$0$0Planning and Pre-Mob ActivitiesNegotiationsEnvironmental EngineerContract SpecialistAwardContract SpecialistPre-construction MeetingField ForemanEnvironmental EngineerGambell Feasibility Study04$70.00$57.75$0$2314$57.75$23188$77.00$70.00SubtotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand TotalRound up to nearest hundredSite 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil ExcavationPrepare Draft Sampling and Analysis PlanEnvironmental EngineerChemistClericalPrepare Draft Work PlanEnvironmental EngineerChemistClericalPrepare Responses to commentsEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistChemistClericalReview ConferenceEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistChemistPrepare Final Work PlanEnvironmental EngineerChemistClericalLaboratory SubScope of WorkChemistCost EstimatorContract SpecialistNegotiationsChemistContract SpecialistAwardContract Specialist$616$560$26,291$3,944$3,023$33,257$33,30082020$70.00$59.50$29.75$560$1,190$595201620$70.00$59.50$29.75$1,400$952$5958888$70.00$50.75$59.50$29.75$560$406$476$238444$70.00$50.75$59.50$280$203$23820820$70.00$59.50$29.75$1,400$476$595411$59.50$59.50$57.75$238$60$5842$70.00$57.75$280$1164$57.75SubtotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand TotalRound up to nearest hundred$231$11,146$1,672$1,282$14,099$14,100DemobilizationGambell Feasibility StudyItemNumberSite D - Subsurface OE ClearanceLabor (Travel and Construct Gravel Sieve in Anchorage)UXO Technician III0*Project Manager0*Supplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip to Gambell from East Coast)0*Per Diem (Lodging, Anchorage)0*Per Diem (3/4 Meals, Anchorage)0*Per Diem (Meals, Anchorage)0*Truck Rental (Anchorage)0*Air Cargo (Gambell to Nome)2400Air Cargo (Nome to Anchorage)2400Site 8 - Marsten Matting Debris CleanupLabor for Travel (all rates burdoned)Foreman/QCLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverSupplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip Anchorage to Gambell)Per Diem (Gambell)Barge Equipment from Site (reg. Schedule)Gambell to AnchorageDebris-filled Connexes (Gambell to Seattle)Site 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil ExcavationLabor for Travel (all rates burdoned)ChemistSupplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip Anchorage to Gambell)Air Cargo (Gambell to Nome)Air Cargo (Nome to Anchorage)Per Diem (Gambell)Soil-filled Connexes (Gambell to Seattle)Site 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil TreatmentLabor for Travel (all rates burdoned)ChemistUnitUnit CostTotal CostHoursHours$60.00$70.00$0$0EachNightsDaysDaysDaysPoundsPounds$2,400.00$120.00$51.00$68.00$95.00$1.38$0.87$0$0$0$0$0$3,312$2,088121212HoursHoursHours$77.00$59.50$50.75$924$714$6090*3EachMan-Days$878.50$153.00$0$45932000150000Poundslbs$0.3738$0.3738$11,962$56,070TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$76,138$11,421$8,756$96,314Round up to nearest hundred$96,40012Hours0*10010018000EachPoundsPoundsMan-Dayslbs$59.50$714$878.50$1.38$0.87$153.00$0.3738$0$138$87$153$2,990TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$4,082$612$469$5,164Round up to nearest hundred$5,20012Hours$59.50$714DemobilizationGambell Feasibility StudySupplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip Anchorage to Gambell)Air Cargo (Gambell to Nome)Air Cargo (Nome to Anchorage)Per Diem (Gambell)* included in mobilization0*1001001EachPoundsPoundsMan-Days$878.50$1.38$0.87$153.00$0$138$87$153TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$1,092$164$126$1,381Round up to nearest hundred$1,400MobilizationGambell Feasibility StudyItemNumberSite D - Subsurface OE ClearanceLabor (Travel and Construct Gravel Sieve in Anchorage)UXO Technician III62Project Manager62Supplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip to Gambell from East Coast)2Per Diem (Lodging, Anchorage)8Per Diem (3/4 Meals, Anchorage)4Per Diem (Meals, Anchorage)8Truck Rental (Anchorage)4Air Cargo (Anchorage to Nome)2400Air Cargo (Nome to Gambell)2400Site 8 - Marsten Matting Debris CleanupLabor for Travel (all rates burdoned)Foreman/QCLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverSupplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip Anchorage to Gambell)Barge Equipment/Connexes (Seattle to Gambell)Barge Equipment (Anchorage to Gambell)Per Diem (Gambell)UnitUnit CostHoursHours$60.00$70.00$3,720$4,340EachNightsDaysDaysDaysPoundsPounds$2,400.00$120.00$51.00$68.00$95.00$0.87$1.38$4,800$960$204$544$380$2,088$3,312121212HoursHoursHours$77.00$59.50$50.75$924$714$609350000320003EachPoundsPoundsMan-Days$878.50$0.5400$0.5400$153.00TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$2,636$27,000$17,280$459$69,511$10,427$7,994$87,931Round up to nearest hundredSite 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil ExcavationLabor for Travel (all rates burdoned)ChemistSupplies and ServicesAirfare (Roundtrip Anchorage to Gambell)Air Cargo (Anchorage to Nome)Air Cargo (Nome to Gambell)Per Diem (Gambell)Total Cost$88,00012Hours$59.50$71411001001EachPoundsPoundsMan-Days$878.50$0.87$1.38$153.00$879$87$138$153TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$1,971$296$227$2,493Round up to nearest hundred$2,500Field WorkItemSite D - Subsurface OE ClearanceField WorkUXO Technician IIIProject ManagerLocal Laborers (2)Supplies and ServicesRTK GPS Equipment rentalMetal DetectorGravel Sieve (materials)Back Hoe Rental (w/operator) - LocalShipping ContainersATV rentalPPEAmmunition Disposal Shipment (Gambell to Nome)Ammunition Disposal Shipment (Nome to Anchorage)Ammunition Disposal FeePer DiemPer Diem (Lodging Gambell)Per Diem (Meals, Gambell)Gambell Feasibility StudyNumberUnitUnit Cost*Total Cost5050100HoursHoursHours$60.00$70.00$30.00$3,000$3,500$3,000221501014500500400WeekWeekEachHoursEachWeekPersonPoundsPoundsPounds$2,100.00$100.00$16,000.00$130.00$30.00$875.00$20.00$0.87$1.38$4.09$4,200$200$16,000$6,500$300$875$80$435$690$1,6361210NightsDays$85.00$54.00$1,020$540222HoursHoursHours$29.75$59.50$50.75$60$119$102707070140MHMHMHMH$77.00$59.50$50.75$29.75$5,390$4,165$3,553$4,1651010HoursHours$59.50$50.75$595$50811421104570015011MonthMonthdaysEachEachEachEachGalUnit-DayMonthLS$2,100.00$4,000.00$150.00$520.00$80.00$100.00$9.00$3.00$4.00$3,000.00$2,000.0010MH$50.75$50850tons$45.00$2,25021DaysSite 8 - Marsten Matting Debris CleanupUnload Barge Materials in GambellLaborerLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverField WorkForeman/QCLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverLaborersLoad ConnexesLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverEquipmentSmall Dump Truck (5 CY)Backhoe Loader (416 C or D)ATVs with Trailer (3)Field screening equipment (Hanby Kit)Supersacks for contaminated soilRadiosDisposable CameraDiesel Fuel for EquipmentConnex Rental for removal of debris and soile Loader CAT 426C IT (w/connexes to load them on-site)Plastic Fencing, tarps, etc for winter storageMove Debris from Dock to Landfill in SeattleTruck DriverLandfill Tipping FeeLodging and Per Diem for WorkersForeman/Operator/Truck Driver$153.00$2,100$4,000$6,300$520$800$400$45$2,100$600$3,000$2,000$3,213Field WorkGambell Feasibility StudySubtotalSmall Tools/Consumables and PPE (5%)TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$88,467$4,423$92,890$13,933$10,682$117,506Round up to nearest hundred$117,600Site 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil ExcavationField WorkForeman/QCLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverLaborersChemistMove Soil to TDU from Dock to TDU in SeattleTruck DriverLandfill Tipping FeeLodging and Per Diem for WorkersForeman/Operator/Truck Driver/ChemistMHMHMHMHMH$77.00$59.50$50.75$29.75$59.50$1,540$1,190$1,015$595$1,1904MH$50.75$2034tons$45.00$1808Days$153.00$1,224SubtotalSmall Tools/Consumables and PPE (5%)TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$7,137$357$7,494$1,124$862$9,480Round up to nearest hundred$9,500Site 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil TreatmentField WorkForeman/QCLgt Equipment OperatorTruck DriverLaborersChemistTreatment ChemicalsTreatment ChemicalsLodging and Per Diem for WorkersForeman/Operator/Truck Driver/Chemist* Labor rates are all loaded.20202020204040204040MHMHMHMHMH$77.00$59.50$50.75$29.75$59.50$3,080$2,380$1,015$1,190$2,3801LS$5,000.00$5,00020Days$153.00$3,060SubtotalSmall Tools/Consumables and PPE (5%)TotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$18,105$905$19,010$2,852$2,186$24,048Round up to nearest hundred$24,100Lab SamplesTest MethodProject Samples8RCRAAK102/103labGambell Feasibility StudyItemNumberUnit8 RCRA MetalsDRO/RROTOC101010SampleSampleSample$130.00$125.00$60.00$1,300.00$1,250.00$600.00UnitSampleSampleSampleUnit Cost$130.00$125.00$60.00Total Cost$130.00$125.00$60.00CoolersBags$250.00$17.00TotalRound Up$500.00$17.00$3,982.00$4,000.00QA/QC Samples (10% of project samples)Test MethodItemNumber8RCRA8 RCRA Metals1AK102/103DRO/RRO1labTOC1Total Samples33Cooler Shipping2Vermaculite1All per sample cost includes data review.Unit CostTotal CostReportingGambell Feasibility StudyItemSite D - Subsurface OE ClearancePrepare Draft Removal Action ReportProject ManagerOE Technician IIIClericalSite 8 - Marsten Matting Debris CleanupPrepare Draft Removal Action ReportEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistClericalPrepare Responses to commentsEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistClericalReview ConferenceEnvironmental EngineerPrepare Final Removal Action ReportEnvironmental EngineerIndustrial HygenistClericalHoursRate84020$70.00$60.00$29.75$560$2,400$59580440$70.00$50.75$29.75$5,600$203$1,1901648$70.00$50.75$29.75$1,120$203$2384$70.00$280$70.00$50.75$29.75SubtotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand Total$2,800$102$595$15,886$2,383$1,827$20,095Round up to nearest hundred$20,100Site 12 - Lead Contaminated Soil ExcavationPrepare Draft Chemical Data ReportEnvironmental EngineerChemistClericalPrepare Responses to commentsChemistClericalReview ConferenceChemistPrepare Final Chemical Data ReportEnvironmental EngineerChemistClerical40220Total44020$70.00$59.50$29.75$280$2,380$595164$59.50$29.75$952$1194$59.50$23824020$70.00$59.50$29.75SubtotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand TotalRound up to nearest hundred$140$2,380$595$7,679$1,152$883$9,714$9,800Project ManagementGambell Feasibility Study(6% of total hours for all phases)PhaseLabor Hours for PhasePlanning and Pre-Mob Activities383Mobilization160Field Work576Demobilization52Reporting286Total Project Management HoursPM RateTotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand TotalRound up to nearest hundredPhaseLabor Hours for PhasePlanning and Pre-Mob Activities212Mobilization12Field Work116Demobilization12Reporting150Total Project Management HoursPM RateTotalOther Direct and Indirect Costs (15%)Profit (10%)Grand TotalRound up to nearest hundred10%381658529146$78.75$11,473.88$1,721.08$1,319.50$14,514.45$14,60010%13171930$78.75$2,371.95$355.79$272.77$3,000.52$3,100Appendix BGambell Feasibility StudyDraftNovember 2003- 1994X Soil Boring - 2001X SB6-10SB6-13XSB6-9 XSB6-12 XSB6-11 XSB7-18XSB7-20XXSB7-19DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-6898REPLY TOATTENTION OF:April 19, 2004Programs and Project Management DivisionCivil Works Management Branch«Title» -
ACAT FOIA Repository 14
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 14 Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: USACE response to ADEC initial comments on proposed plan
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
USACE responses to ADEC Jeff Brownlee's brief comments on the proposed remedial action plan for Gambell.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 14 Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: USACE response to ADEC initial comments on proposed plan
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
USACE responses to ADEC Jeff Brownlee's brief comments on the proposed remedial action plan for Gambell.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat14SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 14" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Page I of3MemorandumFrom: Lisa Geist, USACETo:Jeff Brownlee, ADECDate: June 9, 2004Subject: Response to ADEC comments on Gambell proposed planFrom: Brownlee, Jeff [JefCBrownlee@dec.state.ak.us]Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:40 PMTo: 'Cossaboom, Carey C POA02'; Geist, Lisa K POA02Subject: Gambell proposed plan comments - ADECCarey and Lisa,very nice plan. I have to brief Contaminated Sites Management on this plan. Normally I would submit draft commentsto you and then brief them with the draft/final, but this one can go directly. John Halverson and I will both be out of theoffice next week, but I will set up a briefing for the following week. I think the main issue will be the approach onaddressing groundwater. I would like to try and keep it similar to what you have currently in the plan (not do a 350determination) and what we discussed in our comments for the feasibility study, but need to run it by John. Thanks,Jeff#1SectionPage 1, fIrstparagraphCommentA typo. There are 28 sites rather than 38.22,PagethirdparagraphPlease put a colon after Formerly Used Defense Sites.USACE ResponseThe 38 sites countseachsub-siteseparately (e.g. lA,IB, 4C, 8D, etc).Heading deleted.200-1fF10AK069603_08.12_0003 afile:/IH:\Working%20Files\PROJECTS\Gamble\Comments\Proposed%20Plans\Gambell%20proposed%... 09/27/2004~/Page 2 of313Page5,secondparagraphPlease change to, "The selected soil and groundwater cleanup levels are riskbased and designed to be protective of human health and the environment." Isuppose you could add this sentence to the end of the frrst paragraph. Pleasedelete the remainder of the paragraph. There hasn't been any contaminatesdetected in the drinking water aquifer, so it would be best to avoid discussingit.General SiteSummariesI was thinking that having some subject headers would break up eachdiscussion into more presentable pieces. "Site Description", "Cleanup Actionsto date", "Current Conditions" and "Cleanup Objectives" would help the readerunderstand each site. As all the sites aren't being cleaned to default Method 2,we should mention each sites specific cleanup objective.Please include a glossary of terms at the end of the document. Here is a link toa 611 Air Force proposed plan with one at the back.4General5GeneralFuel con~tionwasdetectedhistorically In onemonitoring well atSite 5. See Table 6for sampling results MW31 with 1.9 mg/LDRO.TextrewordedasreQuested.Text headings addedas requested.Agree.http;ljWWY'!.lit -
ACAT FOIA Repository 15
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 15, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: ADEC review comments and USACE responses on Gambell proposed plan
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
ADEC Jeff Brownlee comments and specific USACE responses for the proposed remedial action plan for Gambell. One comment of interest is that ADEC suggests that elevated As levels represent high background concentrations, and elevated Cr levels were anomalous.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 15, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: ADEC review comments and USACE responses on Gambell proposed plan
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
ADEC Jeff Brownlee comments and specific USACE responses for the proposed remedial action plan for Gambell. One comment of interest is that ADEC suggests that elevated As levels represent high background concentrations, and elevated Cr levels were anomalous.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat15SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 15" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FOLLOW UPREVIEW COMMENTSDATE: 6/25/04Item LocationNo.IIPROJECT: Gambell DOCUMENT: Draft Proposed PlansLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPHONE: 269-3053REVIEWER: Jeff Brownlee (ADEC)COMMENTSReviewConference1.Page 5Please expand the discussion that the area around Gambell is notsuitable for drinking water. Please briefly discuss the extent ofpermafrost and the location of the village water supply aquifer.It may be helpful if the footprint of the aquifer can be overlayedon figure 2 or reference Figure 4. Jim Munter's hydrology reporton the aquifer may have an inferred boundary map.2.Page 9Site 2Please add "(See Figure 3)" at the end of the first sentence.Please expand the discussion about the UXO investigation andnote that the area was included in an investigation targetedspecifically for unexploded ordinance using geophysics andanomaly verification.IIAlaska District ResponseFigure 4 was revised to more clearly indicate the estimated aquiferboundary, and a reference to this figure was added on Page 5. The textwas also expanded as follows:Groundwater from the central gravel spit is not suitable as a source ofdrinking water. Groundwater in the gravels is often saline, difficult torecover in useable quantities, and located in an active lens overpermafrost. Drinking water wells installed in the gravel have beenabandoned in the past. Groundwater encountered at the site has beenlimited in quantity, and only intermittently detected. Permafrost inGambell is conunonly encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 15 feetbelow the ground surface. The village water supply is located at thebase of Sevuokuk. Mountain, on the far eastern edge of the gravel spit(see Figure 4). According to a State of Alaska hydrogeologicalinvestigation report (Ireland, 1994), the Gambell aquifer is canoeshaped, originating along the front of the steep bluff of Sevuokuk.Mountain, and continuing down the hydrological gradient across ahighly permeable gravel bar to the ocean. The aquifer appears to be athaw bulb in the permafrost, and as the permafrost expands or recedes,the aquifer dimensions vary. The influence of warm recharge waterfrom Sevuokuk. Mountain has produced the thaw bulb effect on thearea permafrost. The majority of the water recharging the aquiferoriginates from two springs that flow from the steep bluffs of themountain into the gravel. Shallow groundwater across the gravel spitdoes not appear to be continuous because of the presence of shallowpermafrost (Munter and Williams, 1992).Reference to Figure 3 was added.Discussion of ordnance was expanded as follows:Earth Tech, Inc. conducted two geophysical surveys at Site 2 duringJuly and September 2000, to determine the presence or absence ofburied ordnance. First, the field team visually surveyed the area andremoved metallic scrap and debris from the surface. Next, metaldetectors were used map the location of subsurface anomalies overthree site grids. Each target location was then further investigated,excavated and searched for the source of the metallic anomaly. Noevidence of any ordnance was found during the investigation.200-1fF10AK069603_08.12_0004_8FOLLOW UPREVIEW COMMENTSDATE: 6/25/04Item I LocationNo.IPROJECT: Gambell DOCUMENT: Draft Proposed PlansLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPHONE: 269-3053REVIEWER: Jeff Brownlee (ADEC)COMMENTSReviewIConferenceIAlaska District Response3.General,Site 2, 9,13These sites have been proposed for closure using the ingestionpathway; however there does not seem to be any contaminantconcentration exceeding migration to groundwater levels. Pleaseuse the more conservative migration to groundwater pathway forthose sites that meet the cleanup levels. Exceedences of arsenicand chrome in the majority of locations would be consideredbackground and would not exclude the site from meeting themigration to groundwater pathway (see next comment).The Cleanup objective subsections will remain ADEC Method 2 soilcleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway, following the rationalepresented on pages 4-5. However, a statement was added to thePreferred Alternative subsections for Sites lA, lB, 1C, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17,24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, and 28 which states:Site X also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 2 does not meet the soil cleanup levels based on the Migration toGroundwater pathway if you consider the disposal characterizationsamples collected from the excavated soils by aSCI to be equivalent tothe potential concentration of DRO remaining in the gravels (which isunknown). Site. 2 does meet the Ingestion cleanup levels, and thepotential remaining DRO-contaminated soil may be attributable to nonDOD sources.4.Table3,Arsenic,chromiumlevelsthroughoutPlease change the table to 26 mg/kg for chromium and changethe cleanup level mentioned in the text to 18 AAC 75.341 ratherthan the EPA Region 3 RBCs. Plotting the average of the resultsfor chromium and arsenic and attributing the levels tobackground would be a reasonable approach. There was the oneoutlier at Site 2 and the detections at site 7 which are planned forremoval. The one at site two can just be considered an outlierthat couldn't be reproduced. This approach eliminates the needto try and qualitatively explain exceedences.Table 3 was revised to show Screening Levels based on ADEC18AAC75, Migration to Groundwater levels. Text was revised to state:Only one sample from 1994 exceeded the screening levels forchromium and lead. The 12 other soil samples contained low levels ofchromium (ND to 21 mg/kg) and lead (1 to 70 mglkg). Chromiumwas not considered a contaminant of concern following the 1994investigation. During 1996, further soil sampling was conducted todetermine the extent of lead contamination. Eight surface soil sampleswere collected and analyzed for lead only. Sampling results areshown in Table 3. The 1996 results were significantly lower,indicating the 1994 sample was an isolated occurrence. The averagelead concentration at the site does not exceed the ADEC cleanuplevels. The maximum chromium concentration is considered anoutlier. See Table 3 for a summary of the Phase II results. Althoughthe detected arsenic concentrations exceed the ADEC cleanup level,the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do notappear associated with past military activity.5.Site 3Please add "See Fig. 3" in the site description.See Figure 3 added to site description.In 1994 added to Investigation summary.Sentence added to paragraph which states: Both monitoring wells arePlease add "in 1994" after "Phase I investigation" in theInvestigation summary.FOLLOW UPREVIEW COMMENTSDATE: 6/25/04Item LocationNo.IIPROJECT: Gambell DOCUMENT: Draft Proposed PlansLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Jeff Brownlee (ADEC)PHONE: 269-3053COMMENTSReviewConferenceIIAlaska District ResponseInvestigative Sununary - please mention in the paragraph aboutthe lead exceedences in groundwater that the site is downgradientof the drinking water supply well.located downgradient of the village drinking water supply well.6.Site4AIn the "Preferred alternative" section - there were contaminantconcentrations that exceeded cleanup levels. Please change thetext from "there were no contaminants above..." to "cleanup upto the extent feasible, as there is minimal soil above bedrock.Paragraph revised to state:No Further Action. All hazardous debris and contaminated soil wereremoved during the 1997 and 1999 field seasons. Site 4A has beencleaned up to the extent feasible, as there is minimal soil above bedrock.7.Site4EPreferred alternative - are there plans to remove the debris underNALEMP?Yes. Sentence added to Preferred Alternative subsection which states:The debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS. However,NALEMP plans to address the remaining debris at this site.8.Site 5Preferred alternative - are there plans to sample these monitoringwells two more times? After the detection of 1.9 mg/kg DRO in1998 an investigation of the water supply well and thesurrounding monitoring wells was done. Please mention thisstudy here.No further studies have been performed since the 1998 investigation.,which recommended one additional season of groundwater monitoring.Text of Preferred Alternative subsection revised to state:No further action. However, one additional round of groundwatersampling will be conducted to confmn groundwater does not exceedADEC Table C cleanup levels. Existing monitoring wells at Site 5 willbe sampled at upgradient and downgradient locations to verify thatdiesel range organics are not impacting the Village water supply well.9.Figure 4If this blue line is the inferred aquifer boundary, please note onthe figure.Figure 4 revised to more clearly indicate the inferred aquifer boundary.10.Site 6Cleanup Action - Please delete the word "gross" in the lastsentence and say that about 2 Y2 tons of impacted soil wereremoved. Please reference the NALEMP report.Text of Cleanup Actions to Date subsection revised to state:According to the fmal report (MWH, 2004), approximately 1,000 drumsand other debris, and 2.5 tons of fuel-contaminated soils wereexcavated. There was no notable evidence of fuel contaminationassociated with the buried debris.11.Site 9Site description - are there more drums remaining? Maybe wecan just say all the drums were removed.There are no drums remaining. Text of Site Description revised to state:This site is located on the east side of the local airport runway. Drumsleaking tar were observed in two areas. A debris inventory preparedby Montgomery Watson in 1997 indicated drums containing asphalt(6,200 estimated pounds) and empty drums (900 pounds) were locatedwithin Site 8, which includes the area referred to as Site 9. Theasphalt drums were initially attributed to non-military activities duringthe Phase I investigation and not investigated further.12.Site 15Please expand the description on the UXO investigation andText ofInvestigation Summary subsection revised to state:FOLLOW UPREVIEW COMMENTSDATE: 6/25/04ItemNo.l Location IPROJECT: Gambell DOCUMENT: Draft Proposed PlansLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Jeff Brownlee (ADEC)PHONE: 269-3053COMMENTSReviewConferenceIreference the EE/CA document.IAlaska District ResponseDuring 2000 and 2001, Troutman Lake was investigated usinggeophysical surveying techniques. The entire lake bottom wasmapped along a series of transect lines, to detect underwateranomalies representative of piles of steel ammunition boxes. Metallicanomalies detected by the equipment were then further investigatedusing ice augers, depth sounding equipment, poles, and an underwatervideo camera to determine the source of the metal signal. An openwater investigation was also conducted to verify the anomaly sourceusing dredging anchors, depth-sounding leads, and an underwatercamera. Anomaly locations within 20 feet of the lakeshore wereverified by visual inspection. The source of the magnetic anomaliesranged from runway matting and 55-gallon drums, to geologic featuressuch as iron or other mineral deposits. No evidence of ordnance orlarge piles of ammunition boxes was discovered in Troutman Lake.Additional details regarding the ordnance investigation can be foundin the report Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (Earth TechInc., 2002). -
ACAT FOIA Repository 16
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 16, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 42
Document Title: Proposed Plan for Remedial Action: Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Describes sites, results of their surveys, and preferred remedial actionsDocument: ACAT FOIA Repository 16, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 42
Document Title: Proposed Plan for Remedial Action: Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Describes sites, results of their surveys, and preferred remedial actionsLINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat16SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 16" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Proposed Plan for Remedial ActionGAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITESt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaUS Army Corpsof EngineersJuly 2004Alaska DistrictIntroductionGambellThe United States Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) and the AlaskaDepartment of EnvironmentalConservation (ADEC) request yourcomments on this Proposed Plan. TheProposed Plan covers 38 sites. The sitesare shown on Figure 1.#1C222772625B 25A 16 202624 188B19 2115Troutman LakeAirs trip4B34EThe purpose of this ProposedPlan is to:•4A5•4D•118A910•••Bering Sea4C288D1312±Nto14Gambell Proposed Plan10000Juneau#1B2##Sevuokuk Mountain1A176FairbanksAnchorageFigure 1 – Site Location Map238C#Nome10002000 FeetJuly 2004Describe theenvironmentalconditions at each site.Describe the cleanuplevels for the sites.Describe the cleanupalternatives that wereconsidered.Present therecommended cleanupalternative for each site.Request publiccomment on thepreferred alternatives.Provide information onhow the public can beinvolved in finalcleanup decisions.Final decisions on thepreferred alternatives will notbe made until all commentssubmitted by the end of thepublic comment period, havebeen reviewed and considered.Changes to the preferredo Page 1alternatives may be made if public comments or additionaldata indicate that such changes would result in moreappropriate solutions. After considering all publiccomments, USACE will prepare a Decision Documentwhich describes the final selected remedy. The DecisionDocument will include responses to all significant publiccomments received in a section called the ResponsivenessSummary.Preparation of this Proposed Plan and the associated publiccomment period is required under Section 117(a) of theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund".Although the sites described in this Proposed Plan are notCERCLA sites, this project follows CERCLA guidance.The Department of Defense (DoD) is tasked with correctingenvironmental damage caused by past military activities.The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)was set up to accomplish this task. The cleanup of FormerlyUsed Defense Sites (FUDS) is a part of this program. FUDSare those properties that the Department of Defense onceowned or used, but no longer controls. These propertiesrange from privately owned farms to National Parks. Theyalso include residential areas, schools, colleges, andindustrial areas. The FUDS program includes former Army,Navy, Marine, Air Force, and other defense properties. Over600 FUDS have been identified in Alaska.A Glossary of Terms is located at the end of this document.Site Location and BackgroundThe Native Village ofGambell is located on St.Lawrence Island, in thewestern portion of the BeringSea, approximately 200 airmiles southwest of Nome,Alaska (see Figure 2). Thevillage is situated on a gravelspit that projects north andwestward from the island, atan elevation of 30 feet abovemean sea level. St.Lawrence Island is currentlyowned jointly by Sivuqaq,Gambell Proposed PlanSites:1A North Beach1B Army Landing Area1C Air Force Landing Area2 Military Burial Site3 Communications Facility4A Air Force Radar Site4B Former Quonset Huts4C Discarded Drums4D Former Transformers4E Western Face of Sevuokuk Mtn5 Tramway Site6 Military Landfill7 Military Power Facility8A Marston Matting8B Buried Debris8C Navy Landfill8D Ammunition Beach Burial9 Asphalt Drums10 Army/Air Force Trails11 Communication Cable Route12 Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site13 Radar Power Station14 Navy Plane Crash Site15 Troutman Lake Disposal Site16 Municipal Building Site17 Army Landfills18 Main Camp19 Diatomaceous Earth20 Schoolyard21 Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain22 Former CAA Housing23 Debris from High School24 South of Municipal Building25A Gambell South Housing Units25B Low Drainage Area26 Possible Debris Burial Site27 Drum Storage Area28 Disturbed GroundAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): The stateagency responsible for protecting public health, safety, welfare, and theenvironment from adverse effects of environmental contamination.CERCLA: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (also known as Superfund). The federal law that guidescleanup of hazardous waste sites.Formerly Used Defense Site Program (FUDS): A Department ofDefense program to correct environmental damage caused by pastmilitary activities.Proposed Plan: A document informing Tribes, community leaders, andthe public about contaminated sites, cleanup alternatives that wereconsidered, and which alternatives were identified as the preferredalternatives.Decision Document: Identifies the selected remedy for a site, therationale for its selection, and includes responses to public comments.July 2004o Page 2Inc., in Gambell, Alaska, and the Savoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga, Alaska. NonNative land on St. Lawrence Island is limited to state land used for airstrips and related facilitiesin Gambell and Savoonga. During the 1950s, the military constructed and operated facilities inGambell as part of a surveillance and intelligence gathering network.Gambell is inhabited primarily byNative St. Lawrence Island Yupikpeople, who lead a subsistencebased lifestyle. The Gambell areasupports habitat for a variety ofseabirds, waterfowl, and mammalsthat either breed in or visit thearea. The area surrounding the topof Sevuokuk Mountain, above theVillage of Gambell, supports alarge bird rookery. The birds andbird eggs serve as a subsistencefood source for local inhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is used extensivelyfor subsistence hunting of whales, walrus, seals, sea birds, and fish.Figure 2 – Gambell Location mapEnvironmental Investigation and Cleanup HistoryEnvironmental investigations and cleanupactivities at Gambell have been ongoingsince the mid 1980’s. The actions presentedin this Proposed Plan are based largely onthe investigations from 1994 to the present.The investigations have been performed inmany phases, with each new phase buildingon the previous phases. The goals of theinvestigations were to locate and identifyareas of contamination and to gather enoughinformation to develop a cleanup plan.The results of the studies are summarized inthis Proposed Plan. The original documentscan be found in the Administrative Recordlocated at the USACE Office on ElmendorfAir Force Base or at the InformationRepositories located in Gambell, Savoonga,Nome, and Anchorage.Administrative Record: A collection of historicaldocuments such as reports, studies, and maps whichsupport the final cleanup decision for a site.Feasibility Study (FS): A study to develop andevaluate options for remedial action, using datagathered during the RI. The study defines the objectivesof the response action, develops remedial actionalternatives, and conducts an initial screening anddetailed analysis of the alternatives.Geophysical Survey: A method used to delineateunderground features such as metallic debris.Information Repository: A publicly accessiblelocation where historical documents are stored.Remedial Investigation (RI): A process to determinethe nature and extent of contamination. The RIemphasizes data collection and site characterization,includes sampling and monitoring, as necessary.Removal/Remedial Actions (RA): Actions taken toabate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, oreliminate the release or threat of release.The first major environmental study, the remedial investigation, was performed at Gambell in1994. The study separated the area into 18 sites. The results of the remedial investigationshowed that contaminants were present at some but not all sites.In 1996, Phase II of the remedial investigation was performed. In this study, additional soil andgroundwater samples were collected from Sites 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4B, 4D, and 5. The studyGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 3objectives were to further delineate the extent of contamination, estimate amounts of debris, andconduct a geophysical survey.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris from the island. After thisremoval action, frost jacking brought additional debris to surface. During the 1999 field season,Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI) performed additional cleanup activities at various sites inGambell. OSCI removed a total of 26.8 tons of hazardous and non-hazardous containerizedwastes such as asphalt drums, paint, generators, batteries, empty drums, and transformercarcasses; removed 71 tons of exposed metal debris such as runway matting, cable, fuel tanksand equipment parts; and excavated 72 tons of contaminated soil.In 2000 and 2001, the Army Engineering and Support Center (Huntsville) conducted extensiveresearch and investigations to locate possible ordnance and explosives materials left behind bythe military. During the field surveys, very little ordnance waste was found, consisting primarilyof highly weathered 30-caliber small arms ammunition at a beach burial pit southwest ofTroutman Lake.A supplemental remedial investigation was conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza during the2001 field season, to investigate the nature and extent of contamination at four newly identifiedsites, and verify previously collected confirmation data. The summary report recommendedfurther action at several sites, and no further action for others.REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND CLEANUP CRITERIAAs part of the remedial investigation process, the level of contaminants are compared to risk-basedscreening levels and applicable regulatory cleanup levels. The Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) regulates cleanup of contaminated sites, and has establishedsoil and groundwater cleanup levels (18 AAC 75). The soil cleanup levels for the majority of sitesin Gambell are the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on the Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestionpathway. The ADEC concurs with the selection of Ingestion cleanup levels.The soil cleanup levels for Sites 5 and 12 only are theADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on the Migrationto Groundwater pathway. The groundwater cleanuplevels for Sites 5 and 12 are the ADEC Table C cleanuplevels. Table 1 lists the cleanup levels for the Gambellsites. The selected soil and groundwater cleanup levelsfor all sites are risk based and designed to be protectiveof human health and the environment.Screening Level: A number used forcomparison with data collected during aremedial investigation. Screening levelscan be the most conservative ADEC TableB cleanup level (migration to groundwaterpathway) or a risk-based level publishedby the US EPA.Cleanup Level: A site-specific number,selected based on the most relevantexposure pathway.Cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwaterpathway were not selected for sites other than Sites 5and 12 because in general, continuous permafrost acts as a barrier for soil contaminant migrationto a groundwater zone. However, migration of contaminants can occur via seasonal groundwaterpresent in the active lens above the permafrost layer (suprapermafrost groundwater).Suprapermafrost groundwater has been sporadically documented within the village of Gambell(i.e. in the vicinity of Sites 6, 7, 16, 17, 18). The groundwater flow direction from these areas isnorth, towards the Bering Sea, a distance of about 1,200 feet away. The groundwater aquifer thatGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 4supplies drinking water to thecommunity is located at the base ofSevuokuk Mountain, approximately1,500-2,000 feet east of the village.Table 1. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup LevelsAll SitesSites 5 and 12SoilSoilDRO10,250 mg/kg DRO250RRO10,000 mg/kg GRO300Antimony41 mg/kg RRO11,000Arsenic5.5 mg/kg Arsenic2.0Beryllium200 mg/kg Cadmium5Cadmium100 mg/kg Chromium26Chromium300 mg/kg Lead400Copper4,060 mg/kgLead400 mg/kg GroundwaterMercury18 mg/kg DRO1.5Nickel2,000 mg/kg GRO1.3Selenium510 mg/kg RRO1.1mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgThe sites located at the top ofSevuokuk Mountain – Sites 4A and4B – are situated on bedrock. Verylittle soil is found at the top ofSevuokuk Mountain andgroundwater is expected to run offmg/Lmg/Lthe side of the mountain or entermg/Lbedrock fractures. It is unlikely thatgroundwater from Sites 4A and 4B could impact the drinking water aquifer at the base of themountain.Groundwater from the central gravel spit is not suitable as a source of drinking water.Groundwater in the gravels is often saline, difficult to recover in useable quantities, and locatedin an active lens over permafrost. Drinking water wells installed in the gravel have beenabandoned in the past. Groundwater encountered at the site has been limited in quantity, andonly intermittently detected. Permafrost in Gambell is commonly encountered at depths rangingfrom 3 to 15 feet below the ground surface. The village water supply is located at the base ofSevuokuk Mountain, on the far eastern edge of the gravel spit (see Figure 4). According to aState of Alaska hydrogeological investigation report (Ireland, 1994), the Gambell aquifer iscanoe-shaped, originating along the front of the steep bluff of Sevuokuk Mountain, andcontinuing down the hydrological gradient across a highly permeable gravel bar towards theocean. The aquifer appears to be a thaw bulb in the permafrost, and as the permafrost expands orrecedes, the aquifer dimensions vary. The influence of warm recharge water from SevuokukMountain has produced the thaw bulb effect on the area permafrost. The majority of the waterrecharging the aquifer originates from two springs that flow from the steep bluffs of themountain into the gravel. Shallow groundwater across the gravel spit does not appear to becontinuous because of the presence of shallow permafrost (Munter and Williams, 1992).Site contaminant levels were compared to theselected cleanup levels. The US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) recommends calculatingthe 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for sitespecific datasets. The 95%UCL represents areasonable estimate of the maximum concentrationlikely to be contacted over time.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 200495% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL): thevalue at which there is a 95% likelihood that95% of the dataset is below this value (e.g.the upper boundary). The UCL is alsoconsidered a reasonable estimate of themaximum exposure concentration.o Page 5Aerial view of GambellGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 6REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESThe Corps of Engineers considered the following remedial alternatives for each site:No Further Action. No further action (NFA) is a response action selected when no additionalremedial actions are necessary to protect human health and the environment, based onestablished cleanup levels and regulatory standards. NFA is also used as a baseline to compareother responses.Institutional Controls. Institutional controls make use of restrictions to minimize exposure tocontaminants at a site. The restrictions can be physical, such as erecting a fence, or take the formof land management practices, such as requiring special building permits or not allowinginstallation of new wells in a particular area.Site-specific Actions. A feasibility study (FS) evaluated alternatives for Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8,and 12. The FS provided a detailed analysis of four alternatives for Sites 8 and 12.§ No Action§ Debris Removal Only§ Debris and Lead-Contaminated Soil Removal§ Debris Removal and In-situ Treatment of Lead-Contaminated SoilThe Corps of Engineers evaluated remedial alternatives based on the nine evaluation criteriaestablished under CERCLA, as shown in Table 2.Table 2. Nine Criteria for Evaluation of Alternatives Under CERCLACriteriaDefinitionOverall Protection of Human Health and How well does the alternative protect human health and the environmentthe Environmentthrough elimination, reduction, or control of contaminated areas?Compliance with Applicable or Relevant Does the alternative meet cleanup standards and comply with applicableand Appropriate Requirementsstate and federal laws?Short-term effectivenessAre there potential adverse effects to either human health or theenvironment during construction or implementation of the alternative?Long-term effectiveness andHow well does the alternative protect human health and the environmentPermanenceafter cleanup, and area there any risks remaining at the site?Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, andDoes the alternative effectively treat the contamination to significantlyVolume through Treatmentreduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the hazardous substance?ImplementabilityIs the alternative both technically and administratively feasible? Has thetechnology been used successfully at similar areas?CostWhat are the capital and operating and maintenance costs of thealternative?Community AcceptanceWhat are the community’s comments or concerns about the alternativesconsidered and about the preferred alternative? Does the communitygenerally support or oppose the preferred alternative?State AcceptanceDoes the state regulatory agency (ADEC) support or oppose thepreferred alternative?Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 7SITE SUMMARIESThe following sections provide physical descriptions, investigative histories and preferredalternatives for each site. The general location of sites in the northern portion of Gambell isshown in Figure 3.Site 1A – North Beach, Army Landing AreaSite Description: This site is located in the central portion of the North Beach, where two wellestablished all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails intersect. The Army landing area was located east ofan area that is currently used by local residents to land or launch whaling boats. The siteconsisted of exposed surface debris including engine pieces, marston matting, weasel tracks,steel cables, a partially buried 100-foot crane, and other buried metallic debris which areperiodically exposed and reclaimed by shifting gravels along the beach area.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris fromSite 1A (5,545 pounds) and the surrounding beach area (3,630 pounds), including corrugatedroofing material, piping, marston matting, weasel tracks, protruding parts of a buried crane,engines, cables, and other miscellaneous debris.Investigation Summary: The site was investigated during the 1994 Phase I remedialinvestigation, including a geophysical survey to delineate landfill boundaries, installation of fiveFigure 3 – Overview of Northern SitesNorth Beach1CArmy Landing AreaBERING SEA23 Debris fromHigh School8C Navy LandfillWestBeach8BBuriedDebrisFormerCommunicationsFacility1AArmy Landfills22CAAHousingOld VillageArea25BLowDrainageAreaAir ForceLanding Area176MilitaryLandfillDrum StorageArea27 Former7 PowerFacility2625AS. Housing 1620FormerAir ForceRadar Site1BFormer MilitaryBurial Site2VillageWaterSupply4B34ECableDebrisFormer4A Quonset Huts20245Former21Buried TramwayFormerDiatomaceous DebrisMain4D FormerEarthCampTransformersHighSchool181915CityHall WasheterianiuNGambell Proposed Plan050010Air For ce Tr ail9 AsphaltDrums500Army Trai lns C abl e Rout eTroutman Laketioca8AMarstonMattingCommAir str ip111000 FeetJuly 2004o Page 8monitoring wells, and collection of subsurface soil, surface soil, and groundwater samples.Several soil and groundwater samples were collected in 1994. One surface soil sample wascollected and analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), BNAs, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals. Subsurface soil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Groundwater samples wereanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO,TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals.BNAs: base, neutral, and acidcompounds (includes PAHs)Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 1 to 9 mg/kg.DRO: diesel range organicsThe average concentration (95% UCL) for arsenic is 5.0GRO: gasoline range organicsmg/kg, which does not exceed the cleanup level of 5.5PAHs: polynuclear aromaticmg/kg. No other contaminants were detected in soil orhydrocarbonsgroundwater above screening levels.PCBs: polychlorinated biphenylsCleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levelsbased on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. There are nocontaminants which exceed the selected cleanup levels. Inaddition, Site 1A meets the more stringent ADEC cleanuplevels based on the Migration to Groundwater pathway.All dangerous surface debris was removed in 1997. Burieddebris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.priority pollutant metals: antimony,arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, mercury,nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc.RRO: residual range organicsSVOCs: semi-volatile organiccompoundsTRPH: total recoverable petroleumhydrocarbonsVOCs: volatile organic compoundsSite 1B – North Beach, Air Force Landing AreaSite Description: This site is located west of Sevuokuk Mountain, and approximately 1,900 feeteast of the Army Landing Area on North Beach. The site contained exposed surface debris, ruststained gravel, and a patch of tar-stained gravel. Additionally, buried debris may be periodicallyexposed as the gravel beach deposits shift or frost jacking occurs. This area receives a largeamount of ATV traffic due to its proximity to the bird rookeries on Sevuokuk Mountain visitedby local residents and tourists.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris fromSite 1B (105 pounds) and the surrounding beach area (2,865 pounds), including marston matting,empty drums, sheet metal, steel cables, and other miscellaneous debris.Investigation Summary: Site 1B was investigated during the 1994 Phase I remedialinvestigation, including a geophysical survey to delineate buried debris, installation ofmonitoring wells, and collection of surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples.In 1994, three monitoring wells were installed at Site 1B, to a maximum depth of 20.5 feet.Groundwater was encountered between 10 and 14.5 feet below ground surface. Subsurface soiland groundwater samples were collected from the three borings and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. One surfacesoil sample was collected from the rust-stained soil and analyzed for TRPH, BNA, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals. Petroleum hydrocarbons and lead were detected in soil, but did notexceed screening levels. Arsenic was also detected in soil at concentrations ranging from 2 to 7mg/kg. The average concentration (95% UCL) of arsenic is 4.8 mg/kg, which does not exceedGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 9the cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other chemicals were detected in soil or groundwater abovescreening levels.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. There are no contaminants which exceed the selectedcleanup levels. In addition, Site 1B meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway. Therefore, no additional actions are proposed. Alldangerous surface debris was removed in 1997. Buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.Site 1C – North BeachSite Description: This site covers the entire length of North Beach and consists of underwatermetallic debris located just offshore. The majority of the debris is thought to be marston mattingused to construct the two military landing areas. North Beach is the primary area used by localresidents for launching and landing boats.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris(10,105 pounds) from the entire length of the North Beach, including corrugated roofingmaterial, piping, marston matting, empty drums, heavy machinery parts, metal cables, and othermiscellaneous debris.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The remaining underwater debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.Site 2 – Former Military Housing/Operations Burial SiteSite Description: Site 2 is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the former Air ForceLanding Area on North Beach, and just west of the base of Sevuokuk Mountain (see Figure 3).Facilities associated with military housing/operations, and a power plant, were reportedlydemolished and buried at this site. Ordnance may have been buried here as well. Exposed debriswas observed at the site, including remnants of a rock fireplace, partially buried concrete pad,burned wood, scattered metal debris/gear, and discolored gravel.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 100 pounds of miscellaneousdebris from Site 2, and a large quantity (total of 1,740 pounds) of cable spools, wheel rims,corrugated metal, and marston matting from the vicinity of Site 2 (between Sites 1A and 3). OilSpill Consultants, Inc (OSCI) removed the remaining exposed debris in 1999, but attributed allquantities of debris removed to Site 3. OSCI also removed 24,982 pounds (12.5 cubic yards) ofpetroleum-stained soils from near Site 2. The actual location of the stained soil was adjacent to alarge rock at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 450 feet south of the Bering Sea/North Beach. This location was identified by Montgomery Watson as between Site 1A and 3.Investigation Summary: During the 1994 Phase I remedial investigation, a geophysical surveywas conducted, as well as installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and collection of surfacesoil, subsurface soil, groundwater, and asbestos samples.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 10Three monitoring wells were installedTable 3. Sampling Results at Site 2ChemicalScreeningResultsResultsAverageat the site during the 1994aLevel(1994)(1996)(95%UCL)investigation; subsurface soil samplesSoil (mg/kg)were collected and analyzed forDRO250ND - 28-VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, priorityTRPHNAND - 710-pollutant metals, PCBs, andArsenic23 - 11-6.5explosives. Groundwater samplesChromium263 - 391-82 – 165 bLead4001 - 7493.6-63206were collected and analyzed forWater (mg/L)VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, priorityTRPHNA0.5-pollutant metals, and explosives.Notes: NA not available, ND not detectedaSurface soil samples were also18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (August 8,2003)collected and analyzed for TRPH,brange of values based on non-parametric methodsBNA’s, and priority pollutant metals.Low levels of fuels were detected in the soil. Elevated levels of metals were also detected in onesurface soil sample above screening levels. Low levels of total hydrocarbons were detected inthe groundwater sample, but did not exceed ADEC cleanup levels. No other analytes weredetected in the groundwater or soil. No asbestos was detected in the fibrous material. Samplingresults are summarized in Table 3.Only one sample from 1994 exceeded the screening levels for chromium and lead. The 12 othersoil samples contained low levels of chromium (ND to 21 mg/kg) and lead (1 to 70 mg/kg).Chromium was not considered a contaminant of concern following the 1994 investigation.During 1996, further soil sampling was conducted to determine the extent of lead contamination.Eight surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for lead only. Sampling results areshown in Table 3. The 1996 results were significantly lower, indicating the 1994 sample was anisolated occurrence. The average lead concentration at the site does not exceed the ADECcleanup levels. The maximum chromium concentration is considered an outlier. See Table 3 fora summary of the Phase II results. Although the detected arsenic concentrations exceed theADEC cleanup level, the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appearassociated with past military activity.In 1999, OSCI collected a pre-excavation sample to characterize the stained soils for disposalpurposes; the sample contained gasoline and diesel range organics at 309 and 6,440 mg/kg,respectively. The concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the removed soils did not exceedADEC cleanup level based on the Ingestion pathway. No PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticide/herbicides, or leachable metals were detected. After OCSI removed a large quantity of stainedsoils, the Corps of Engineers stopped further excavation because the intent of the removal actionwas to remove limited stained soils associated with drums and other debris. The contaminationwas more extensive than previously indicated. In addition, the petroleum-stained soils were laterreported to originate from draining oil from locally ownedATVs. No post-excavation samples were collected,Leachable metals: Metals testedusing the toxicity characteristicbecause the Corps determined the stained soil wasleaching procedure (TCLP).erroneously included in the scope of work.Earth Tech, Inc. conducted two geophysical surveys at Site 2 during July and September 2000, todetermine the presence or absence of buried ordnance. First, the field team visually surveyed thearea and removed metallic scrap and debris from the surface. Next, metal detectors were usedmap the location of subsurface anomalies over three site grids. Each target location was thenGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 11further investigated, excavated and searched for the source of the metallic anomaly. No evidenceof any ordnance was found during the investigation.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. There are no contaminants of concern present abovethe selected cleanup levels. The arsenic concentrations are attributable to background, and thesingle chromium exceedance is considered an outlier. Furthermore, the observed petroleumcontamination may be the result of more recent oil spills that are not related to former DoDactivities. The partially buried concrete pad is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Site 3 – Former Communications Facility Burial AreaSite Description: Site 3 is located approximately 700 feet south of the North Beach, near thebase of Sevuokuk Mountain (see Figure 3). The preliminary assessment indicated the possibleburial of Jamesway huts, power plant generators, transformers, oils, batteries, and sulfuric acid.Exposed above-ground debris included metal debris (weasel tracks, marston matting), some pipe,empty drums, and anchors for guy wire.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 1,740 pounds of debris fromthe vicinity of Site 3, including cable spools, corrugated metal, marston matting, and cable wires.In 1999, Oil Spill Consultants removed an additional 3,030 pounds of surface debris, includingweasel tracks, 3 empty fuel storage tanks, marston matting and drums.Investigation Summary: During the Phase Iinvestigation in 1994, Montgomery Watsoncompleted a geophysical survey to determinethe extent of buried debris, installed twomonitoring wells, and collected subsurfacesoil and groundwater samples.Table 4. Sampling Results at Site 3ChemicalCleanupResultsLevel(1994)Soil (mg/kg)DRO10,250 a522Arsenic5.5 a3-6Beryllium200 a6Cadmium100 a7Mercury18 b11Selenium510 a13Thallium5.5 d15Water (mg/L)Lead0.015 c0.045Lead, dissolvedND (0.002)Results(1996)ND (2.52)The geophysical survey identified twodiscrete areas with suspected buried material.ND (0.28)The monitoring wells encounteredgroundwater at depths of 8 to 9 feet belowground surface. An analysis of thegroundwater gradient indicated a northerlyNotes:a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (August 8, 2003)flow direction. Subsurface soil samples wereb18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Inhalation (August 8, 2003)ccollected at depths of 2.5 and 5 feet, and18AAC75, Table C (August 8, 2003)dUS EPA Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (April 4, 2004)analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,priority pollutant metals, PCBs, sulfate/sulfur, and pH. A low level of DRO was detected. NoVOCs or PCBs were detected. Several metals were detected in the soil, including arsenic,beryllium, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and thallium. Beryllium and thallium exceeded initialscreening levels, and further sampling was conducted during the Phase II investigation. Table 4summarizes the sampling results from Site 3.Lead was detected in groundwater from MW10 at a concentration which exceeds the ADECTable C groundwater cleanup value. However, a filtered sample from this well did not containGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 12any dissolved lead. A second monitoring well, MW09, located immediately downgradient ofMW10 did not contain detectable levels of lead in the groundwater. Both monitoring wells arelocated downgradient of the village drinking water supply well. Lead was not identified as acontaminant of concern, and no further groundwater sampling was performed at Site 3 after thePhase I investigation.Additional investigation for beryllium and thallium was conducted during the 1996 Phase IIinvestigation. Four surface soil samples were collected; the results were all below detectionlimits. The thallium results from 1994 were determined to be anomalous and spatially limited.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. There are no contaminants of concern present abovethe cleanup levels. All dangerous surface debris has been removed. The buried debris is noteligible for further action under FUDS.Site 4A – Former Quonset Huts near USAF Radar StationSite Description: Site 4A consisted of collapsed Quonset Huts frames and transformer casingslocated on the top of Sevuokuk Mountain.Site 4A after removal actionCleanup Actions to Date: In 1997,Montgomery Watson removed the three emptytransformer carcasses. In 1999, OSCI removed14,772 pounds (7.4 tons) of debris, includingtwo collapsed Quonset hut frames, metal siding,drums, and associated stained soil (1,877pounds).Investigation Summary: This area was studiedduring the 1994 investigation. Three surfacesoil samples were collected adjacent to thefallen transformers and analyzed for PCBs.Asbestos samples were also taken around thefallen Quonset huts. No PCBs or asbestoscontaining material (ACM) were detected in thesoils.OSCI collected confirmation soil samples from within and outsideof the two Quonset hut footprints following the removal action.The samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO/RRO/GRO), VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, andResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004RCRA metals: arsenic,barium, cadmium, chromium,lead, mercury, selenium, silver.o Page 13The 1999 confirmation samples containedTable 5. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 4AChemicalCleanupHighestHighestsome elevated diesel range organics andaLevelConcentrationConcentrationmetals. Arsenic, chromium, and lead(1999)(2001)were detected at concentrations exceedingSoil (mg/kg)the ADEC cleanup levels. AArsenic5.58.33.9supplemental investigation was done inChromium30039112.12001 at Site 4A to verify the previousLead40042244DRO10,2501,310970confirmation sampling results. FourNotes:samples were collected based on fielda18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (August 8, 2003)screening results and analyzed forpetroleum hydrocarbons and RCRA metals. All chemicals were below ADEC cleanup levels.Table 5 summarizes the confirmation soil sampling results from Site 4A. No significant volumeof contaminated soil remains at the site. The area consists of large boulders on top of bedrockwith small amounts of soil.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred alternative: No Further Action. All hazardous debris and contaminated soil wereremoved during the 1997 and 1999 field seasons. Site 4A has been cleaned up to extent feasible,as there is minimal soil above bedrock.Site 4B – Former USAF Radar StationSite Description: Site 4B was a US Air Force (USAF) radar station, located on top of SevuokukMountain. The site covered an area approximately 375 feet by 500 feet. The radar stationconsisted of buildings that burned and caused ordnance to explode and scatter debris.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, OSCI excavated 52 tons of contaminated soil to a depth of24 inches; and removed 1.4 tons of miscellaneous metal debris from Site 4B. The excavationarea was approximately 29 by 37 feet, partly covered by boulders, with localized heavy stainingand an oily substance.Investigation Summary: During the first phase of investigation in 1994, soil samples werecollected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), PCBs, priority pollutant metals,BNAs, and dioxin/furans. The Phase I sampling results identified elevated concentrations ofmetals and dioxins. During the 1996 Phase II investigation, four additional surface soil sampleswere collected from the edges of the stained soil area to delineate the extent of metalscontamination. Samples were analyzed for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, and lead. Theresults were significantly lower than those detected during the Phase I. See Table 6 for acomparison of results.Confirmation samples collected after the 1999 soil excavation were analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/GRO), VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals (antimony, arsenic,cadmium, copper and lead), and dioxin/furans. Sampling results are shown in Table 6. Theconcentration of dioxins decreased significantly as a result of removing the soils.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 4B to verify the 1999 confirmationsampling results because the referenced latitude and longitude coordinates were not documentedGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 14Table 6. Comparison of Maximum Concentrations of Contaminants of Concern in Soil at Site 4BChemicalUnits199419961999 pre1999 post2001 postADECresultsresultsexcavationexcavationexcavationcleanupresultsresultsresultslevelaAntimonymg/kg130ND (15) -3.3-41Arsenicmg/kg3817-1.64.35.5Cadmiummg/kg526-1.80.4100Coppermg/kg26,6001,900-6,940-4,060b7,000c7,800dLeadmg/kg3,24984011.7 mg/L39696400(TCLP)Total Dioxinsµg/kg51.2-26234-NA(TEQ)Diesel Rangemg/kg--46913,90010,00010,250Organics (DRO)Residual Rangemg/kg--2,11090520010,000Organics (RRO)TRPHmg/kg690----NANotes:ND – non detect, TEQ – total dioxin/furan equivalent, TCLP – toxicity characterization leaching procedure, NA – not availablea18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, ingestion pathway (August 8, 2003)bAdditional Cleanup Levels, ADEC Technical Memorandum 01-007 (November 24, 2003), ingestion pathwaycAdditional Cleanup Levels, ADEC Technical Memorandum 01-007 (November 24, 2003), migration to groundwater pathwaydU.S. EPA, Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (April 14, 2004), residential soilby OSCI. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/GRO) and RCRA metals. The results are shown in Table 6. Antimony and copper were notanalyzed for in 2001 because they are not part of the standard set of 8 RCRA metals (arsenic,barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver).The 1999 results showed only 1 out of 6 samples exceeded the ADEC Table B cleanup level of4,060 mg/kg for copper, based on the ingestion pathway. The highest concentration of copper inthe remaining samples was 65.7 mg/kg. However, the maximum concentration of copper doesnot exceed the ADEC Table B cleanup level of 7,000 mg/kg based on the migration togroundwater pathway, or a risk-based concentration of 7,800 mg/kg for residential soil publishedby the US EPA, Region 3. The 1999 sample with elevated copper also contained lead. Furthersampling in 2001 indicated lead at much lower levels, but copper was not included in theanalytical suite.Site 4B (post-excavation)Cleanup Objective: The Feasibility Studyevaluated remedial action objectives for Site4B. Site 4B is located at the top ofSevuokuk Mountain, and is situated onbedrock. Very little soil is found at the topof Sevuokuk Mountain and groundwater isexpected to run off the side of the mountainor enter bedrock fractures. It is unlikelythat water from Site 4B would impact theaquifer at the base of the mountain.Therefore, the ADEC Table B soil cleanuplevels based on the Ingestion pathway wereselected.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 15Preferred Alternative: No further action. No contaminants of concern remain above cleanuplevels. The elevated copper is an isolated occurrence, and de-minimus quantities of soil remainat Site 4B. The contamination does not pose a potential threat to the public drinking watersupply located southwest of the Site at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, because the predominantdrainage pathway is north towards the Bering Sea.Site 4C – Sevuokuk MountainSite Description: Site 4C is located at the south end of Sevuokuk Mountain, and containeddiscarded drums along an ATV trail.Cleanup Actions to Date: Scattered drums were collected from along ATV trails and thesurrounding tundra at the southern end of Sevuokuk Mountain by OSCI during the 1999 fieldseason. OSCI removed a total of 12,516 pounds of drums and drum parts from the Army Trails(Site 10), which included the drums identified at Site 4C.Investigation Summary: Samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs during the Phase Iremedial investigation. No PCBs were detected.Preferred Alternative: No further action. All hazardous debris was removed during the 1999field season.Site 4D – Sevuokuk MountainSite Description: At this site near the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, three empty transformercasings and miscellaneous debris were observed in a mountainside drainage above the pumphouse.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, Oil Spill Consultants removed the three empty transformersfrom Site 4D. Wipe samples collected from inside each transformer carcass did not contain anyPCBs.Investigation Summary: During the 1994 investigation, one soil and four sediment sampleswere collected and analyzed for PCBs. No PCBs were detected in the samples collected adjacentto the empty transformers. A background sample collected upgradient contained 0.194 mg/kgPCBs. In 1996, groundwater from a former infiltration gallery just downslope of Site 4D wassampled and analyzed for BTEX and PCBs. No contaminants were detected in the groundwater.Preferred Alternative: No further action. All hazardous debris was removed during the 1999field season.Site 4E – Western Face of Sevuokuk MountainSite Description: Various types of cable and wire are present on the ground surface along thesloped western face of Sevuokuk Mountain. The Native Village of Gambell identified this areaas an impacted site during preparation of a strategic project implementation plan for the NativeAmerican Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 16Preferred Alternative: No further action. The debris is not eligible for further action underFUDS. However, NALEMP plans to address the remaining debris at this site.Site 5 – Former Tramway SiteSite Description: Site 5 is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, northeast of TroutmanLake and near the Village water supply. The site was suspected to contain buried tram cables ortransformers.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1997, the two geophysical anomalies were excavated. Oneanomaly contained debris from an abandoned Quonset hut and a battery, which were removed byMontgomery Watson and shipped off-site for disposal. The second anomaly contained seven 55gallon drums filled with gravel and wrapped with wire cable, apparently used as anchors for theformer tram system. No soil contamination was evident. The drum anchors were left in placeand reburied.Investigation Summary: Geophysical surveys were conducted in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Duringthe Phase I investigation (1994), four soil borings and two monitoring wells were installed at Site5. Soil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), prioritypollutant metals, and PCBs. Groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbonsand PCBs.The Phase I investigation results indicated DRO was present above screening levels in soil fromone monitoring well (MW16). Trace levels of DRO and TRPH were also detected in thegroundwater from this monitoring well, but did not exceed ADEC cleanup levels. Table 7summarizes the sampling results, and Figure 4 shows the monitoring well locations.Table 7. Sampling Results at Site 5Cleanup MW16 MW16Level a(1994)(1996)VillageWaterSupply(1997)MW28(1998)MW29(1998)MW30(1998)MW31(1998)MW32*(1998)VillageWaterSupply(1998)----8.79.7ND(4.1)ND(4.1)ND(4.1)----------0.87ND(10)--ND(5.2)ND(10)--ND(5.2)ND(10)--1.3ND(10)--ND(5.2)ND(10)------Groundwater (mg/L)DRO1.50.1050.58ND(0.1)ND(0.1)ND(0.1)1.90.11ND (0.1)to 0.07GRO1.3--TRPHNA0.4--ND(0.1)ND(0.25)--0.0261.1ND(0.1)ND(0.25)--0.054RROND(0.05)--0.124and0.103ND(0.04)ND(1.49)--ND(0.25)--ND(0.25)--ND(0.1)ND(0.25)--ND(0.05-0.1)ND(0.2-1.0)--Soil (mg/kg)DRO250GRORROTRPH30011,000NA1,160to1,800ND(5)-800 to1,430--Notes: ND non detect, NA not available, * MW32 is a replacement for MW16a18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater or Table C (August 8, 2003)Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 17A second phase of investigation was conducted from 1996-1998, due to concerns about possibleimpacts to the local water supply well. In 1996, groundwater from the two original monitoringwells (MW15 and MW16) was resampled and analyzed for DRO and VOCs. DRO was detectedin MW16. Sampling results are shown in Table 7. A geophysical survey also identified twoanomalies which indicated the presence of buried metallic debris at Site 5.In 1997, groundwater samples were collected from the Village water supply well before and afterthe excavation activities. Very low concentrations of DRO were detected in the water well;RRO, GRO, PCBs, and BTEX were not detected. Sampling results are shown in Table 7.In 1998, five additional monitoring wells and four soil borings were completed. Groundwaterand soil samples were collected and analyzed for DRO, GRO, RRO, BTEX, and PAHs. DROwas detected in two monitoring wells, MW31 and MW32 (a replacement for MW16). PAHs,RRO and BTEX were not detected in any of the groundwater samples. DRO was detected in soilat low levels in two locations, MW28 and MW29. Sampling results are shown in Table 7.Although DRO exceeded the ADEC groundwater cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L at MW31, there isno known source of contamination. No contamination was found above cleanup levels in the soilat MW31, or in either the soil or groundwater at an upgradient monitoring well (MW28) or theVillage Water Supply well. All the soil sampling results indicated contaminants were belowADEC regulatory levels.Monitoring well MW31 is located 185 feet cross-gradient (northwest) from the Village watersupply well, near the edge of the local aquifer. During monitoring well water measurementstaken in December 1998, the groundwater in this well was frozen, confirming its location at thefringe of the aquifer. The water depth at MW31 was 12 feet below ground surface, compared toFigure 4 – Groundwater contours and wells at Site 5¬N4.7 51994 GW contoursOct 1998 GW contoursAquifer boundary3 .4MW14ð3 .54.8MW30ð3.74.853. 63.94.0ArchaelogicalSite4.1A TVTraATVMW314.95MW28il3.8ð 4.9MW15ðTra ilðNewVillageWellToe ofSevuokukMountain³SB34##³ð MW32ðMW16³ SB33#SB36ðMW2950050 FeetGambell Proposed PlanSpringJuly 2004o Page 18about 18 feet below ground surface for the village water well intake, demonstrating that MW31is located in the shallower portion of the aquifer. Groundwater gradients measured on 5occasions during 1994 and 1998 all indicate the flow is northeast towards the Bering Sea. Figure4 shows the groundwater flow direction at Site 5.The DRO detected in soils at MW16 in the earliest phase of investigation has not beensubstantiated by subsequent sampling, and appears to be an isolated occurrence which is notimpacting the local water supply. The Village water supply well has been sampled on multipleoccasions and has not contained significant DRO contamination.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Migration to Groundwaterpathway, and the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels.Preferred Alternative: No further action. However, one additional round of groundwatersampling will be conducted to confirm groundwater does not exceed ADEC Table C cleanuplevels. Existing monitoring wells at Site 5 will be sampled at upgradient and downgradientlocations to verify that diesel range organics are not impacting the Village water supply well.Site 6 – Military LandfillSite Description: Site 6 is located northof the Gambell High School and east ofthe new housing area. This landfill wasused to dispose of building materials,vehicles, machinery, drums of latrinewaste, and miscellaneous debris.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, OSCIremoved exposed drums (7,897 pounds)and other metal debris (1,748 pounds).Debris excavated from Site 6 in 2003In 2003, NALEMP funded a removalaction at Site 6. Montgomery Watson Harza(MWH) excavated and removed buried debrisat the site, including empty 55-gallon drumsused to containerize latrine waste, engine parts,vehicle parts, marston matting, metal spikes,piping, tin cans, miscellaneous householdgarbage, and used oil filters. According to thefinal report (MWH, 2004), approximately 1,000drums and other debris, and 2.5 tons of fuelcontaminated soils were excavated. There wasno notable evidence of fuel contaminationassociated with the buried debris.Table 8. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalResults(1994)Groundwater (mg/L)DRO0.46 to 0.75Arsenic0.03 to 0.05Beryllium0.007Cadmium0.007 to 0.008Chromium0.107 to 0.364Chromium, dissolved0.006Lead0.12 to 0.172Lead, dissolved0.008Nickel0.08 to 0.153ScreeningLevel a1.50.050.0040.0050.10.0150.1Notes: a18AAC75, Table C (August 8, 2003)Investigation Summary: In 1994, a Phase I investigation was performed, including ageophysical survey to delineate the extent of buried debris, and collection of groundwatersamples. Five borings were drilled at Site 6; two borings encountered melted porewater whichGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 19was sampled through the auger. The groundwater samples were analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, metals, sulfate, biological oxygen demand (BOD),coliform, and total suspended solids/total dissolved solids (TSS/TDS). Low levels of dieselrange organics and several metals were detected in the groundwater. Table 8 summarizes thesampling results. Metals were mostly detected in unfiltered water samples, and attributed tonaturally occurring levels of metals in soil particles suspended in the water column. Thesuprapermafrost groundwater at Site 6 is not considered a likely source of drinking water.After removing surfacedebris from the site in1999, OSCI collected aconfirmation soil samplefrom beneath theremoved drum stockpile.The soil contained nometals, fuels, solvents,PCBs, or pesticidesabove ADEC cleanuplevels.Table 9. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalCleanupConfirmationLevel aSample(1999)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic5.55.3Antimony41Chromium3001.33Nickel2,000DRO12,250ND(9.35)ConfirmationSamples(2001)Soil Borings(2001)6-7.73.7-13.27.359120ND(5)-1,2003-6.3ND(0.5) -21Notes: ND non detect.a18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (August 8, 2003)In 2001, a supplemental investigation was conducted to verify the OSCI sampling results and tofurther define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination. Two surface soilsamples were collected from the approximate location of the 1999 confirmation sample, andanalyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and RCRA metals. Sampling results are shown in Table 9.Five soil borings were also advanced to frozen soil during the2001 field effort. Groundwater was not encountered in any ofthe soil borings. Soil samples were collected and analyzed forGRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, and target analyte list (TAL)metals. Sampling results are summarized in Table 9. Thedetected arsenic concentrations exceeded the ADEC cleanuplevel. The average arsenic concentration was 7.5 mg/kg. Theobserved arsenic concentrations are consistent across many sitesin Gambell, and do not appear associated with past militaryactivity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples atconcentrations exceeding the applicableADEC soil cleanup levels.target analyte list (TAL)metals: aluminum, antimony,arsenic, barium, beryllium,cadmium, calcium, chromium,cobalt, copper, iron, lead,magnesium, manganese,mercury, nickel, potassium,selenium, silver, sodium,thallium, vanadium, zincCleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soilcleanup levels based on the Ingestionpathway.Preferred Alternative: No furtheraction. The observed arsenicconcentrations in soil are consistent withbackground levels and do not appearassociated with a point source ofcontamination. Groundwater has notGambell Proposed PlanExcavation of drums at Site 6 in 2003July 2004o Page 20always been present at Site 6 and detections of metals appear related to suspended sedimentparticles. The major source of potential contamination has been removed at Site 6.Site 7 – Former Military Power FacilitySite Description: Site 7 is located north of the Gambell Municipal Building, and west of theGambell School. A military power facility was reportedly demolished and buried in thislocation. A military motor pool building was also believed to be located in this vicinity. The sitecontained a concrete pad and surface debris.Cleanup Actions to Date: During 2003, MWH removed the concrete pad, underlying supporttimbers, a buried 55-gallon drum, and 1 cubic yard of incidental contaminated soils through theNative American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).Investigation Summary: A Phase Iremedial investigation was conductedduring 1994, which included a geophysicalsurvey to located possible buried debris, andcollection of soil and groundwater samples.In 1999, OCSI verified that no measurablequantities of surface debris remained at thesite. MWH collected additional soilsamples in 2001.The 1994 geophysical survey revealed nomajor anomalies indicative of large amountsof buried debris. Five soil borings wereSite 7 concrete pad and debris removed in 2003drilled to permafrost (6.5 to 15.0 feet belowground surface) and four were completed asmonitoring wells. Two surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, and priority pollutant metals. Subsurface soil samples were also analyzed for PCBs.Groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, priority pollutant metals,and PCBs. Figure 5 depicts the Site 7 sampling locations.The 1994 investigation results indicated DRO and TRPH were present in surface and subsurfacesoil. The DRO concentrations did not exceed the ADEC cleanup level. There are no ADECcleanup levels for TRPH. Table 10 summarizes the sampling results. No other analytes werepresent at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels.Three monitoring wells (MW24, MW25, MW27) were also installed into perched groundwaterpresent at Site 7, but they were essentially dry wells. A sufficient quantity of water could not bewithdrawn from MW27, and the sample was only submitted for analysis of VOCs, DRO, andpriority pollutant metals. Groundwater was not encountered in MW24, but a monitoring wellwas installed by drilling down into the ice to create a reservoir which would collect meltedgroundwater. A fourth well (MW26) was abandoned without collecting a groundwater sampledue to lack of water. Suprapermafrost groundwater was collected from the three wells. DRO,GRO and TRPH were detected in the groundwater. Benzene was also detected in monitoringwell MW24. The DRO and benzene results exceed the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanupGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 21levels. Table 10summarizes the soiland groundwater resultscollected from the Site7 monitoring wells.Table 10. Sampling Results at Site 7 during 1994 investigationChemicalMW24MW25MW26MW27Soil (mg/kg)DRO20-941GRONDTRPH13-180BenzeneND (0.005)Groundwater (mg/L)DRO18.4GRO0.844TRPH4.2Benzene0.01920-271ND400-1,300ND (0.005)18-1,840ND115-13,000ND (0.005)NDNDND-162ND (0.005)ADECLevel a10,2501,400NA150Additional soil boringswere drilled in 2001 to19.4-1.181.5further investigate the--0.1031.3nature and extent of--1.1NAsoil andND (0.0005)-ND (0.0005)0.005suprapermafrostNotes: NA not available, ND not detected, -- not analyzed fora18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion, or Table C cleanup levels (August 8, 2003)groundwatercontamination, and to address continuing community concerns regarding Site 7. Three soilborings (SB7-18, SB7-19, SB7-20) were drilled to permafrost (6.2, 7.2 and 10.0 feet bgs); butgroundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings. The soil samples were analyzedDRO, RRO, PCBs, and TAL metals. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 5.The 2001 investigation results showed DRO in one soil sample at a maximum concentration of710 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC ingestion cleanup level of 10,200 mg/kg. Arsenicwas detected at concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kg, with an average concentration of7.8 mg/kg. Six of the eleven arsenic results exceeded the ADEC Table B arsenic ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Although the detected arsenic concentrations exceed the ADECcleanup level, the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appearassociated with past military activity. PCBs were not detected in any Site 7 samples. No other³Figure 5 – Site 7 Sampling LocationsSB27-1SB27-2³SB27-3³HouseQ. BuildingMetal FreightContainers (former)Site 7#SS41#SS40MW26#³ SB7-18ðSB17³MW24Concrete Slab(removed 2003)07SL001 # ð07SL002 # # # 07SL00407SL003MW25³ð SB7-20##07SL005SB7-19#³FuelPipelineMW27ðGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 22analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrations exceeding the cleanup levels.The supplemental investigation demonstrated that the groundwater at Site 7 is ephemeral, andsoil contamination is below cleanup levels. The risk of contaminant migration east towards theaquifer located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain is extremely low. MWH abandonedmonitoring well MW24 during the 2003 NALEMP removal action. It is highly unlikely theother two monitoring wells (MW25, MW27) are still functional.After the 2003 removal action, MWH collected five confirmation soil samples from the edges ofthe concrete pad excavation and one sample from beneath the excavated drum. The five samplesnear the concrete pad containedarsenic levels ranging from 4.2 to34.9 mg/kg, which exceeds theADEC ingestion cleanup level of5.5 mg/kg, and may correspond toleached preservative from thetreated timbers used as a formsurrounding the concrete pad.One sample also contained DROat 570 mg/kg, which does notexceed the ADEC ingestioncleanup level of 10,200 mg/kg.This fuel may correspond toleakage from a community fuelpipeline present at edge of pad.Cleanup Objective: ADEC TableB soil cleanup levels based on theIngestion pathway.Removal of concrete pad at Site 7 in 2003Preferred Alternative: Excavate arsenic-contaminated soil from around the edges of the formerconcrete pad location. Dispose of soil at an off-site landfill. Collect confirmation samples andanalyze for arsenic. This alternative is protective of human health and the environment becauseit permanently reduces the risk posed by the soil containing elevated arsenic. The no furtheraction alternative was rejected because it would not meet established regulatory criteria, orreduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated soil. Implementation of institutionalcontrols or access restrictions are infeasible for the site because it is located in a high-traffic,residential area of town.Sites 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D – West Beach AreaSite Description: Site 8 includes the area surrounding the airstrip from west beach (north of theairfield), east to the western edge of Troutman Lake, and south to the northern shore of NorthNayvaghat Lakes. Marston matting (8A) is located along the eastern side of the airstrip. Buriedmiscellaneous metallic debris (8B) has been reported south of the old village area, includingnumerous 55-gallon drums and a Jeep. A Navy Landfill (8C) is located northwest of the formerCivil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) housing area and south of the village landfill. TheNavy reportedly constructed this landfill during their utilization of the former CAA housing area.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 23The Navy landfill may have asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Small-arms ammunitionrounds (0.30-caliber) are also located along the beach (8D) southwest of Troutman Lake. AnArmy landfill was also reportedly located northwest of the Nayvaghat Lakes area.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. removed surface debris from thearea, including scattered metal, small quantities of wood and concrete, and an exposed layer ofmarston matting approximately 30 feet wide and 4,500 feet long along the eastern side of theairstrip. OSCI did not complete the planned removal of the marston matting because buriedelectrical lines interfered with the excavation. Approximately 1,820 feet of metal marstonlanding mat remains at Site 8A. Earth Tech, Inc. recovered approximately 800 small armsrounds from Site 8D in July 2000, and shipped the material off-site to a facility in Colfax,Louisiana for disposal. Additional rounds remain in about 100 cubic yards of soil.Investigation Summary: In 1994, a remedial investigation was completed at Site 8 whichincluded a geophysical survey to determine the extent of buried debris at the reported Armylandfill, installation of one monitoring well, and collection of soil and groundwater samples.The 1994 investigation results indicated that all detected analytes in soil/groundwater werebelow ADEC cleanup levels. The geophysical survey results also indicated no significantanomalies, confirming the reportedMarston matting at Site 8AArmy landfill was not present.In 2000, Earth Tech, Inc. surveyed Site8D using metal detectors to locatepossible ordnance and explosivematerials. Highly weathered small armsrounds were documented in a beachburial pit southwest of Troutman Lake.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soilcleanup levels based on the Ingestionpathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action at areas 8B and 8C. These sites also meet the morestringent ADEC soil cleanup levels based on the Migration to Groundwater pathway. The burieddebris is not eligible for further action under FUDS. Remove exposed marston matting along theeast side of the runway (8A) and remove small caliber ammunition from the beach dump sitesouth of the airport runway (8D). Transport the debris to an off-site landfill or recycling facility.This alternative will involve sifting and/or hand-picking the ammunition rounds from thegravelly soils, and consolidating the marston matting. The Alaska Department of Transportationand Public Facilities will be coordinated with during removal of the exposed debris to ensureairport operations are not disrupted. This alternative effectively reduces the long-term physicalhazard posed by the debris.Other alternatives were considered and rejected during the feasibility study phase. The exposeddebris would continue to pose a physical hazard to local residents if no further action is taken.Site controls such as installation of fencing near the runway at Site 8A would requirecoordination with and approval from the landowner, the Alaska Department of TransportationGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 24and Public Facilities. Construction of fencing may adversely affect maintenance of airportlighting/ navigation aids or snow removal activities. Installation of fencing around Site 8Dwould also impede snow machine travel during the winter, when obstacles are difficult toobserve in poor weather conditions. Thus, access restrictions were not retained for furtherevaluation.Site 9 – Asphalt Barrel CacheSite Description: This site is located on the east side of the local airport runway. Drums leakingtar were observed in two areas. A debris inventory prepared by Montgomery Watson in 1997indicated drums containing asphalt (6,200 estimated pounds) and empty drums (900 pounds)were located within Site 8, which includes the area referred to as Site 9. The asphalt drums wereinitially attributed to non-military activities during the Phase I investigation and not investigatedfurther.Cleanup Actions to Date: Oil Spill Consultants overpacked and removed nine drums of asphalt(4,458 pounds) and associated stained soils (4,790 pounds) from east of the runway during the1999 removal action activities. All empty drums were also removed.Investigation Summary: OSCI collected one confirmation soil sample after removing theasphalt drums and stained soil. The sample was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO,GRO, RRO), VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and metals. The results indicated that allanalytes were below the cleanup levels or not detected.In 2001, two additional samples were collected to verify the 1999 results. The samples wereanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), and RCRA metals. Arsenic wasdetected at concentrations of 5.3 and 6.8 mg/kg, which exceeds the ADEC cleanup level of 5.5mg/kg. However, the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appearassociated with past military activity. All other analytes were below the cleanup levels or notdetected.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. All hazardous debris and contaminated soil have beenremoved from the site. Site 9 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 10 – Sevoukuk Mountain TrailSite Description: A trail system originates at the southeast end of Troutman Lake and separatesinto individual trails to the north, south, and east. Two trails lead to the top of SevuokukMountain. Empty 55-gallon drums located approximately 250 feet apart marked the trails.Other debris at the site included marston matting and weasel tracks.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, Oil Spill Consultants, Inc., removed all the scattered drums(12,516 pounds), miscellaneous metallic debris (1,388 pounds), and a small amount (540pounds) of stained soils.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 25Investigation Summary: During the 1994 remedial investigation, no staining or stressedvegetation was observed and the drums were either empty or contained gravel.Preferred Alternative: No further action. All hazardous materials and debris have beenremoved from the site.Site 11 – Communications Cable RouteSite Description: Site 11 contained a sonar cable going up Sevuokuk Mountain, abandonedcable spools, and a remnant of braided metal cable on top of the mountain. During the 1994investigation, the only evidence of sonar cables were some cable spools near Site 4D.Cleanup Actions to Date: OSCI removed the debris at Site 4D during the 1999 removal action.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The remaining debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.Site 12 – North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal SiteSite Description: Site 12 is located north of Nayvaghat Lakes on the southwest side of an allterrain vehicle (ATV) trail. The site is divided into a north and a south area (see Figure 7). Thenorth area contained approximately 120 drums, battery remnants, and household refuse. Thesouth area contained approximately 50 drums, including 18 drums full of garbage.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999,OSCI removed contaminated soil anddebris from the site including drums,dried paint, and batteries. OSCIremoved 798 pounds of metaldebris/drums, 8,702 pounds ofhazardous and toxic debris, and 7,237pounds of stained soil.Figure 7 – Site 12 and vicinityTroutman LakeUnnamed PondInvestigation Summary: The site wasinvestigated during the 1994 Phase Iremedial investigation. OSCIcollected soil confirmation samplesfollowing the removal activities.Additional confirmation samples werecollected during the 2001supplemental investigation.Site 12North AreaSite 8DSite 12South AreaNNorth NayvaghatLakesSamples collected in 1994 includedone surface water sample from NorthNayvaghat Lake, two groundwater,three surface soil samples, and twosubsurface soil samples. The soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, prioritypollutant metals, and PCBs. Groundwater and surface water samples were analyzed for VOCs,500Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 200405001000 Feeto Page 26GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. The concentrations of metals detectedin the soil samples were below background. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 4 to 10 mg/kg.The arsenic levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated withpast military activity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples. DRO and metalswere detected at low levels in surface water and groundwater, but did not exceed backgroundlevels or the ADEC Table C cleanup levels. Background levels for groundwater and surfacewater were determined from a sample taken from MW-14 located at the base of SevoukukMountain.Confirmation samples were collected aftercompleting the removal actions. Arsenic,cadmium, lead, and DRO were detected in soilat concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanuplevels. The sampling results are summarized inTable 11.Table 11. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 12ChemicalCleanupResultsResultsLevel a(1999)(2001)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic23–66 – 9.4Cadmium50.18 - 142ND(0.2) – 1.6Chromium262.6 - 205.7 – 162Lead40012.4 - 5627 – 1,530DRO250463ND(5) – 46In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork wasNotes: ND non detecta18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, migration to groundwatercompleted at Site 12 to verify the previouspathway (August 8, 2003)confirmation sampling results. Soil sampleswere collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, RRO), and RCRA metals.Arsenic, chromium, and lead exceeded the ADEC cleanup levels. DRO and cadmium were notdetected at concentrations exceeding the cleanup levels. The sampling results are summarized inTable 11. No other analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanuplevels. The arsenic levels at Site 12 are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do notappear associated with past military activity.Cleanup Objective: The cleanup levels selected for Site 12 are the ADEC Table B soil cleanuplevels, based on the Migration to Groundwater pathway. Site 12 is located between Troutmanand North Nayvaghat Lakes, and contaminants have the potential to impact subsurfacegroundwater or surface waters.Preferred Alternative: Excavate lead-contaminated soil, transport off-site for disposal at apermitted landfill. Since elevated levels of chromium and cadmium were detected in the samevicinity as the lead-contaminated soil, these contaminants will also be removed under thisalternative. Excavation and off-site disposal of soil will permanently reduce the potential riskposed by contaminated soils at Site 12.The no further action alternative was rejected because it would not reduce the risk associatedwith the lead-contaminated soil. There would be no reduction in the toxicity, mobility, orvolume of contaminated soil. This alternative would not meet established regulatory criteria.Implementation of institutional controls or access restrictions were determined to be infeasiblefor the site. In-situ treatment of the contaminated soils was also considered, but ultimatelyrejected due to challenges in implementation at a remote site and additional testing requirements.Treatment of the soil on-site may reduce the mobility and toxicity of the lead, but it will notreduce the overall volume of lead contaminated soil.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 27Site 13 – Former Radar Power StationSite Description: Site 13 is located east of the pond between Troutman and North NayvaghatLakes. The radar power station consisted of two wooden Quonset huts, one long woodenbuilding, and several 150 foot towers that were reportedly demolished and buried on-site.Stained soils and miscellaneous surface debris such as steel wire, pipes, and marston mattingwere observed at the site.Cleanup Actions to Date: In 1999, OSCI removed 343 pounds of miscellaneous metal debrisfrom surface areas at Site 13.Investigation Summary: Site 13 was investigated during the 1994 remedial investigation,including a geophysical survey to determine the extent of buried debris, installation of 3monitoring wells, and collection of soil, surface water and groundwater samples.The geophysical survey revealed strong anomalies around two mounds and scattered surfacedebris which are probably related to significant amounts of buried material. Subsurface soilsamples were also collected and analyzed for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO,TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Surface soil samples were collected and analyzedfor TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No analytes, except arsenic, were detected atconcentrations exceeding cleanup levels. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2 to 6 mg/kg, withan average concentration (95%UCL) of 4.5 mg/kg, compared to the ADEC Table B ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS. Site 13 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 14 – Navy Plane Crash SiteSite Description: This site is located approximately 7 miles south of the Village of Gambell. ANavy reconnaissance plane which crashed in 1955 remains on the tundra, with debris located inthe area immediately surrounding the plane. There were no apparent stains or any stressedvegetation at the site.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Site 15 – Troutman Lake Disposal SiteSite Description: This site was reported to contain submerged ordnance at the north end ofTroutman Lake.Investigation Summary: During 2000 and 2001, Troutman Lake was investigated usinggeophysical surveying techniques. The entire lake bottom was mapped along a series of transectlines, to detect underwater anomalies representative of piles of steel ammunition boxes. Metallicanomalies detected by the equipment were then further investigated using ice augers, depthGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 28sounding equipment, poles, and an underwater video camera to determine the source of the metalsignal. An open water investigation was also conducted to verify the anomaly source usingdredging anchors, depth-sounding leads, and an underwater camera. Anomaly locations within20 feet of the lakeshore were verified by visual inspection. The source of the magneticanomalies ranged from runway matting and 55-gallon drums, to geologic features such as iron orother mineral deposits. No evidence of ordnance or large piles of ammunition boxes wasdiscovered in Troutman Lake. Additional details regarding the ordnance investigation can befound in the report Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (Earth Tech Inc., 2002).Preferred Alternative: No further action. The remaining underwater debris (miscellaneousmetal debris) is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Site 16 – Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite Description: This site consisted of a 35 by 55-foot area of stained gravel, locatedimmediately west of the Municipal Building. The origin of the stain is unknown, and staining ismost visible after a rainfall event.Investigation Summary: Investigations were conducted during the 1994 Phase I remedialinvestigation, including a geophysical survey and collection of surface and subsurface soilsamples. Additional soil samples were collected during the 2001 supplemental investigation.The 1994 geophysical survey results revealed four small anomalies which may be related toburied materials. Surface soil samples were also collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), and priority pollutant metals. Subsurface soil samples wereanalyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Groundwater wasnot encountered in the soil borings. Arsenic results ranged from 2 to 7 mg/kg, with an averageconcentration (95% UCL) of 5.4 mg/kg. Only 1 out of 7 samples exceeded the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other contaminants were identified at Site 16.In 2001, four additional soil borings were drilled at the site based on community concerns. Thesamples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs or BTEX, andTAL metals. Fuels were not detected in any sample. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 3.6 to9.8 mg/kg. Only 1 sample exceeded the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg.The arsenic levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated withpast military activity.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS. Site 16 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 17 – Army LandfillsSite Description: The Army Landfills are located between the North Beach and Site 6 MilitaryLandfill, which is north of the Gambell School and Municipal Building. The two landfillsGambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 29reportedly contained buried debris and/or trash, as well as exposed surface debris such as drums,marston matting, and scrap metal.Cleanup Actions to Date: Exposed miscellaneous surface debris, including nodwell tracks,marston matting, steel cable and scrap metal, was removed by Oil Spill Consultants during the1999 removal action. The actual tonnage of debris removed was combined with Site 6 for a totalof 1,748 pounds.Investigation Summary: During the 1994 Phase I remedial investigation, a geophysical survey,installation of monitoring wells, and collection of soil and groundwater samples was completed.The 1994 geophysical survey results indicated the potential for buried debris associated with thereported landfills. In addition, five soil borings were completed to permafrost (7.5 to 10.5 feet).Monitoring wells were not installed at the site because well completion was impractical. Meltedporewater samples were collected through the auger and submitted for analysis of VOCs, PCBs,petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), and priority pollutant metals. No contaminantswere detected in the groundwater samples at concentration above ADEC Table C cleanup levels.Arsenic ranged from 2 to 6 mg/kg in soil, compared to the ADEC ingestion cleanup level of 5.5mg/kg. Only 1 sample out of 13 exceeded the cleanup level. The arsenic levels are consistentacross many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated with past military activity. No otheranalytes were detected in soil above screening levels.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The remaining buried debris is not eligible for furtheraction under FUDS. Site 17 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 18 – Former Main CampSite Description: This site is located at the northeast end of Troutman lake, between the currentMunicipal Building and east of the Gambell School.Investigation Summary: Investigations completed at Site 18 in 1994 include a geophysicalsurvey to determine the presence of buried debris, and collection of subsurface soil andgroundwater samples. A white powdery material was also observed in a berm which bordersTroutman Lake, and was determined to be inert, diatomaceous earth previously used for waterfiltration by the military (see Site 19).A geophysical survey completed in 1994 showed a linear anomaly in the center of the surveygrid, (between the high school and the washeteria). This feature was thought to represent buriedwater delivery lines for the existing Power Plant. One soil boring was drilled south of theanomaly due to the reported burial of discarded underground storage tanks in the vicinity.Subsurface soil samples and melted porewater were collected and analyzed for VOCs, petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. No analytes weredetected above screening levels. Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 2 to 5 mg/kg, anddid not exceed the ADEC Table B Ingestion cleanup level.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 30During the 2001 investigation, further sampling was conducted at Site 18 based on communityconcerns. One soil boring was placed adjacent to the north fence of the Municipal WaterTreatment/ Washeteria Building. The soil boring was advanced to 17.5 feet below groundsurface, and two soil samples were collected near the bottom of the boring. The samples wereanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metals. DRO wasdetected at concentrations ranging from 54 to 640 mg/kg in subsurface soil, which does notexceed the ADEC cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg. Arsenic was detected at concentrationsranging from 5.6 to 5.9 mg/kg, which slightly exceeds the ADEC cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg.Arsenic levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated withpast military activity. No other analytes were detected above screening levels. One well pointwas also installed, and free product was observed. The free product recovered from the wellpoint appeared clear and clean, and had the strong odor of fresh fuel, features not typical ofdegraded fuels from previous military activities. The free product (water) was not sampled.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.Site 19 – Diatomaceous EarthSite Description: Site 19 was identified as a separate area of concern by the Native Village ofGambell under the NALEMP program. This area coincides with the description of Site 18presented above. Diatomaceous earth is an inert material which does not pose a chemicalhazard, and thus cannot be addressed further under the FUDS program.Preferred Alternative: No further action.Schoolyard after rubble removed in 2003Site 20 – SchoolyardSite Description: Site 20 is located north ofthe former Main Camp (Site 18) near thecurrent Gambell School. The schoolyardcontained two rubble piles that consistedprimarily of concrete and rebar, plus apartially exposed concrete slab. The pilespresented a physical hazard to local residentssuch as children attending school, ATV andsnowmachine traffic.Cleanup Actions to Date: The rubble pilesand concrete pad were removed during August 2003 under the NALEMP program.Preferred Alternative: No further action.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 31Site 21 – Toe of Sevuokuk MountainSite Description: This area, located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and southwest of Site 5,is thought to contain buried miscellaneous wire and metallic debris from military activities.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.Site 22 – Former CAA HousingSite Description: Former Civil Aeronautical Administration (CAA) Housing units are locatednear the northeast edge of the Old Gambell section of the village. The CAA housing areaconsists of six homes and one lodge originally built as a weather data collection facility to helpguide Russian pilots during World War II. The Navy and Army also reportedly used the housingarea during the Cold War era during their efforts to lay submarine detection cables off the coastof St. Lawrence Island. This site was identified as a concern under the NALEMP program dueto the possibility that asbestos-containing materials may be present in the structures.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buildings are presently occupied and/or owned bylocal residents, thus they do not qualify for further action under FUDS due to beneficial reuse.Site 23 – Debris from High School ConstructionSite Description: This site was identified by local residents as a concern in the Strategic ProjectImplementation Plan (SPIP) produced for the NALEMP program. The area is located due east ofthe Gambell landfill and consists of metallic debris that was originally unearthed during theconstruction of the Gambell High School. The City of Gambell moved the excavated debris tothe local landfill for reburial. Removal actions undertaken by current landowners are not eligiblefor reimbursement or further action under FUDS.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.Site 24 – South of Municipal BuildingSite Description: This area is located south of the Municipal Building along the northern shoreof Troutman Lake.Investigation Summary: A geophysical survey of the site was conducted in 2000, andsubsurface anomalies consistent with metallic debris were found. During the 2001 supplementalremedial investigation, one soil boring was drilled to frozen soil. Two soil samples werecollected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metals.The results of the 2001 investigation showed that the soil samples contained arsenic atconcentrations of 5.7 and 6.3 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent across many sites inGambell, and do not appear associated with past military activity. Fuels were not detected in thesoil samples. No other analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the screening levels.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 32Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS. Site 24 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on theMigration to Groundwater pathway.Site 25A – Village of Gambell South Housing UnitsSite Description: Local residents identified the south housing units site as an area that may becontaminated by fuel-related products of military origin. During construction work performed in1997 by Alaska Village Safe Water, oily soils were encountered at the permafrost interface.Residents are concerned that the military may have dumped barrels of oil directly on the groundin this vicinity.Investigation Summary: During the 2001 supplemental investigation, six soil borings weredrilled to permafrost, based on the locations of buried utilities, depressions, trenches, anddisturbed ground identified by local residents and historical aerial photographs.Soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), andBTEX. A subset of samples were also analyzed for VOCs and TAL metals. The results werecompared to the ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway.Fuels, BTEX and VOCs were not detected above cleanup levels in any sample. Arsenic wasdetected at concentrations from 2.2 to 19.2 mg/kg. Two of the three samples exceeded theADEC cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. An analysis of the entire dataset from 2001 shows an averageconcentration (95% UCL) for arsenic of 7 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent across manysites in Gambell, and do not appear associated with past military activity.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The observed arsenic concentrations are comparableto background levels elsewhere on St. Lawrence Island, and do not appear associated with apoint source of contamination. Site 25A also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levelsbased on the Migration to Groundwater pathway.Site 25B – Low Drainage Area Southwest of ArmorySite Description: Local residents identified this site during the 2001 supplemental investigationas an area where contaminants may migrate and accumulate. The site is located west of theSivuqaq Lodge, southeast of the Gambell store and fuel storage tanks, and near a local churchand Army Guard building.Investigation Summary: Two soil borings were drilled to frozen soil (depth of 11 and 12 feet)to identify potential contamination. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), BTEX, and PCBs.The soil sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. No analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding thescreening levels.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 33Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. Site 25B also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanuplevels based on the Migration to Groundwater pathway.Site 26 – Possible Debris Burial SiteSite Description: Site 26 was identified from a 1953 aerial photograph as a possible debrisburial feature. The site is located east of the Gambell School near the Former Main Camp (Site18). Local residents reported finding metal debris, machinery, oily debris, and transformers inthis vicinity.Investigation Summary: During the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, two soil boringswere drilled to frozen soil. Soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metals.The results of the 2001 investigation showed arsenic at concentrations ranging from 3.6 to 7.7mg/kg in surface and subsurface soils. One out of four samples exceeded the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent across many sites inGambell, and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analytes weredetected above cleanup levels.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The observed arsenic concentrations are comparableto background levels elsewhere on St. Lawrence Island, and do not appear associated with apoint source of contamination. Site 26 also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels basedon the Migration to Groundwater pathway.Site 27 – Drum Storage AreaSite Description: Analysis of an aerial photograph from 1955 indicated this location was ahistorical drum storage area. The community was also concerned about an area of rust-stainedsoil at this site. The site is located north of the former military power facility (Site 7), within thenew housing area. The drums stored at this site have been removed.Investigation Summary: During the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, four soil boringswere drilled to frozen soil to determine if contamination was present. Samples were collectedand analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, PCBs, and TAL metals.The 2001 investigation results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based onthe migration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.4 to 16.9 mg/kg.The arsenic levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated withpast military activity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrationsabove screening levels. PCBs were not detected.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 34Preferred Alternative: No further action. The observed arsenic concentrations are comparableto background levels and do not appear associated with a point source of contamination. Site 27also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on the Migration to Groundwaterpathway.Site 28 – Disturbed GroundSite Description: Site 28 was identified from a 1972 aerial photograph as a disturbed area. Thissite is located south of Troutman Lake and west of an unnamed pond. The U.S. Army reportedlyleased this area from January 1955 to May 1958; however, the Army’s use of the land isunknown.Investigation Summary: During the 2001 supplemental investigation, two soil borings wereadvanced to frozen soil to determine if contamination was present. Subsurface soil samples werecollected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metalsThe sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 10 mg/kg. Thearsenic levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated with pastmilitary activity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrations abovescreening levels.Cleanup Objective: ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the Ingestion pathway.Preferred Alternative: No further action. The observed arsenic concentrations are comparableto background levels and do not appear associated with a point source of contamination. Site 28also meets the more stringent ADEC cleanup levels based on the Migration to Groundwaterpathway.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 35SUMMARY OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESThe preferred remedial alternatives for the 38 sites discussed in this Proposed Plan are:§§§§§No Further Action at Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 5, 6, 8B, 8C, 9, 10, 11,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28Excavate and off-site disposal of arsenic-contaminated soil at Site 7Removal and off-site disposal of exposed marston matting at Site 8AExcavate and off-site disposal of small arms ammunition at Site 8DExcavate and off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soil at Site 12Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 36Additional InformationAll supporting documents and detailed historical information can be found in the InformationRepositories located at:Sivuqaq Corporation Building (Lodge)P.O. Box 101Gambell, Alaska 99742Phone: (907) 985-5826Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.National Parks Service179 Front Street, Suite 121Nome, Alaska 99762Phone: (907) 443-6101Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Savoonga IRA BuildingP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769Phone: (907) 984-6414Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Alaska Resource Library and InformationServices (ARLIS)3150 C Street, Suite 100Anchorage, Alaska 99503Phone: (907) 271-4560Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.If you have questions about the information provided in this Proposed Plan, please contact:Mr. Carey CossaboomProject ManagerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska DistrictP.O. Box 6898 (PM-C-FUDS)Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898Phone: (907) 753-2689Fax: (907) 753-5626Email: Carey.C.Cossaboom@poa02.usace.army.milCommunity ParticipationYou are encouraged to provide comments on any of the alternatives presented in this ProposedPlan for the Gambell FUDS. A final decision on the alternatives for each of these sites will notbe made until public comments are considered. The USACE will prepare a written response toall significant comments and any new data submitted in reference to this Proposed Plan. Asummary of these responses will accompany the Decision Document and will be made availablein the Administrative Record and Information Repositories. Your comments can presentedeither in writing or at the following scheduled public meeting:Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2004Time: 7 pmPlace: Gambell, AlaskaThe public comment period ends August 23, 2004. A pre-addressed comment form is included.Gambell Proposed PlanJuly 2004o Page 37Glossary of TermsAdministrative Record – A collection of historical documentssuch as reports, studies, and maps which support the final cleanupdecision for a site. This file is available for public review.Aquifer – Rock or sediment in a formation that is capable oftransmitting significant quantities of water. Common aquifermaterial includes mixtures of sand, silt, and gravel.Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) –The lead state regulatory agency responsible for protecting publichealth, safety, and welfare, and the environment from adverseeffects of environmental contamination.Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements(ARARs) – Laws and regulations that establish cleanup levels forsites with contamination. ARARs include cleanup standards,standards of control, and other environmental protection criteria asspecified under federal and state statutes and regulations. ARARsmust be met (or a waiver approved) at a site to comply withCERCLA.BNAs – Base, neutral, and acid compounds (includes PAHs).Benzene – A colorless, volatile, inflammable, carcinogenic liquid(C6H6) used in a variety of chemical products, including motorfuel. Compounds containing benzene are called aromaticcompounds.Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) – Volatileorganic chemicals (aromatic compounds) that are constituents ofpetroleumBGS – Below ground surface.Cleanup level – The concentration of a hazardous substance thatmay be present within a specified medium (i.e., soil, groundwater,or surface water) without posing an unacceptable risk to humanhealth, safety, welfare, or the environment. ADEC providestabulated cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75 that are applicable tocontaminated soil and groundwater sites in Alaska.Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA) – The federal law, also known asSuperfund, that guides cleanup of hazardous waste sites.Decision Document – Identifies the selected remedy for a site, therationale for its selection, and includes responses to publiccomments received on the Proposed Plan.Diesel-range organics (DRO) – A mixture of organic compoundsfound in diesel fuel, jet fuel, and heating oil. Polynuclear aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), such as naphthalene, are included in thisrange. DRO are generally less volatile and less soluble than GRO.Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) – Properties that wereformerly used by the Department of DefenseGasoline-range organics (GRO) – A mixture of organiccompounds found in gasoline.Geophysical Survey – A method used to delineate undergroundfeatures such as metallic debris.Hazardous substance - A chemical that presents an imminent andsubstantial danger to the public health or welfare if it is released tothe atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, or land surface.Regulatory definitions can be found in CERCLA § 101(14) and102 and in the NCP40 CFR § 300.5.Information Repository – A publicly accessible location wherehistorical documents are stored.Institutional Controls (ICs) – Any type of physical, legal, oradministrative mechanism to restrict the use of, or limit access to,real property to prevent exposure to contaminants abovepermissible levels. The intent of the controls is to protect humanhealth, the environment, and the integrity of an engineeringremedy by limiting the activities that may occur at a particular site.Common examples of ICs include physical barriers to a site (e.g.,fences and signs) and land use restrictions (e.g., restricting theinstallation of drinking water wells).Method 2 Cleanup Levels – In 18 AAC 75, the State of Alaskaprovides four possible methods for determining soil cleanup levels.Method 2 utilizes tabulated cleanup levels (Table B1 and Table B2for soil and Table C for groundwater) that must be met for siteclosure. Meeting the tabulated cleanup levels is considered to beprotective of human health.Milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) – A solid concentrationmeasurement. One milligram of a substance in 1 kilogram of soil,which is also equal to a concentration of 1 ppm for that substancein soil (see definition for parts per million).Milligram per liter (mg/L) – A liquid concentrationmeasurement. One milligram of a substance in 1 liter of water isalso equal to a concentration of 1 ppm in water (see definition forparts per million).Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) – An environmentalcleanup strategy in which naturally occurring processes (alsoknown as intrinsic remediation) are allowed to cleanupcontaminants. Environmental sampling is used to monitor thecleanup process.MWH – Montgomery Watson Harza.Ethylbenzene –A colorless, volatile, flammable organic liquid(C8H10) with a sweet, gasoline-like odor used in a variety ofchemical products, including motor fuel.NALEMP – Native American Land Environmental MitigationProgram.EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency.National Contingency Plan (NCP) – The regulations that providethe structure and procedures for responding to discharges of oil andhazardous substances, as directed by CERCLA.Feasibility Study (FS) – An evaluation of site conditions andpotentially applicable remedial actions.No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) - A category ofsite response that identifies that no further remedial responseactivity is necessary to protect human health and the environment;thus no further remedial action will be performed there. NFRAPdiffers from site closure in that NFRAP sites require institutionalcontrols to restrict access to contamination remaining at the site;whereas closed sites are available for unrestricted use and access.NFRAP sites are tracked in USAF and ADEC databasesRemedial Action – Action taken to permanently eliminate, reduce,or control the hazards posed by hazardous substances, pollutants orcontaminants at a site.OSCI – Oil Spill Consultants, Inc.Remedial Investigation (RI) – An evaluation of site conditions todetermine the nature and extent of contamination. The RIemphasizes data collection and site characterization, and includessampling and monitoring, as necessary.Parts per million (ppm) - A unit of measure used to expressextremely low concentrations of chemicals in media such as soil orwater. As an analogy, one ounce of a chemical in a million ouncesof water is 1 ppm and is also equivalent to 12 seconds of time in aperiod of 12 days. Equivalent units for 1 ppm can be expressed as 1mg/L (water) or 1 mg/Kg (soil).Polyaromatic (or Polycyclic) Hydrocarbons (PAHs) – A class ofvery stable organic molecules made up of only carbon andhydrogen (benzene rings). They occur naturally in crude oil andrefined products (such as diesel fuel) and also occur as products ofincomplete combustion. Some PAHs are highly carcinogenic (e.g.,benzo(a)pyrene).Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – A group of toxic, persistentchemicals used in transformers and capacitors for insulatingpurposes and in gas pipeline systems as a lubricant.Priority Pollutant Metals – Antimony, arsenic, barium,beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.Proposed Plan – A document required by section 117(a) ofCERCLA that informs the public about alternatives that areconsidered for cleanup of a contaminated site and identifies apreferred cleanup alternative. The document encourages publiccomment on all alternatives.RCRA – Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act. The federallaw which regulates the generation, transport, and disposal ofhazardous wastes.RCRA metals – arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,mercury, selenium, and silver.Record of Decision (ROD) – As required by CERCLA section117(b), a document of the final cleanup decision under the sitecleanup rules. The ROD documents the rationale for selection ofthe cleanup remedy and establishes performance goals forachieving cleanup. A ROD issued by or for ADEC is similar to aUSAF Decision Document or an EPA ROD, but its format maydiffer. The format for an ADEC ROD is specified in the ADECGuidance on Decision Documentation Under the Site CleanupRules (July 1999).Residual Range Organics (RRO) – heavy-range petroleumproducts such a lubricating oils, with petroleum hydrocarboncompounds corresponding to an alkane range from the beginningof C25 to the beginning of C36 and a boiling point range betweenapproximately 400° C and 500° C (definition from 18AAC75.341)Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) – An advisory body withdiverse community representation designed to act as a focal pointfor the exchange of information between the USACE andinterested stakeholders.Responsiveness Summary – A summary of oral and/or writtenpublic comments received during a comment period and theresponses to those comments. The responsiveness summary is partof the decision document or ROD.Removal/Remedial Actions (RA) – Actions taken to abate,prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release orthreat of a release of contaminants.Screening Level – A number used for comparison with datacollected during the remedial investigation. They include the mostconservative ADEC Table B cleanup levels or a risk-based levelpublished by the US EPA.Site Closure – A written determination by ADEC that a site wasadequately characterized and achieved the applicable requirementsunder the site cleanup rules (18 AAC 75.380(d)(1)).SVOCs – Semi volatile organic compounds.TAL metals – Target Analyte List metals. Includes aluminum,antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium,chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,mercury, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium,vanadium, and zinc.TCLP – Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. A laboratorymethod used to determine the amount of a compound that could bepresent in water beneath a landfill.Ten Times Rule – a provision set out in 18 AAC 75.350 thatstipulates that cleanup levels may be adjusted in cases wheregroundwater is not considered drinking water. In order to use theten times rule, groundwater must meet criteria set out in 18 AAC75.350 considering the suitability of the aquifer for a drinkingwater source, historical and potential future use of the aquifer for adrinking water source, and the availability of alternative drinkingwater sources.Toluene – A colorless, volatile, flammable liquid, C7H8, used inaviation fuel and other high-octane fuels, in dyestuffs, explosives,and as a solvent for gums and lacquers.TRPH – Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – The agencyresponsible for cleanup of former military sites.Upper Confidence Level (95%UCL) – The value at which thereis a 95% likelihood that 95% of the dataset is below this value (e.g.the upper boundary). The UCL is also considered a reasonableestimate of the maximum exposure concentration.VOCs – Volatile organic compounds.Xylenes – A group of colorless, volatile, flammable liquids(C6H10) with a sweet odor that are used in a variety of productsincluding motorPUBLIC COMMENT FORMYour comments and suggestions on the preferred remedial alternatives discussed in thisProposed Plan are important to the Corps of Engineers. We will not select a final course ofaction until the public comment period ends and all comments have been reviewed andconsidered. You may use the space below to provide your comments. When finished, please foldand mail. A return address has been provided on the back of this page for your convenience.Comments must be postmarked by: August 23, 2004Name:Address:City/State/Zip:Telephone:(Use this space to write your comments)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AffixPostageHereU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska DistrictCEPOA-PM-C-FUDSAttn: Carey CossaboomPO Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 17
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 17, Date Received July 2023
Year: July 21-22, 2004
Pages: 26
Document Title: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska) Gambell FUDS Site Trip Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
A team from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps) traveled to Nome, Alaska, and the Village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island to conduct a site visit, hold a public meeting, distribute ordnance posters/pamphlets, conduct oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project, collect a groundwater sample, and move the Nome Information Repository to a new location. The objectives of the July 2004 trip included ongoing community relations activities, a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for Remedial Action in Gambell (FUDS), a site visit for the remedial design engineer, distribution of ordnance safety posters/pamphlets, and collection of a potential fuel free product sample from groundwater near the washeteria, and oversight of the ongoing NALEMP debris excavation activities.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 17, Date Received July 2023
Year: July 21-22, 2004
Pages: 26
Document Title: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska) Gambell FUDS Site Trip Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
A team from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps) traveled to Nome, Alaska, and the Village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island to conduct a site visit, hold a public meeting, distribute ordnance posters/pamphlets, conduct oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project, collect a groundwater sample, and move the Nome Information Repository to a new location. The objectives of the July 2004 trip included ongoing community relations activities, a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for Remedial Action in Gambell (FUDS), a site visit for the remedial design engineer, distribution of ordnance safety posters/pamphlets, and collection of a potential fuel free product sample from groundwater near the washeteria, and oversight of the ongoing NALEMP debris excavation activities.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat17SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 17," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United States ArmyCorps of EngineersAlaska DistrictPO Box 898Anchorage, AK99506-0898Trip ReportGambell FUDS SiteGambell, Alaska21 – 22 July 2004Prepared byLisa K. GeistEnvironmental Scientist29 July 2004F10AK069603_01.13_0501_a200-1eTrip ReportGambell FUDS SiteGambell, Alaska21-22 July 20041. GeneralA team from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps) traveled to Nome,Alaska and the Village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island to conduct a site visit, hold a public meeting,distribute ordnance posters/pamphlets, conduct oversight for the ongoing Native American LandsEnvironmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project, collect a groundwater sample, and move the NomeInformation Repository to a new location. The members of the team were:a. Lisa Geist, Environmental Scientist (CEPOA-EN-EE),b. Scott Kendall, Environmental Engineer, (CEPOA-EN-EE), andc. Carey Cossaboom, Project Manager (CEPOA-PM-P).The team traveled to Nome, Alaska on July 21, 2004 and continued on to Gambell in the afternoon. The teamreturned to Anchorage on July 22, 2004.2. PurposeThe objectives of the July 2004 trip included ongoing community relations activities, a public meeting todiscuss the Proposed Plan for Remedial Action in Gambell (FUDS), a site visit for the remedial design engineer,distribution of ordnance safety posters/pamphlets, and collection of a potential fuel free product sample fromgroundwater near the washeteria, and oversight of the ongoing NALEMP debris excavation activities.3. BackgroundThe Gambell site was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force from approximately 1948 until thelate 1950s, but was largely dismantled in the early 1960s. Various facilities around the village of Gambell wereconstructed to provide housing, communications, and other functions. All DOD structures were demolished,burned, or scavenged, and debris buried on-site.A Phase I Remedial investigation was started at Gambell in 1994. A Phase II investigation was completed in1997. A removal action was conducted by Oil Spill Consultants during the summer of 1999 to remove surfacedebris and contaminated soils. A Supplemental Remedial Investigation was conducted during 2001. A removalaction was completed in 2003 by Montgomery Watson Harza under the NALEMP program to excavate burieddrums and debris.4. Field ActivitiesThe major on-site tasks for the 2004 site visit were:a. Re-locate the Nome Information Repository from the National Park Service Building to a new location.b. Hold a Public Meeting regarding the Proposed Plan for Remedial Action in Gambellc. Collect a sample of reported free product from the vicinity of former soil boring location SB-18A nearthe local Washeteria building.2d. Observe the sites proposed for remedial action for design purposes, including Site 7 Former PowerFacility, Site 8A the airport runway and exposed marsten matting, Site 8D Beach Ammunition Debrispit, and Site 12.e. Document the status of existing monitoring wells at Site 5.f. Distribute pamphlets on Safety Around Military Ammunition to interested community members, hangeducational posters in prominent locations around town.g. Provide oversight to the Native Village of Gambell staff conducting the NALEMP debris excavationactivities.On Wednesday, July 21, 2004, Carey Cossaboom and Lisa Geist arrived in Nome around 9:30 am. They metwith Brad Bennett at the National Park Service office in Nome to discuss transferring the InformationRepository materials currently located at their office. The team organized the existing materials, then visited thecity library and the U.S. Army National Guard facility. Space was not available at these locations. The teamthen spoke with Gary Smith, Director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Northwest Campus. Gary Smithagreed to house the St. Lawrence Island documents at the campus library. Carey and Lisa were assisted bypersonnel from the National Park Service and completed moving the documents in the afternoon.On Wednesday afternoon, Scott Kendall joined the field team. The team arrived in Gambell around 4:30 pmwhere they were met by Hansen from the Sivuqaq Lodge and Edmond Appasingok from the Native Village ofGambell IRA (and local agent for Cape Smythe Airlines). Carey Cossaboom confirmed the meeting roomarrangements with the City of Gambell. Lisa Geist and Carey Cossaboom set up the meeting room at 6 pm,including the conference telephone, power point projector and laptop. The Public Meeting started at 7:15 pm.Additional details on the meeting are contained in the separate meeting minutes document.On Thursday, July 22, 2004, Lisa Geist and Scott Kendall walked to Site 18A and began to organize the wellpoint supplies at 8:00 am. Carey Cossaboom joined the field team at 8:45 am with a locally rented ATV. Thewell point location was determined by consulting with prior field notes, and eventually confirmed with anhistorical mark on the 8th fence post of the washeteria fence. A well point consisting of a 36 inch drive point,10-slot (0.01 screen size), 1 ¼ inch diameter, with 5-ft lengths of steel pipe risers. The well point was placed 3feet north of the fence, directly in front of the 8th fence post, approximately 75 feet east of the northeast cornerof the building (see photo log).Figure 1 – Well point installation at Site 18A.75 ft3 ftBldgFenceGreentankWhitetankAt 9:25 am, the well point was driven 14.5 feet below ground surface. The well point was tested for water usingthe bailer. The top of casing was measured at 45 inches. The water recovered in the bailer had a slight odor offuel, with grey silty water. The well point was pounded in an additional 1.5 feet. At 9:45 am, the well pointwas completed. The final top of casing measurement was 31 inches above ground surface. The well point was3tested again for water. A strong fuel odor was present in the bailer. The well point was left to rest for severalhours.At 9:45 am, Carey Cossaboom departed for a scheduled meeting with the Native Village of Gambell IRACouncil and NALEMP staff at their office building. Carey Cossaboom also took ordnance posters fordistribution to the IRA Building, Native Store, City Hall, Village Public Safety Officer, Washeteria, SivuqaqLodge, and Post Office.At 10:00, Lisa Geist and Scott Kendall traveled to the airstrip to view the exposed marsten matting. At 10:30am, the team encountered Bruce B., the local airport maintenance employee. Bruce mentioned that Pat Kellererwas the FAA/DOT contact in Nome. The exposed marsten matting is concentrated along the southern half ofthe eastern side of the runway. Towards the southern end of the runway, an exposed group of wires wasobserved (see photo log). According to Bruce, the power lines for the runway lights are buried underneath theasphalt runway. However, the FAA’s navigation aids appear to be connected by wiring which runs east of therunway (see sketch).Figure 2 - Marsten matting along east side of airport runway (Site 8A)The field team continued to Site 12 and Site 8D to observe current conditions. The location of Site 12 isadjacent to a fork in ATV trails south of Troutman lake. Some remnants of debris/trash were observed, but thelead-contaminated soil is not visible to the eye. Site 8D, the beach ammunition burial pits were located duewest of Site 12. Two kinds of ammunition were predominantly observed. The casings included both intact andpreviously ruptured shells.At 12:20 pm, the field team returned to the well point at Site 18A. The bailer was used to recover groundwater.The water had a slight fuel odor, but no visible free product layer. The water column was slightly silty at thebottom. Approximately 1 foot of water was present in the bailer.At 12:30 pm, the field team traveled to Site 5 to conduct an inventory the existing monitoring wells. MW28was located southwest of the fenced Village water supply well building, and found filled with gravel. MW29was located east of the ATV trail, and southeast of the water supply building. The well was locked, but would4require cutting of the lock to be opened. Slight frost jacking was observed. MW 32 was located due southeastof the water supply building. The top of the well was resting on the casing, no lock was present. Otherwise, thewell seemed in good condition. MW 15 was located northeast of the water supply building. This well is anolder vintage. No lock was present on the outer casing, but the interior well was capped with a white plasticPVC cap. MW30 was located northwest of the water supply building. The well was locked, but weathered inplace and would require cutting. Another monitoring well not related to previous remedial investigations wasdocumented due north of the water supply building. MW 14 was located further north from MW15. A plastictie secured the top of the protective casing, the lock had been previously removed. The protective casing ofMW14 was also loose.Five additional older vintage monitoring wells were observed north of Site 5 in the vicinity of Sites 2 and 3.The previous location of the POL-contaminated soil excavation at Site 2 was approximately located andphotographed. The area appeared discolored from campfire burning (ash), other local trash was visible. Justnorth of this area near rocks at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, more local trash was observed, including metalrims from discarded ATV wheels (see photo log). The team continued along the north beach and back to themain village area.At 1:45 pm, the field team returned to the well point at Site 18A to collect a groundwater sample. A slightsheen and fuel odor was observed from the water recovered from the bailer. The water was clear at the top ofthe bailer. Approximately 14 inches of water was recovered in the bailer. The total depth of the well point was224 inches (to top of casing). The top of casing was 31 inches above ground surface. The total depth of thewell point was 16 feet below ground surface. Water was encountered at approximately 14.5 feet below groundsurface.At 2:25 pm, the field team finished collecting enough water to completely fill two 50 ml amber sample jars,leaving no head space. The collected water had a definite sheen.At 2:30 pm, the top 5 foot section of pipe was unscrewed and removed. The well point was abandoned in placeby filling the remaining underground pipe with gravel.The field team returned to the Sivuqaq Lodge to complete paperwork and package the samples and cooler forreturn to Anchorage. Since the sample was not free product as originally anticipated, the cooler did not requirehazardous materials labeling. The sample was refrigerated at the COE and was transferred to chemist ChrisFloyd on Friday morning, July 23, 2004. The sample was shipped to the laboratory on Monday, July 26, 2004.At the end of the day, the field team observed the local NALEMP staff working on the excavation of burieddebris at Site 18, just east of the washeteria/water treatment complex. The local laborers were hand cuttingdebris and loading a staged connex at the job site. The team noted that the John Deere 744H Loader’s rearwindshield was broken, and required covering with plastic bags by the equipment operator. Several supersackswere observed, but appeared to be only partially filled with contaminated soil. Many black plastic garbage bagshad being used to containerize debris (later determined to be insulation) in piles. The excavation area was alarge pit, with some twisted Quonset hut metal frames visible. A portion of a fuel pipeline had also beenexposed near the washeteria fence. The job site area was marked with yellow caution tape. The local laborersmoved the debris using ATV trailers and then transferring the debris by hand into the front-door of a standardconnex box. The backhoe was also used to transport debris from the excavation pit location to the staging area.The field team left Gambell at 5:00 pm, arrived in Nome and then Anchorage by 10:30 pm.56. Conclusions and RecommendationsDuring this trip, the District team visited with community members, and toured various areas to prepare forremedial design activities based on the Proposed Plan. The team provided oversight to ongoing NALEMPdebris excavation activities. The free product noted in field notes/observations by previous contractor in 2001was not present at Site 18A. The public meeting was well attended and generated much discussion regardingsites either planned for remedial action or considered for no further action. The main issue of concern was thepossibility of buried ordnance near the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and underwater in Troutman lake. Adispute still exists over the adequacy of prior investigations by the Corps of Engineers and the memory of localresidents.Although the team did not spend a lot of time observing the ongoing NALEMP project, questions were raisedregarding their familiarity with the workplan, and the effective use of laborers, equipment, and communicatingsafe work practices.The information gathered will be used to help identify any remaining data gaps, respond to communityconcerns, prepare a decision document, and plan for future remedial actions.6Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 1-4: Well point installation at Site 18A, adjacent to fence along northern boundary of washeteria area.Photo 1- View southwest towards water treatment bldg Photo 2 - View southeast towards tanks.Photo 3 – view west, City Hall in backgroundPhoto 4 – view east along fence7Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 5-8: Vicinity of well point 18APhotos 5 and 6 - view southeastPhoto 7 - view southwestPhoto 8 - view west8Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 9: Sampling of well point 18APhoto 10: Well point abandoned in place. Top 5 feet of casing removed.9Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 11 - 14: Marsten matting along east side of airstrip (Site 8A)Photo 11- view southwestPhoto 12 - view southPhoto 13: view west, close upPhoto 14: view north10Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 15 - 17: Airport lighting/navigation aids (Site 8A)Photo 15: view north – ATV trail in backgroundPhoto 16: view east towards Troutman LakePhoto 17: detail view of power supply11Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 18 -20: Decaying drums at Site 8A, northern edge of exposed marsten matting area12Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 21: Exposed cables near southern end of airstrip. View southwest towards runway.Orange navigation aids / lights in background.Photo 22: close up of cablesPhoto 23: view north from southern end of airstrip13Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 24: Exposed marsten matting along eastern edge of Airstrip, looking south (Site 8A)Photo 25: Exposed marsten matting at Site 8A, view west14Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 26 - 30: vicinity of Site 12, south of Troutman LakePhoto 26: view eastPhoto 27: view southeastPhoto 28: view southPhoto 29: view northwestPhoto 30: view north towards ATV trails15Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 31- 26: vicinity of Site 8D beach ammunition burial pitsPhoto 31: view northeastPhoto 32: view east, Site 12 in distancePhoto 33: close up of small arms ammunitionPhoto 34: close up viewPhoto 35: beach gravelsPhoto 36: beach gravels16Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 37 - 40: Site 5, Monitoring Well #29Photo 37: Top view of MW29Photo 38: view north along trail and Sevuokuk Mtn.Photo 39: view north towards village water supply bldgPhoto 40: view east towards mountain17Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 41 - 42: Site 5, Monitoring Well #32Photo 41: close up of MW 32Photo 43: Site 5, MW#31, close viewPhoto 42: view northwest towards village water supplyPhoto 44: view east from MW3118Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 45: Site 5, unknown well, view southPhoto 47: Site 5, Monitoring Well #15,close upPhoto 46: Site 5, Monitoring Well #15close viewPhoto 48: view southwest from MW1519Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 49: Site 5, Monitoring Well #14close upPhoto 50: view south from MW14Photo 51: Monitoring well #30Photo 52: view south-southwest from MW3020Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 53 - 58: Site 2/3 – vicinity of 1999 soil excavation, local debris and campfire remnants21Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 59 - 60: Near north beach and Sevuokuk Mountain, local debris and ATV wheel rims.Photo 61: Fuel off-loading area at north beachPhoto 62: Pond/depression area located east ofCAA housing and north of the main village.22Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photos 63 - 65: NALEMP excavation activities at Site 18, east of the Washeteria complex. Views south andsoutheast towards Troutman Lake.23Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 66: Village of Gambell, view northeastPhoto 67: Village of Gambell, view east24Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 68: Aerial view of Gambell, view northeast, High School, power plant, and Sevuokuk MountainPhoto 69: Aerial view of Gambell, view northeast. Airstrip in foreground, Troutman Lake, Village in distance.25Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – July 22, 2004Photo 70: Aerial view of Gambell, view southeast. End of Troutman Lake, Nayvaghat Lakes, West beach.26 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 18
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 18, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 25 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: Memo and testing results of fuel spill (and disputed cause)
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Memo and testing results of fuel spill (and disputed cause), noted at too fresh for military contamination. Blaming the city for the spill.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 18, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 25 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: Memo and testing results of fuel spill (and disputed cause)
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Memo and testing results of fuel spill (and disputed cause), noted at too fresh for military contamination. Blaming the city for the spill.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat18SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 18," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
AUG 25 2004 1:07PM. p. 4HP LASERJET 3200IntroductionOne sample labeled Site 18 was received at Zymax on 29 July, 2004 for petroleum fuelcharacterization. It was anticipated that free product would be present. However, Zymax wasunable to separate enough free product, and the sample was treated as a water sample, andanalyzed as TPH diesel by low resolution GClMS.GC/MS.The complete laboratory data report is presentedpres~nted as an Appendix to this report.Methodology·TPB (Total Petroleum HydrocarbolUl)HydrocarboWl) as diesel by GCJMS CombinationWater samples are extracted with methylene chloride solvent and the solvent extractconcentrated. Soil samples.are sonicated with methylene chloride solvent and the solvent extractconcentrated.The extract is injected into a GC equipped with a 30 meter narrow bore DBS capillary column toseparate the hydrocarbon, which are detected with a mass spectrometer (MS) interfaced to theGC. TPH concentrations are calculated by comparison with a standard diesel fuel.Site 18 Gambell RIFSPage 3200-1fF10AK069603_03.01_0025_aA~G 25'AI:lG25. 200420Q41:07PM1: O?PMp.5LASERJET 3200HP LA5ERJETProduct CharacterizationThe sample contained 22 mgIL of TPH, the chromatogram.chromatogram of which is shown below. Achromatogram of a #2 diesel standard is shown for comparison. The Site 18 extract has anarrower distribution with less of the higher boUing hydrocarbons. This is characteristic of a lightdiesel such as Arctic Diesel. The ratio ofnC l7/pristane (Pr) is around 2, which is similar to manyfresh diesels dispensed in thetbe US. This indicates that the diesel in the Site 18 water hasexperienced, at most, mild degradation from environmentalenvironmcn121 cxpo;;ure,cxpo;;ure."".....·",.Cil"_m3CIll!If.D("'ut-3'"...It.,,..4IlD.....n,n.,~I~FiFi13It"~I~noIAo ....:ae.\1 USite 18 Gambell RIFSPage 4·.Cossaboom, Carey C POA02Sharp-Dahl, Julie LL POA02Tuesday, September 07,200409:3207, 2004 09:32 AMGeist, Lisa KK POA02Cossaboom, Carey C POA02Gambell fuel analysis (from GW sample)From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:~gambell fuelproduct data. pdfisa,Here's the "forensics" guys take on the water sample you sent in with fuel.Bottom line is, the sample looks too fresh to be from a FUDS site.clearly shows this!The chromatogramQuestion- what did the city spill- Arctic diesel?Julie-----Original Message----From: Sharp-Dahl, Julie L POA02Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:28 AMTo: Sharp-Dahl, Julie L POA02Subject: Scanned document -- 9/7/2004 9:27:59 AMGambell fuel product data attcahedThis PDF file was created using the eCopy Suite of products. For more information abouthow you can eCopy paper documents and distribute them by email please visithttp://www.ecopy.com1 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 19
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 19, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 25, 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: ERP-52 Site l 8 Gambell RIFS, Product Sampling
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Zymax Forensics
Document Summary:
Fuel Sample test from Site-18, characterized as "artic diesel."Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 19, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 25, 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: ERP-52 Site l 8 Gambell RIFS, Product Sampling
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Zymax Forensics
Document Summary:
Fuel Sample test from Site-18, characterized as "artic diesel."LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat19SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 19" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
RUG 25 2004 1:07PMp.2HP LASERJET 3200forensicsERP-52 Site l 8 Gambell RIFSProduct SamplingReport Prepared for:U.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 6868Anchorage AK 99506Report Prepared By:Alan Jeffrey, PhD_ZymaX forensics 71 Zaca LnSan Luis ObispoCA 9340125 Auggst 2004200-1eF10AK069603_03.10_0007 _aNPDL WO# 04-080R~G25 2004 1:07PMp.3HP LRSERJET 3200TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION3METHODOLOGY3PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION4Site 18 Gambell RIFSPage2AUG 25 2004 1:07PM·p.4HP LASERJET 3200IntroductionOne sample labeled Site 18 was received at Zymax on 29 July, 2004 for petroleum fuelcharacterization. It was anticipated that free product would be present. However, Zymax wasunable to separate enough free product, and the sample was treated as a water sample, andanalyzed as TPH diesel by low resolution GC/MS.The complete laboratory data report is presented as an Appendix to this report.MethodologyTPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) as diesel by GCJMS CombinationWater samples are extracted with methylene chloride solvent and the solvent extractconcentrated. Soil samples .are sonicated with methylene chloride solvent and the solvent extractconcentrated.The extract is ~ected into a GC equipped with a 30 meter narrow bore DB5 capillary column toseparate the hydrocarbon, which are detected with a mass spectrometer (MS) interfaced to theGC. TPH concentrations are calculated by comparison with a standard diesel fuel.Site 18 Gambell RIFSPage3RUG 25 2004 1:07PMp.5HP LASERJET 3200Product CharacterizationThe sample contained 22 mg/L of TPH, the chromatogram of which is sbown below. Achromatogram of a #2 diesel standard is shown for comparison. The Site 18 extract has anarrower distribution with less of the higher boiling hydrocarbons. 1his is characteristic of a lightdiesel such as Arctic Diesel. The ratio ofnC 17/pristane (Pr) is around 2, which is similar to manyfresh diesels dispensed in tbe US. This indicates that the diesel in the Site 18 water haexperienced, at most, mild degradation from environmental exposure.Site 18 Gambell RIFSPage4 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 20
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 20, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: Comments by Vi Waghiyi on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Environmental Health Justice Project
Document Summary:
Pubic comments including detailed questions about whether sampling designs and numbers of samples are sufficient.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 20, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 3
Document Title: Comments by Vi Waghiyi on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Environmental Health Justice Project
Document Summary:
Pubic comments including detailed questions about whether sampling designs and numbers of samples are sufficient.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat20SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 20" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Comments Submitted by Vi Waghiyi ForProposed Plan for Remedial ActionGAMBELL FUnS SLI July 04 ReportPg. 5, Table 1. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Levels for All Sites and Sites 5 & 12:Why are the Cleanup Levels different for DRO, RRO, Arsenic, Cadmium and Chromiumdifferent as noted in Table 1 for All Sites and Sites 5 && 12?Pg. 9, Site lA-North Beach, Army Land Area, Investigation Summary: It does notdisclose how many soil and groundwater samples were collected in 1994. The onesurface soil sample does not seem enough, the geophysical survey boundaries for thelandfill are not noted, does this one surface soil sample denotes that is sufficient for theArmy landfill?Pg. 9, Site 1B-North Beach, Air Force Landing Area: Do empty drumslbarrels have tobe tested to see what they contained?Pg. 10, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: The discolored gravel, was itsampled?Pg. 11, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: Investigation Summary:2nd paragraph, the sample from 1994 that exceeded the screening levels for chromium andlead. Which form of chromium is it? Form VI is a dangerous form of chromium and isvery mobile in groundwater and is almost always the result of human releases.The arsenic levels that exceed the ADEC cleanup level, and that are determined"consistent across sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated w/past military activity"The many sites that are referred to, the "consistent across sites in Gambell", are theymilitary sites in question? And has samples of arsenic ever been taken for backgroundlevels outside of the boundaries of the military bases in Gambell?Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: Chromium VI is dangerous, the single chromiumexceedance that is considered an outlier, what form is it and have background levels ofchromium been sampled outside of military boundaries to determine if the singlechromium exceedance is an outlier indeed?Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: NFA, The village drinking water source is down gradientof site 2 & 3, warrants further sampling and monitoring.Pg. 12, Investigation Summary, 3rd paragraph: Are beryllium and tallium (site 3levels) dangerous?Pg. 15 Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Investigation Summary: 2ndParagraph, Do EPA regions have different "risk-based concentrations"? Since we are inRegion 10, does this US EPA, Region 3 risk-based concentration apply?200-1fF10AK069603_08.01_0063_aPg. 16, Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Preferred Alternative: Were offmilitary boundary background samples taken to see if the elevated copper is an isolatedoccurrence?Pg. 18, Site 5-Former Tramway Site, Investigation Summary: Since the only evidentactivity is from the military, and this site is by the Village water supply, the exceeded,exceeded 'level ofDRO needs to be monitored and addressed.Pg. 20, Site 6-Military Landfill, Investigation Summary: Have off military boundarybackground samples of metals been taken to determine that the levels of metals arenaturally occurring?Pg. 21, Site 7-Former Military Power Facility, Investigation Summary, 4thparagraph: Since this site is by the Gambell School and the DRO and benzene resultsexceed the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels, this site needs to be addressed.Benzene is a long term contaminant in groundwater, it cannot readily evaporateunderground and since little microbial activity occurs in underground water, it is notdegraded.Pg. 27, Site 12, North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site, Investigation Summary, 2ndparagraph: The background levels for groundwater and surface water taken from MW14 located at the base of Sevoukuk Mt. are from Site 5, so therefore NOTBACKGROUND.Pg. 32, Site 22-Former eAACAA Housing, Preferred Alternative: Since the housing hasthe possibility that asbestos-containing materials may be present in the structures, this siteneeds to be addressed to determine if the buildings do indeed pose a risk to the occupantsor local resident owners, they have a right to know!!Pg. 34, Site 26-Possible Debris Burial Site: Since this site is by the Gambell School, itwarrants cleanup since Local residents reported finding metal debris, machinery, oilydebris, and TRANSFORMERS in the vicinity, NFA is not an option due to the riskassociated with the site.Pg. 35, Site 28-Disturbed Ground, Site Description: The Army's use of the land leasedJanuary 1955 to May 1958 needs to be determined, the community has a right to know ifit poses a risk!Until credible samples of background arsenic levels are collected outside of the militaryboundaries in Gambell, Sites lA, 1B, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25A, 26 and 28 needto be taken off of "Preferred remedial alternatives NFA" proposed plans until if indeedthe arsenic levels are not associated w/past military activity.Are the following sites with buried debris scoped under NALEMP and will be removed?Sites lA, 1B, 1C, 2, 3,11, 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18,21,23 &13,14,15,16,17,18,21,23& 24.Sites 3, 4A, 4B, 5, and any other site that had samples that initially had elevated levelsand are a risk to human health and the environment, and after additional samples weretaken a year or years later, the results showed decreased levels, goes to show that thecommunities knowledge that the groundwater migrates and as a result the differences inthe contaminant levels needs to addressed and long term monitoring are warranted andmust remediate and cleanup the contaminants when concentration levels are above risk tohuman health and the environmentlVi Waghiyi, CoordinatorSLI EHJ ProjectAugust. 29, 2004 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 21
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 21, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by Pam Miller on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Document Summary:
The public comment indicates the USACE plan does not address community concerns, arsenic, and other contaminants have elevated concentrations, and there has not been adequate sampling and plan for remediation.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 21, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by Pam Miller on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Document Summary:
The public comment indicates the USACE plan does not address community concerns, arsenic, and other contaminants have elevated concentrations, and there has not been adequate sampling and plan for remediation.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat21SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 21" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
.... ..Comments on the Proposed Plan for Remedial ActionGambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St. Lawrence Island, AKReviewed by Pamela Miller, S1. Lawrence Island RAB member andDirector of Alaska Community Action on ToxicsAugust 31, 2004Thank you for extending the comment period on the Proposed Plan for Remedial Action.However, I remain concerned that residents of St. Lawrence Island (SLI) have not had sufficientopportunity or time to review and formally comment on this document. It is especially criticalthat people of SLI be given ample opportunity to comment, as this is a critical phase of theCERCLA process. I suggest that the Corps of Engineers provide time at the September 9 RABmeeting for additional public comments from RAB members and other residents on the proposedplan.The proposed plan for remedial action does not sufficiently respond to community concerns andsome suggested courses of action. Particularly, the proposed plan does not provide measures toensure proper monitoring and protection of the community drinking water source. At least onceyearly, water from monitoring wells in and around the vicinity of the community drinking watersource should be sampled and analyzed for heavy metals, VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs. Duringthe public meeting, a Gambell resident raised a significant point about the vulnerability of thedrinking water source because of the permeability of the gravel substrate and susceptibility tocontamination from storm surges and flooding. Contamination can readily migrate in thisenvironment. The sites cannot be viewed as isolated from one another because the potential forcross contamination is high given the permeability of the substrate.The proposed plan does not include adequate data to justify no further action determinations forall but 4 of the 38 sites. Many of the sites warrant further investigation and cleanup. Thedocument must identify sources of contamination, including thallium, beryllium, arsenic, lead,chromium, VOCs, benzene, fuels, and PCBs. Pesticides should be included among the potentialcontaminants of concern (including DDT metabolites, mirex, endosulfan, lindane, and otherpesticides known to be used during the time of the military occupation) especially since we havereason to assume that DDT and possibly other pesticides were used at the site. Analysis ofhistorical records and interviews with former military personnel should be thoroughly conductedto determine other possible sources of contamination and contaminants of concern. Theperception of most community members is that the Corps of Engineers has not adequatelyinvestigated reports of buried hazardous materials, including reports of munitions (includinggrenades and larger caliber UXO). Contamination may pose a hazard to health and safety, yet theconcerns of the community have been too easily dismissed. In addition, although the Corps statesthat buried debris is not subject to remedial action under the RIDsFUDs program, the proposed planmust make provisions to remediate debris and other hazardous material should it surface througherosion or frost heaving.The proposed plan for remedial action must include provisions for sampling of indoor air forvolatile organics in the Gambell High School, other community buildings, and homes in thevicinity oftheof the landfill and power facility sites (including sites 6,7, and 17).Throughout the document, arsenic levels are considered "attributable to background" and not ofmilitary source. In some cases, arsenic levels are averaged and no further action is justified based200-1f200-HF10AK069603_08.01_0064_a, .'.on an average concentration. This is inappropriate and unjustified. True background levels are notprovided. Often arsenic levels exceed ADEC cleanup standards. These sites should be remediatedso that arsenic levels are below ADEC cleanup standards.The document should cite screening levels for all contaminants of concern. Further, it is incorrectto make the assumption that certain data points are simply outliers. For example, the Site 2sampling in 1994 indicated that levels for lead and chromium exceeded screening levels. 1996samples were tested for lead only and do not provide a basis for assuming that levels for othercontaminants are below the ADEC cleanup threshold. Site 2 requires further investigation andcleanup. The NFA determination is unjustified.Site 3, p 12. Thallium and beryllium exceeded screening levels and other metals (includingmercury and others) have been detected. Results cannot be dismissed as anomalies. This sitewarrants further investigation and cleanup.Site 4 A, P 14. Although the document states that no significant volume of contaminated soilremains at the site, elevated levels of contaminants are present. Remedial action should includecomplete removal of all contaminated soil and coverage/reclamation of the area with clean soilsand re-vegetation.Site 4 B, P 14. The document states that "The concentration of dioxins decreased significantly asa result of removing the soils." However, dioxins and additional contaminants remain at levels ofconcern. Further removal actions are warranted here because of the potential for downgradientcontamination. Dioxin contamination warrants special remedial actions due to the extreme healthhazards posed by even low concentrations.Site 5, P 18. Further action to identify and remove the source of DRO contamination must betaken. Monitoring of water for PAHs, DRO, solventsNOCs, and PCBs from a close series ofmonitoring wells in the vicinity of the drinking water source is mandatory.Site 7, p 21. Benzene sources and other contamination must be remediated at this site, and not justarsenic.Site 12, P 26. I support the proposed alternative to remove sources of heavy metal contamination.Additional sampling should be done to delineate the full extent of contamination.Site 14, P 28. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether the plane was carryinghazardous and/or radioactive material.CcADECRABMembers2 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 22
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 22, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 1
Document Title: Comments by Ron Scrudato on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
State University of New York at Oswego
Document Summary:
Public comment discusses the complex hydrology of Gambell and, thus, the challenges in environmental characterization and recommends a robust monitoring program.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 22, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 1
Document Title: Comments by Ron Scrudato on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
State University of New York at Oswego
Document Summary:
Public comment discusses the complex hydrology of Gambell and, thus, the challenges in environmental characterization and recommends a robust monitoring program.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat22SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 22" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
Gambell Plan CommentsR. J. ScrudatoSeptember 1, 2004One factor is clear from the data collected on the effects of the military occupancy is thatit is very difficult to effectively characterize and assess the environmental impacts withinthe Gambell area due to the complex hydrology and geology of the area. The highlypermeable and coarse grained nature of the cobble deposits are difficult to sample. Thepresence of permafrost, as well as the proximity of the impacted sites to the Bering Seaand the relative hydrologic influences of Troutman Lake, makes it difficult to effectivelycharacterize impacts to the various sites known to have been impacted by the release ofcontaminants during the time the military occupied the area.Additional complications are imposed by the difficulties in gaining an understanding ofthe relationships of the Gambell cobble deposits (the spit) to the bedrock especially thetransition at the base of the elevated mountainous area, including the interrelationship ofthe fractured bedrock, the talus and the on-lapping cobble deposits, This transition zone isparticularly important to the source of the Gambell water supply since the infiltrationgallery is charged by the groundwater deriving from this complex interrelationship. Thisinterrelationship is also subject to seasonal changes and further complicated by thepresence of contaminated cobble soils within the recharge gallery area. As I havementioned in earlier correspondence, the hydrology of the infiltration gallery andrelations to the contaminants identified in the sites located in proximity to the infiltrationgallery are less than well defined.As I mentioned in my comments on the Gambell Feasability Report, it is important toprovide the Gambell residents with assurances that the environmental impacts derivingfrom the former military occupancy and release of contaminants at the various definedsites will not continue to affect their natural resources. The most effective way to providethis assurance is to establish a broad based monitoring program that will take intoconsideration the uncertainties inherent in effective site characterization due to thecomplex nature of the Gambell geology, hydrology, and relationship to permafrost,climatic changes and future land use to ensure that potential impacts will be identifiedand defined.I recommend a more comprehensive series of monitoring wells be established andmonitored throughout the Gambell area to ensure detection of contaminants will not goundetected. The Gambell residents should be provide a measure of confidence that futurepotential impacts will be detected and once detected effectively eliminated.200-H200-1fF10AK069603_08.01_0065_a -
ACAT FOIA Repository 23
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 23, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by Morgan Apatiki on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Gambell community members
Document Summary:
Public comment indicates the sites were not appropriately characterized, and eyewitness observations identify remaining contaminationDocument: ACAT FOIA Repository 23, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by Morgan Apatiki on Proposed Plan for Remedial Action
Agency/Organization:
Gambell community members
Document Summary:
Public comment indicates the sites were not appropriately characterized, and eyewitness observations identify remaining contaminationLINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat23SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 23" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FROM. :SIVUQAQ,INC.....FAX NO. :907 985 5426...Sep. 21 200405:10PMPiGravel Park RoadSt. Lawrence IslandP.O. Box 138Gambell, Al aska 99742(907) 985-5011DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. Army Engineers District AlaskaATTN: CEPOA-PM-CP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-6898TO: Mr. Carey CossaboomFUDS Project ManagerUFROM: Morgan Apatiki ~~\'viResidentDATE: September 21, 2004RE: REVIEW COMMENTSEnclosed, please find my review and comments on the ProposedPlan for Remedial Action; GAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES:St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, July 2004.Thank You! for the services that you provided to the Communityof Gambell.(~ ArIJ--,/~. . ;nc-erelY' A~'-':..,'\~ST'GAMBELL, ALASKACC: Sivuqaq IncorporatedP.O. Box 101Gambell, Al aska 99742-0101(907) 985-5826985 - 5826ACAT505 W Northern LightsSuite 205Anchorage, Alaska 99503(907) 222-7714200-H200-1fF10AK069603_08.01_0066_a,_FAX NO. :907 985 5426.F.ROl'1..F,ROl'1.:SIVUQAQ.: SIlJUQAQ, INC .Sep. 21 2004 05:11PMP2REVIEW COMMENTSProposed Plan for Remedial ActionGAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITESSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaJuly 2004REVIEWERMorgan ApatikiRESIDENTGambell, Alask aAlaskaITEMREF1.Page 1COMMENTSThe overall concept of the Introduction andDescription stated in this Document regardingthe Geophysical Surveys, Remedial Invest1gat·ions and Feasibility Studies (RIfFS) that were conducted and the proposed Work Plans toperform the Remedial Actions(Cleanup) by theIndependent Contractor were excessively unexplicitpl1c1t for several reasons stated in the following sections:-The environmental impact on each of the Sitesdo not seem to have a thorough examinationand description regarding the analytical sa·sampling and previous cleanup actions. Specifically, the sites that were proposed for the"No Further Action".-The analytical DATA Collections conducted bythe Independent Contractor, that were started since the year of 1985 do not correspondwith the other analytical comparison resultsconducted by the contractor that should haveexcessively exceeded the ADEC Cleanup LevelProtocol..-In accordance with the local eye-witness perspectives, regarding the sites that wereproposed for the cleanup removal were recommended as the unfinished project performances because of the content of the debris sites were partially been removed and that stillhad the remains of the unidentified anomaliesand contaminant that were still intact onsites.GENERAL:The overall condition of the 28 Sites indicated in this document were positively stillremains on sites and some still needs to beaddressed thoroughly on behalf of the communities on the st. Lawrence Island that wereaffected by the FUDSfHTRW. -
ACAT FOIA Repository 24
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 24, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: Draft Record of Decision Comments by ADEC
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Comments by Jeff Brownlee on the draft Record of Decision document for Gambell. The most encompassing comment is to address the lack of community support for the No Further Action decision at most sites.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 24, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 4
Document Title: Draft Record of Decision Comments by ADEC
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Comments by Jeff Brownlee on the draft Record of Decision document for Gambell. The most encompassing comment is to address the lack of community support for the No Further Action decision at most sites.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat24SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 24" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
~ 11 ~ 11 ~Jo ULr~\ lJ LsM(~n"'] I~ f6\ fl~ !V1 0\,~, U L~ l1 LJU~) lr\\ ij,JFRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNORDEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONDIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSECONTAMINATED SITES PROGRAM555 Cordova StreetAnchorage, AK 99501-2617Phone: (907)269-7558269-7649Fax: (907)(907)269-7649http://www.state.ak.us/dec/htto://www.state.ak.us/dec/December 21, 2004U.S. Anny Engineer District, Alaskau.s.Attn: Carey CossaboomP.O. Box 6898Anchorage, AK 99506-6898RE:Draft Decision Document, Gambell Site, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaDear Mr. Cossaboom:Thank you for providing a copy of the subject document for department review. We received it onNovember 3, 2004. Typically the draft Record of Decision (ROD) is reviewed by the ADECproject manager then the revised ROD is reviewed with Contaminated Sites management. ThisROD had little in the way of structural or substantive comments so management was briefed withthe draft copy.The most significant issue that should be further addressed in the final ROD is the lack ofcommunity acceptance of the No Further Action determinations for the majority of sites.Providing a few alternative solutions to perceived problems may help positively influence opinionsuch as:• Reiterating the reopen clause in the document in Section 1.10.3.• Emphasize NALEMP involvement with debris projects and future involvement in thecommunity (as applicable)• Possible assistance from other agency programs that can address issues that FUDS can not(CAA Housing asbestos with the BIA, Village Safe Water monitoring of the pump well)• Provide a more formal vehicle for the institutional controls such as a map of buried debristhat can be used during future meetings and community construction efforts.If you have any questions concerning these comments or would like to meet to discuss them,please contact me at 269-3053.Sincerely,rownleeJJeef:fifrownleeEnvironmental Specialist200-1fF10AK069603_05.08_0004_a...'#'.·ro ...'roJ~REVIEWCOMMENTSPROJECT: Gambell, AlaskaDOCUMENT: Draft Decision DocumentLOCATION: Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaU.S. ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERSCEPOA-EN-EE-TEDATE: 12/20/04REVIEWER:Jeff Brownlee(ADEC)PHONE: (907) 269-3053ItemNo.1DrawingSht. No.,Spec. Para.DeclarationSite Name andLocation2DeclarationofDescriptionSelected RemedyAction taken on comment by:COMMENTSREVJCONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW-commentwithdrawn(if neither. explain)Please clarify whether the Decision Documents is specific for theindividual projects or the entire property.Please note that there are multiple Reckeys for Gambell in theADEC database.In the first sentence please change the "or" to "and" as in "arsenicand lead". With the continued groundwater sampling at Site 5,please explain what will happen if the monitoring wells are cleanand what would happen if monitoring welles) were impacted; NFAor continued sampling rather than open ended.In the last bullet please make a note that the NFA sites have beeninspected and/or cleaned up during previous investigations/removalactions. The list ofNFA sites looks disturbingly long without somesort of explanation that they have been previously addressed.3StatutoryDeterminationsThe third sentence in this section seems out of place. The sentenceseems to be referring to an alternatively considered remedy (insitu). Please review.4DeclarationIn the first sentence of the last paragraph please add "FormerlyUsed Defense" between Gambell and Site.Signature page reopen clause5Section 1.2Site History6Section 1.2 SiteHistoryIn the Jennifer Roberts signature block please change the "DOD"to "Federal Facilities".In the fifth paragraph, please specify the institutional controls thatwere implemented and the vehicle used; education with publicmeetings. Is this ongoing? Is there any land management planestablished in the community?In the sixth paragraph four new sites are mentioned.Pleasereference the source of discovery for these sites (SPIP, TECReport, etc.) Finding new sites this late in the process coulddiminish a reader's confidence in the earlier investigative work.C:\Documents and Settings\mbriggslLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\Draft Gambell DD Comments 12 04.docMWRESPONSEUSAEDRESPONSEACCEPTANCE(A-AGREE)(D-DISAGREE)REVIEWCOlVIMENTSPROJECT: Gambell, AlaskaDOCUMENT: Draft Decision DocumentLOCATION: Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaU.S. ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERSCEPOA-EN-EE-TEDATE: 12/20/04REVIEWER:Jeff Brownlee(ADEC)PHONE: (907) 269-3053ItemNo.DrawingSht. No.,Spec. Para.Action taken on comment by:COMMENTSREVJCONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW-commentwithdrawn(if neither, explain)7ConununityParticipationYou may want to mention under the RAB bullet or separately thatthere was (is) a village liaison available to help conununitymembers with accessing technical information and agencyconununication.8Section 1.5.2Please note that early maps of the village show a drinking waterwell in the middle of the old village. This well was abandonedeither because of poor water quality (salt water intrusion) or poorwater quantity. Either way it may be worth mentioning assupporting evidence for using the ingestion cleanup levels.9Section 1.7.1In the second sentence, please add "may" before "pose".10Section 1.7.2The fIrst paragraph mentions a tar-stained area. The thirdparagraph mentions a rust stained area I believe referring to thesame location. Please clarify.11Table 5Please clarify the Dioxin units. These are usually in parts pertrillion. The cleanup level could be referenced as EPA Region 9Preliminary Remediation Goals for Residential Soil = 39 ppt.Please clarify if there were any post-excavation samples taken in2001.12Table 10Please add the arsenic in soil samples that are a concern at Site 7 tothis table.13Section 1.7.15In the second sentence, please add "of' after "Drums".14Section 1.7.32Please clarify if 18 AAC 75, Table B is the screening level referredto at the end of the second paragraph.15GeneralBreaksPageThe document may be a bit more presentable to the reader withsome negative space between sections, for example between theend of section 1.7.35 and 1.8.16Section 1.8, SitesThe last sentence of the second paragraph states that sites 7 and 12-C:\Docwnents and SettingslmbriggslLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK8IDraft Gambell DD Comments 12 04.docMWRESPONSEUSAEDRESPONSEACCEPTANCE(A-AGREE)(D-DISAGREE)REVIEWCOMMENTSPROJECT: Gambell, AlaskaDOCUMENT: Draft Decision DocumentLOCATION: Gambell, Saint Lawrence Island, AlaskaU.S. ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERSCEPOA-EN-EE-TEDATE: 12/20/04Jeff BrownleeREVIEWER:(ADEC)PHONE: (907) 269-3053ItemNo.17DrawingSht. No.,Spec. Para.Action taken on comment by:COMMENTSREVJCONFERENCEA - comment acceptedW-commentwithdrawn(if neither, explain)7 and 12 andgeneralare available for unrestricted use. These locations and other knowndebris sites should be documented on a map for use by thecommunity to avoid situations like that which occurred when thehigh school foundation was excavated. The map could serve as aninstitutional control with soil management information at those siteswhere the migration to groundwater cleanup level is not used.Table 14Please add another note "c" = Table B - ingestion level and changethe note on RRO from b to c.In the short paragraph prior to Table 14, please add "and ingestion"after "groundwater" for "... groundwater and ingestion pathwayssoil cleanup levels.18Section 1.1 0.3CommunityAcceptancePlease expand on this response. Was the public disagreementprimarily from Gambell residents or nonprofit watchdog groups?Was the disagreement centered on the FUDS program not beingable address buried debris or are the alternative cleanup levels adifficulty?Alternative solutions toward community acceptance could bediscussed such as the previously mentioned buried debris map, theuse of NALEMP to address some of the debris problems and thepossibility of BIA participation of asbestos problems if any at Site22 - CAA Housing.19FiguresPlease put the Site Vicinity and Site Location Maps toward thefront of the document and place the more specific figures at themost applicable sections. One or two higher resolution maps of theindividual sites would aid a reader in visualizing the site locationsand interactions.20ResponsivenessSummaryScrudato #43Can the NALEMP program address monitoring well or drinkingwater well monitoring at Site 5?C:\Docwnents and Settings\mbriggsILocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK8\Draft Gambell DD Comments 12 04.docMWRESPONSEUSAEDRESPONSEACCEPTANCE(A-AGREE)(D-DISAGREE) -
ACAT FOIA Repository 25
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 25, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 8
Document Title: Response by USACE Alaska District to ADEC comments on Draft Record of Decision
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Response by Alaska District to ADEC's comments on the Draft Record of Decision document. Response document dated next day after ADEC comments were submitted.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 25, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2004
Pages: 8
Document Title: Response by USACE Alaska District to ADEC comments on Draft Record of Decision
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Response by Alaska District to ADEC's comments on the Draft Record of Decision document. Response document dated next day after ADEC comments were submitted.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat25SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 25" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
F10AK069603_05.08_0007_a1200C PERMCarey CossaboomSeptember 14,200727. Page 16, Groundwater: Was the 1997 sampling event sampled for VOCs as it was in 1996?Please reference the reports where all the analyses not listed in Table 2 can be found.8. Page 18, Risk Summary: At the end of the second sentence after "10,250 mg/kg," pleaseadd "although some soil contains DRO above the 230 mg/kg migration to groundwatercleanup level, the soil does not pose an unacceptable risk to human ...." And merge with thenext sentence. In this sentence replace "DRO contamination is de-minimus" with "small".9. Page 18, last paragraph: In the sentence that starts with "Site 5", please replace "potential"with "unacceptable".10. Page 19, Last paragraph of Section 5.0: In the second sentence, after 1 x lOE5, add "forcarcinogenic risk and 1.0 for a hazard index".11. Page 19, Section 6.0: Please change the first sentence to The Corps of Engineersdetermines No Further Action is appropriate for the Site 5 Tramway.12. Page 20, State Acceptance: In the last sentence delete "previously undiscovered".13. Page 20, State Acceptance: Please add the paragraph, "Site 5 will be listed as ConditionallyClosed in the DEC ContaminatedSifes Database. Soil that contains DRO at concentrationsabove the migration to groundwater cleanup level (230 mg/kg DRO) should not be movedoff-site without prior DEC approval".If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 269-3053.. Sincerely,Jeff BrownleeEnvironmental Program Specialist -
ACAT FOIA Repository 26
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 26, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 2
Document Title: Fact Sheet: Decision Document for Gambell FUDS
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Duplicate of ACAT FOIA Repository 25. "There were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted for public comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy" except further investigation into Site 5. For contamination/concerns that didn't meet FUDS eligibility requirements, USACE recommends using the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 26, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 2
Document Title: Fact Sheet: Decision Document for Gambell FUDS
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Duplicate of ACAT FOIA Repository 25. "There were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted for public comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy" except further investigation into Site 5. For contamination/concerns that didn't meet FUDS eligibility requirements, USACE recommends using the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat26SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 26" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FACT SHEETDECISION DOCUMENTGambell Formerly Used Defense SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaBackgroundThe Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers is implementing remedial activities at theGambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) underthe authority of the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP).The Gambell site (FUDS #F10AK0696) is located onSt. Lawrence Island, approximately 200 milessouthwest of Nome in the Bering Sea and 36 mileseast of the Chukotsk Peninsula, Siberia. The Villageof Gambell is situated on a gravel spit on thenorthwest end of the island.The military established the Gambell site in the1950s as part of a surveillance and intelligencegathering network. Various units of the US Armyand US Air Force utilized the area until the early1960s.Decision DocumentThe Corps of Engineers completed a remedialinvestigation at the Gambell site and evaluatedremedial alternatives for the areas of concern. AProposed Plan was distributed to the community inJuly 2004. A public meeting was held on July 21,2004. A public comment period was from July 21 toAugust 30, 2004.There were no significant changes between thePreferred Alternative that was submitted for publiccomment in the Proposed Plan and the SelectedRemedy.However, the Corps ofEngineers will conductadditional investigation of thegroundwater quality at Site 5,to demonstrate compliancewith ADEC groundwatercleanup criteria in 18 AAC75.345 Table C. Threeadditional groundwaterApril 2005monitoring events will be conducted at Site 5 toestablish a concentration trend for petroleumhydrocarbons. A final decision on any appropriateremedial actions at Site 5 will be made afterevaluating the investigation results.The proposed removal of small arms ammunition atSite 8D was determined ineligible for the FUDSprogram under the BDDR category, because thematerial does not meet the definition of inherentlyhazardous debris, which presents a clear danger,likely to cause or having already caused, death orserious injury to a person exercising ordinary andreasonable care. The existing institutional controlswill be maintained, focusing on communityawareness and education, including ordnanceinformation pamphlets and posters.The Corps of Engineers will recommend that theNative American Lands Environmental MitigationProgram (NALEMP) provide funding to remove theremaining small armsammunition at Site 8D tofully address theremaining communityand state concernsregarding the beachburial pit.Site 8DDescription of Selected RemedyThe selected final remedy involves excavation andoff-island landfill disposal of about 4 tons of arseniccontaminated soil from Site 7 (Former Military PowerFacility) and approximately 4 tons of lead andchromium contaminated soil at Site 12 (NayvaghatLakes Disposal Site).The target cleanuplevels are 11 mg/kg forarsenic, 26 mg/kg forchromium, and 400mg/kg for lead.Site 5F10AK069603_08.11_0015_a200-1eContact InformationSite 7The selected finalremedy also includesthe removal of about50 tons of exposedMarston mattingdebris along the eastside of the airportrunway (Site 8A).Site 8ACarey Cossaboom, Project ManagerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska DistrictP.O. Box 6898 (CEPOA-PM-FUDS)Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898(907) 753-2689 phone (907) 753-5626 faxCarey.C.Cossaboom@poa02.usace.army.milInformation RepositoriesNo further action is the final selected remedy for 34other sites in Gambell (Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A,4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27,28). However, the NALEMP Program will addressseveral of these sites.Site documentation may be viewed at the followinglocations:Sivuqaq Corporation Building (Lodge)P.O. Box 101Gambell, Alaska 99742Phone: (907) 985-5826Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Savoonga IRA BuildingP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769Phone: (907) 984-6414Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Site 12Next StepsThe remedial activities are scheduled to beginduring the summer of 2005, pending selection of acontractor to perform the work.The fieldwork is anticipated to last about 2 weeks.The groundwater monitoring events will occur duringthe summer, fall, and spring.A final report will be prepared to document thecontaminated soil and debris removal activities.University of Alaska FairbanksNorthwest Campus LibraryFront Street (Pouch 400)Nome, Alaska 99762Phone: (907) 443-8415Hours: Monday – Friday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.Saturday 12:00 pm to 4:00 pmAlaska Resource Library and InformationServices (ARLIS)Suite 111, Library Building3211 Providence DriveAnchorage, Alaska 99508Phone: (907) 272-7547Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. -
ACAT FOIA Repository 27
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 27, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 89
Document Title: Decision Document: Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site F10AK0696
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Decision Document for Gambell FUDS. Only 3 of 28+ sites were determined to require additional cleanup, and since those included the removal of contaminated soil and debris off the island, it was decided that no follow-up testing was necessary.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 27, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 89
Document Title: Decision Document: Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site F10AK0696
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Decision Document for Gambell FUDS. Only 3 of 28+ sites were determined to require additional cleanup, and since those included the removal of contaminated soil and debris off the island, it was decided that no follow-up testing was necessary.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat27SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 27" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
US Army Corpsof EngineersDecision DocumentGAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITEF10AK0696St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaJune 2005Prepared by:U.S. Army Corps of EngineersAlaska DistrictP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898F10AK069601_05.09_0500_a200-1eF10AK069601_05.09_0001_aF10AK069603_05.09_0500_aF10AK069603_05.09_0001_a200-1eDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska[Page Intentionally Blank]Declaration StatementforDecision DocumentGambell Site F10AK0696St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSite Name and LocationThe Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), project numbers F10AK069601 andF10AK069603, is located on St. Lawrence Island in the western portion of the Bering Sea,approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. The Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) contaminated sites record key (reckey) number for theoverall Gambell site is 198532X917919, individual areas of concern are also tracked withseparate reckeys (198532X917920-32 and 198532X117901-13). One area of concern, Site 5Tramway (reckey #198532X917923) will be addressed under a future decision document. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number is AKD981765894. TheGambell site is not listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).Statement of Basis and PurposeThis decision document presents the selected remedy for the Gambell site on St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, 42 United States Code §9601 et seq.,and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300 et seq. The State of Alaska, through theDepartment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) concurs with the selected remedy.This decision is based on the results of a phased remedial investigation and subsequent removalaction activities which were conducted from 1994 to 2003. The accompanying decisiondocument summarizes these activities. Detailed information supporting the selected remedialaction is also contained in the Administrative Record for this site, located at the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) Alaska District Office on Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK, and theInformation Repositories located at the Alaska Resource Library and Information Services(ARLIS) in Anchorage, the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRA Building inSavoonga, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library in Nome.Assessment of SiteThe Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late 1950’s. Various facilitieswere constructed near the village of Gambell to provide housing and operations, aircraft radar,communications, and other functions. Two discrete areas of contaminated soil are present atSites 7 and 12. The identified contaminants of concern (COCs) are arsenic, chromium and lead.The response action selected in this Decision Document is necessary to protect the public healthor welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances,pollutants or contaminants, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment. Theresponse action will also address the physical hazards posed by one area containing inherentlyhazardous military debris, which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death or serious injury toPage 3 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskapersons exercising ordinary and reasonable care. These unsafe conditions include exposed metalMarston matting debris adjacent to the local airstrip at Site 8A.The Marston matting was abandoned in place when the military demobilized from the area in thelate 1950s. The exposed Marston matting debris is located in an area heavily traveled by localresidents using all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The debris poses a clear danger to localresidents due to the sharp and jagged edges which protrude above the ground surface and largepiles which create a navigation hazard during the winter when partially covered by snow.Description of Selected RemedyThe selected remedy was chosen from many alternatives as the best method of addressing thearsenic contaminated soil at Site 7 and the lead and chromium-contaminated soil at Site 12. Itaddresses the risks to health and the environment caused by the current or future exposure of aresident to contaminated soils. The selected remedy addresses this risk by reducing soilcontamination to below risk-based cleanup levels established for these sites. The selectedremedy at Site 7 is excavation and off-Island disposal of an estimated 4 tons of soil containinggreater than the cleanup level of 11 mg/kg arsenic. The selected remedy at Site 12 is excavationand off-Island disposal of an estimated 4 tons of soil containing greater than the cleanup levels of400 mg/kg lead and 26 mg/kg chromium. Inherently hazardous debris will also be removed fromSite 8A. The specific components of the selected remedy consist of the following:Approximately 4 tons of soil at Site 7 with arsenic concentrations in excess of 11 ppm will beexcavated and shipped off-Island to a permitted disposal facility;Approximately 4 tons of soil at Site 12 with lead concentrations in excess of 400 ppm andchromium concentrations greater than 26 mg/kg will be excavated and shipped off-Island to apermitted disposal facility;Confirmation soil sampling will be conducted to ensure cleanup goals are met;Approximately 50 tons of exposed metallic debris (i.e., Marston matting) at Site 8A will begathered and shipped off-Island to a permitted disposal or recycling facility;Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, and 28 were investigated and previous responseactions removed debris and/or contaminated soils. Under the FUDS Program, no furtheraction is planned.Statutory DeterminationsThe selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federaland state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial actions,and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies to the maximum extent practicable. However, because treatment of thecontaminants at the site was not found to be practicable, alternative treatment technologies werenot selected. Because the selected remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestrictedexposure, a five-year review will not be required.In accordance with CERCLA and the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for FormerlyUsed Defense Sites (DERP-FUDS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, hasPage 4 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTABLE OF CONTENTSDeclaration Statement..................................................................................................................... 3Site Name and Location.............................................................................................................. 3Statement of Basis and Purpose.................................................................................................. 3Assessment of Site ...................................................................................................................... 3Description of Selected Remedy................................................................................................. 4Statutory Determinations ............................................................................................................ 4Authorizing Signatures ............................................................................................................... 5Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 81. Decision Summary................................................................................................................ 101.1Site Name, Location, and Brief Description................................................................. 101.2Site History ................................................................................................................... 131.3Community Participation .............................................................................................. 151.4Scope and Role of Response Action............................................................................. 171.5Site Characteristics........................................................................................................ 181.5.1Geographical and topographic information .......................................................... 181.5.2Hydrology and Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 181.5.3Ecological and Biological Resources.................................................................... 191.5.4Current and Potential Future Land Uses............................................................... 191.6Summary of Site Contamination................................................................................... 201.6.1Site 1A – North Beach, Army Landing Area........................................................ 201.6.2Site 1B – North Beach, Air Force Landing Area.................................................. 211.6.3Site 1C – North Beach .......................................................................................... 221.6.4Site 2 – Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site .................................... 221.6.5Site 3 – Former Communications Facility Burial Area ........................................ 251.6.6Site 4A – Former Quonset Huts near USAF Radar Station.................................. 261.6.7Site 4B – Former USAF Radar Station................................................................. 271.6.8Site 4C – Sevuokuk Mountain .............................................................................. 291.6.9Site 4D – Sevuokuk Mountain.............................................................................. 291.6.10Site 4E – Western Face of Sevuokuk Mountain ................................................... 291.6.11 Site 6 – Military Landfill ...................................................................................... 301.6.12Site 7 – Former Military Power Facility ............................................................... 311.6.13 Sites 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D – West Beach Area............................................................. 351.6.14 Site 9 – Asphalt Barrel Cache............................................................................... 361.6.15 Site 10 – Sevuokuk Mountain Trail ...................................................................... 371.6.16 Site 11 – Communications Cable Route ............................................................... 371.6.17 Site 12 – North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site................................................... 371.6.18Site 13 – Former Radar Power Station ................................................................. 391.6.19 Site 14 – Navy Plane Crash Site ........................................................................... 401.6.20Site 15 – Troutman Lake Disposal Site ................................................................ 401.6.21Site 16 – Gambell Municipal Building Site.......................................................... 411.6.22 Site 17 – Army Landfills....................................................................................... 411.6.23 Site 18 – Former Main Camp................................................................................ 421.6.24Site 19 – Diatomaceous Earth............................................................................... 431.6.25Site 20 – Schoolyard ............................................................................................. 431.6.26 Site 21 – Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain ................................................................... 43Page 6 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6.27Site 22 – Former CAA Housing............................................................................ 431.6.28Site 23 – Debris from High School Construction ................................................. 441.6.29Site 24 – South of Municipal Building ................................................................. 441.6.30Site 25A – Village of Gambell South Housing Units ........................................... 441.6.31Site 25B – Low Drainage Area Southwest of Armory ......................................... 451.6.32Site 26 – Possible Debris Burial Site .................................................................... 451.6.33Site 27 – Drum Storage Area ................................................................................ 451.6.34Site 28 – Disturbed Ground .................................................................................. 461.7Summary of Site Risks.................................................................................................. 471.8Remedial Action Objectives ......................................................................................... 491.9Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 521.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................... 531.10.1Threshold Criteria ................................................................................................. 531.10.2Balancing Criteria ................................................................................................. 531.10.3Modifying Criteria ................................................................................................ 571.11 Principal Threat Waste.................................................................................................. 591.12 Selected Remedy........................................................................................................... 601.13 Statutory Determinations .............................................................................................. 631.13.1Protective of Human Health and the Environment ............................................... 631.13.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ....................................... 631.13.3Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................. 641.13.4Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to theMaximum Extent Practicable................................................................................................ 641.13.5Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ................................................. 641.13.6Five-Year Review Requirement ........................................................................... 641.14 Documentation of Significant Changes ........................................................................ 652. Responsiveness Summary..................................................................................................... 66Appendix A – Responsiveness SummaryPage 7 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGlossary of Terms and AcronymsAACAlaska Administrative CodeADECAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationARARsApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsBNAsBase, neutral, and acid compounds (includes PAHs)BTEXBenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xyleneBGSBelow ground surfaceCERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCFRCode of Federal RegulationsCOCContaminant of concernDODDepartment of DefenseDRODiesel-range organicsEPAUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyFSFeasibility StudyFUDSFormerly Used Defense SiteGROGasoline-range organicsICInstitutional Controlsmg/kgmilligram per kilogrammg/Lmilligram per literMWHMontgomery Watson HarzaNALEMPNative American Land Environmental Mitigation ProgramNCPNational Contingency PlanNFANo Further ActionOSCIOil Spill Consultants, Inc.pg/gpicogram per gramPOLPetroleum, oil, and lubricantsppmParts per millionPAHsPolyaromatic (or Polycyclic) HydrocarbonsPCBsPolychlorinated biphenylsPriorityPollutantMetalsAntimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.RCRAResource, Conservation and Recovery ActRCRA metalsarsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silverRROResidual Range OrganicsRABRestoration Advisory BoardPage 8 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaRIRemedial InvestigationRARemoval/Remedial ActionsSVOCsSemi volatile organic compoundsTAL metalsTarget Analyte List metals, includes aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel,potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.TCLPToxicity characteristic leaching procedureTRPHTotal recoverable petroleum hydrocarbonsUSACEUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUCLUpper Confidence LevelVOCsVolatile organic compoundsPage 9 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1. Decision SummaryThis Decision Summary provides an overview of the contaminants at the Gambell Site. Itidentifies the areas evaluated for remedial response, describes the remedial alternativesconsidered, and analyzes those alternatives compared to the criteria set forth in the NationalContingency Plan (NCP). The Decision Summary explains the rationale for selecting theremedy, and how the remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).1.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief DescriptionThe Gambell Site, FUDS project #s F10AK069601 and F10AK069603, is located on St.Lawrence Island, Alaska, about 200 air miles southwest of Nome in the Bering Sea (see Figure1). The State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) tracks the entiresite with reckey # 198532X917919, and also lists individual areas of concern by separate reckeys(198532X917920-32 and 198532X117901-13). One area of concern, Site 5 Tramway (reckey#198532X917923) will be addressed under a future decision document. The EPA identificationnumber for Gambell is AKD981765894. The site is situated on a gravel spit at the northwestpoint of the island. Gambell is located at latitude 63° 46’ 49” North and longitude 171° 43’ 46”West. The military leased approximately 2,500 acres in Gambell. Thirty-eight (38) separatesites of concern were identified during the remedial investigation process (see Figure 2). Theselected remedy for each site, except Site 5, is listed in Table 1.Figure 1 – Site Vicinity MapPage 10 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 1 – Remedial Responses by Site LocationSite1A North Beach1B Army Landing Area1C Air Force Landing Area2 Military Burial Site3 Communications Facility4A Air Force Radar Site4B Former Quonset Huts4C Discarded Drums4D Former Transformers4E Western Face of Sevuokuk Mtn6 Military Landfill7 Military Power Facility8A Marston Matting8B Buried Debris8C Navy Landfill8D Beach Ammunition9 Asphalt Drums10 Army/Air Force Trails11 Communication Cable Route12 Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site13 Radar Power Station14 Navy Plane Crash Site15 Troutman Lake Disposal Site16 Municipal Building Site17 Army Landfills18 Main Camp19 Diatomaceous Earth20 Schoolyard21 Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain22 Former CAA Housing23 Debris from High School24 South of Municipal Building25A Gambell South Housing Units25B Low Drainage Area26 Possible Debris Burial Site27 Drum Storage Area28 Disturbed GroundSelected Remedial ResponseNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of arsenic-contaminated soilRemoval and off-site recycling/disposal of exposed metal debrisNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further Action under FUDS *No Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soilNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further Action* Site 8D is planned for future debris removal under NALEMP, pending the availability of funding.Page 11 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 2 – Site Location Map238C1C22Sevuokuk Mountain1A1762772625B 25A 16 202624 188B19 2115Troutman Lake324E4A54D118AAirs trip4B1B910Bering Sea4C288D12±N13to14100001000Page 12 of 662000 FeetDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.2 Site HistoryThe military established the Gambell site in the 1950’s as part of a surveillance and intelligencegathering network. Various units of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force utilized the area. The AirForce built a base camp in 1950 at the foot of Sevuokuk Mountain and a radar site directly aboveon the mountain top (both abandoned in 1956). The Army occupied several sites during the late1950s, with a main base camp located just north of Troutman Lake. The Navy also laidcommunications cables from the village of Gambell, up Sevuokuk Mountain, and south toBrunnell Cape.Environmental investigations and cleanup activities at Gambell began in the mid 1980’s. Thegoals of the investigations were to locate and identify areas of contamination and to gatherenough information to develop a cleanup plan. The first major environmental study, theremedial investigation, was performed at Gambell in 1994. The study divided the concernsamong 18 separate sites. The results of the remedial investigation showed that contaminantswere present at some but not all sites. Some sites were subdivided into sub sites and new siteswere also added in subsequent investigations.In 1996, the second phase of remedial investigation was performed. In this study, additional soiland groundwater samples were collected from Sites 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4B, 4D, and 5. The studyobjectives were to further delineate the extent of contamination, estimate amounts of debris, andconduct a geophysical survey.In 1997, a USACE contractor, Montgomery Watson, removed visible surface debris fromvarious sites around Gambell. During the 1999 field season, Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI)performed further cleanup activities in Gambell, including the removal of additional debrisexposed by frost jacking after the 1997 cleanup activity. OSCI removed a total of 26.8 tons ofhazardous and non-hazardous containerized wastes such as asphalt drums, paint, generators,batteries, empty drums, and transformer carcasses. OSCI also removed 71 tons of exposed metaldebris such as runway Martson matting, cable, fuel tanks and equipment parts; and excavated 72tons of contaminated soil. However, OSCI was unable to complete the removal of Martsonmatting adjacent to the runway due to safety concerns over its proximity to airstrip utilities.In 2000 and 2001, the Army Engineering and Support Center (Huntsville, AL) conductedextensive research and investigations to locate possible ordnance and explosives materials leftbehind by the military. During the field surveys, small amounts of ordnance waste were found,consisting primarily of highly weathered 30-caliber small arms ammunition at a beach burial pitsouthwest of Troutman Lake. An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA) datedNovember 2002 recommended institutional controls as the appropriate response action formilitary munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) at the Gambell Site. An ActionMemorandum, dated June 2003, documented the selected response action of institutionalcontrols.The institutional controls were implemented during the summer of 2004 and consisted ofdistributing informational pamphlets and posters about ordnance risks to local residents andbusinesses and holding a community meeting. An initial review to evaluate the continuedeffectiveness and reliability of the ordnance response action will be conducted in 3 years. AfterPage 13 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathe initial review has been conducted, recurring reviews will be performed at 5-year intervals.The need for recurring reviews will be coordinated with regulators and stakeholders and justifiedin each recurring review report.A supplemental remedial investigation was conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza during the2001 field season, to verify previously collected confirmation data and investigate the nature andextent of contamination at four newly identified sites. These sites were identified as potentialareas of concern based on community concerns and a review of a historical photographicanalysis completed by the USACE Topographic Engineering Center in September 2000. Thesummary report recommended no further action for most sites. Further action was recommendedat Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 12 based on a comparison to screening levels. The ADEC Ingestionpathway cleanup levels were later determined to be the applicable cleanup levels for Sites 4A,4B and 6. Since Sites 4A, 4B and 6 meet the specified regulatory cleanup levels, only Sites 7and 12 require further action.The Corps of Engineers completed a Feasibility Study (FS) in February 2004. A Proposed Planwas distributed to the public in July 2004 which summarized site conditions, investigationresults, and described the remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS. A public meeting to discussthe plan was held in Gambell on July 21, 2004. The supporting documents can be found in theAdministrative Record located at the USACE Office on Elmendorf Air Force Base or at theInformation Repositories located in Gambell, Savoonga, Nome, and Anchorage.Remedial investigation and removal work at Gambell was carried out under the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP) FUDS program. There have been no enforcementactivities or notices of violation pertaining to the Department of Defense activities at theGambell site.Page 14 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.3 Community ParticipationPublic participation has been an important component of the CERCLA process at the GambellSite. A Community Relations Plan was developed for the project in March 1996 and updated inApril 2002. The Community Relations Plan describes the measures used to meet the communityrelations goal of keeping Gambell residents and other interested people informed about projectactivities. It provided a means for local residents to share their knowledge about the Gambellarea and its history with the project team. It further allowed the residents and other interestedpersons to provide their feedback and comments on project activities, and gave everyone anopportunity to become involved in the project. Activities aimed at informing and solicitingpublic input regarding the Gambell Site include:Restoration Advisory Board (RAB): A RAB comprised of community members andother interested parties was established in January 2000. RAB meetings are heldapproximately 3 times per year to keep the public informed of ongoing project activities.Many Gambell residents identified areas of concern on maps or photographs and relayedinformation on past activities or stories about certain areas from village elders.TAPP Advisor/Community Liaison: The RAB is served by a technical advisor, under theTechnical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) program, to provide technicalguidance on workplans, reports, proposed remedies, and potential environmental andhuman health impacts. In addition, a local resident was employed as a community liaisonduring the remedial investigation phase, to help community members access technicalinformation, distribute meeting notices, and assist with agency communication.Meeting Notices: Meeting notices were published in the Nome Nugget newspaper andposted in prominent locations around town such as the Sivuqaq Lodge, City Hall, PostOffice, and Washeteria. Radio announcements were broadcast on KNOM of Nome, AK.Informal Meetings and Site Visits: Informal meetings occurred whenever project staffvisited with Gambell residents and other interested or knowledgeable parties. The projectteam gathered information on potential hazardous waste or debris locations, and gatheredavailable documentation through interviews with village residents, Native Village ofGambell IRA Council members and staff, Sivuqaq Incorporated board members, andother interested parties. These persons contributed information regarding historical andcurrent conditions at the Gambell site.Fact Sheets: Information about the project was published periodically through FactSheets distributed to RAB members and placed at the Information Repositories.Information Repositories: Project documentation, reports, and other materials areavailable at 4 locations including the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRABuilding in Savoonga, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library inNome (formerly at the National Park Service) , and the Alaska Resource Library andInformation Services in Anchorage.Mailing List: A mailing list was compiled and updated throughout the project.Proposed Plan: The Gambell Proposed Plan was distributed to the public in July 2004; apublic meeting was held July 21, 2004; and the public review period was from July 21 toAugust 30, 2004. Comments from the public are contained in the ResponsivenessSummary found in the Appendix of this document.Page 15 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPublic Notices: Public notices have been issued prior to all significant decision pointsincluding RAB meetings. A public notice for the Proposed Plan and Public Meeting waspublished in the Nome Nugget newspaper on July 14, 2004.Responsiveness Summary: Public comments were received on the Gambell ProposedPlan. The USACE maintains a record of all comments and has published responses to thecomments in this Decision Document. A Responsiveness Summary binder was alsodeveloped for the project to document implementation of the Community Relations Plan.It contains responses to all comments/concerns raised by the public during the project andwill continue to be updated until the project is completed.Page 16 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.4 Scope and Role of Response ActionThe CERCLA process is intended to identify solutions to contamination issues where they exist.The remedial action described in this Decision Document addresses threats to human health andthe environment posed by contamination at the Gambell Site. The RI/FS Reports defined thesethreats as soil contaminants. Soil with contaminants that pose a potential threat to the public willbe removed, transported, and disposed in an appropriate facility. In addition, exposed militarydebris which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death or serious injury to persons exercisingordinary and reasonable care will be removed and transported to a permitted landfill or approvedrecycling facility.Page 17 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.5 Site CharacteristicsThis section provides an overview of the Gambell Site, including geographical information,hydrology, ecological resources, and land use. Site locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.1.5.1 Geographical and topographic informationThe Native Village of Gambell is located on St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of theBering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska (see Figure 1). The villageis situated on a gravel spit that projects north and westward from the island. Gambell isrelatively flat, with an elevation range from sea level to approximately 30 feet above mean sealevel. Sevuokuk Mountain forms the eastern boundary of the gravel spit, and rises steeply to aheight of approximately 619 feet. The dominant soil lithologies underlying the Gambell area areunconsolidated, poorly to well-sorted gravels with sand and poorly to well-sorted sand withgravels. These soils are interpreted as washed beach gravels deposited on a wave cut platform.Sevuokuk Mountain is composed of Cretaceous quartz monzonite, a gray rock rich in quartz andfeldspars.The entire Gambell site encompasses approximately 2,500 acres. The majority of the areas ofconcern are located within or adjacent to the village of Gambell, a community of 649 persons(US Census 2000).1.5.2 Hydrology and Groundwater UseGroundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) southof Troutman Lake to 16.5 ft bgs along the North Beach area. The largest and most permanentsurface water features in the vicinity of Gambell are Troutman Lake and North NayvaghatLakes. Small ephemeral ponds and bogs are also present on the tundra east of Troutman andNorth Nayvaghat Lakes.Groundwater from the central gravel spit is not suitable as a source of drinking water.Groundwater in the gravels is often saline, difficult to recover in useable quantities, and locatedin an active lens over permafrost. A drinking water well in the old Village area was abandonedin the past because of poor water quality (salt water intrusion) or quantity. Groundwaterencountered at the site has been limited in quantity, and only intermittently detected. Permafrostin Gambell is commonly encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 15 feet below the groundsurface. The groundwater aquifer (10-14 ft depth) that currently supplies drinking water to thecommunity is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 1,500-2,000 feet east ofthe village on the far eastern edge of the gravel spit. The predominant surface water feature,Troutman Lake, is considered slightly brackish due to influences from the Bering Sea.Continuous permafrost acts as a barrier for soil contaminant migration to a groundwater zone.However, migration of contaminants may occur with groundwater movement in the active lensabove the permafrost layer (suprapermafrost groundwater). Suprapermafrost groundwater occurssporadically within the village of Gambell (i.e., in the vicinity of Sites 6, 7, 16, 17, 18). Thedocumented groundwater flow direction in this area is to the north, towards the Bering Sea, adistance of about 1,200 feet.Page 18 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaAccording to a State of Alaska hydrogeological investigation report (Ireland, 1994), the Gambellaquifer is canoe-shaped, originating along the front of the steep bluff of Sevuokuk Mountain, andcontinuing down the hydrological gradient across a highly permeable gravel bar towards theocean. The aquifer appears to be a thaw bulb in the permafrost, and as the permafrost expands orrecedes, the aquifer dimensions vary. Warm recharge water originating on Sevuokuk Mountaineffectively melts the permafrost where the mountain front joins the gravel spit. Most of thewater entering the aquifer comes from two springs that flow from the steep bluffs of themountain into the gravel. Shallow groundwater across the gravel spit does not appear to becontinuous because of the presence of shallow permafrost (Munter and Williams, 1992).1.5.3 Ecological and Biological ResourcesSt. Lawrence Island supports habitats for the following endangered or threatened species: thespectacled eider (endangered), Steller’s eider (threatened), and Steller sea ion. Walrus and polarare protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The investigation areas of concern donot support sensitive habitats, and are predominantly comprised of gravel and sand within thecity of Gambell, adjacent roads or the airport.1.5.4 Current and Potential Future Land UsesSt. Lawrence Island is owned jointly by the two village native corporations: Sivuqaq, Inc., inGambell, Alaska, and the Savoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-Native landon St. Lawrence Island is limited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambelland Savoonga. A federally recognized tribe is located in the community -- the Native Village ofGambell. Gambell is inhabited primarily by Native St. Lawrence Island Yupik people, who leada subsistence-based lifestyle. The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds,waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area. The area surrounding the top ofSevuokuk Mountain, above the Village of Gambell, supports a large bird rookery. The birds andbird eggs are a subsistence food source for local inhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambellarea is used extensively for subsistence hunting of whales, walrus, seals, sea birds, and fish.Future land use is expected to remain residential with the surrounding area used for recreationand subsistence hunting or gathering.Page 19 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6 Summary of Site ContaminationThis section summarizes the sampling strategy for 37 of the 38 sites in Gambell, identifiescontaminants of concern, and affected media. Two areas, Sites 7 and 12, were identified for aresponse action based on the presence of contaminants at levels which may pose a risk to humanhealth and the environment. The basis of this analysis is the data collected during the RemedialInvestigation (RI), which identified the nature and extent of contamination in Gambell. Oneadditional area, Site 8A, was identified for a response action based on the presence of physicalhazards consisting of exposed metal debris.During the remedial investigation process, soil, sediment, and shallow-aquifer groundwater weresampled and analyzed for a wide range of organic and inorganic constituents. Contaminantsdetected in the soil and shallow-aquifer groundwater were primarily fuels and metals.1.6.1 Site 1A – North Beach, Army Landing AreaSite 1A is located in the central portion of the North Beach, where two well-established allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails intersect. The Army landing area was located east of an area that iscurrently used by local residents to land or launch whaling boats. The site consisted of exposedsurface debris including engine pieces, Marston matting, weasel tracks, steel cables, a partiallyburied 100-foot crane, and other buried metallic debris which are periodically exposed andreclaimed by shifting gravels along the beach area.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris from Site 1A (5,545 pounds)and the surrounding beach area (3,630 pounds), including corrugated roofing material, piping,Marston matting, weasel tracks, protruding parts of a buried crane, engines, cables, and othermiscellaneous debris. No dangerous surface debris remains at this site. Buried debris is noteligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected in 1994. One surface soil sample wascollected and analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), BNAs, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper,lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc). Subsurface soil samples were collectedfrom 5 borings and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs,and priority pollutant metals. Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 1 to 9 mg/kg. Thecalculated 95% upper confidence level (95%UCL) of the mean concentration for arsenic at Site1A is 5.0 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5mg/kg. No other contaminants were detected in soil above screening levels based on the ADECTable B migration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341.GroundwaterFive monitoring wells were installed during the 1994 Phase I remedial investigation.Groundwater samples from all 5 wells were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO,TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No contaminants were detected ingroundwater above screening levels based on the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels in18 AAC 75.345.Page 20 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 3 – Site Location Map, Northern AreaNorth Beach1CArmy Landing AreaBERING SEA23 Debris fromHigh School8C Navy LandfillWestBeach8BBuriedDebrisArmy LandfillsCAAHousing25BLowDrainageArea171BFormer MilitaryBurial Site26MilitaryLandfillDrum StorageArea27 Former7 PowerFacility2625A 16S. Housing20VillageWaterSupply5FormerBuried TramwayFormerDiatomaceous DebrisMain4D FormerEarthCampTransformersHighSchool181521CityHall Washeterians Cable Rout e11tiocaTroutman Lakeni9 AsphaltDrums10CommuAirstripFormer4A Quonset Huts2024198AMarstonMatting4B34ECableDebrisFormerAir ForceRadar SiteAir For ce TrailOld VillageAreaFormerCommunicationsFacility1AArmy Trai l22Air ForceLanding AreaN50005001000 Feet1.6.2 Site 1B – North Beach, Air Force Landing AreaSite 1B is located west of Sevuokuk Mountain, and approximately 1,900 feet east of the ArmyLanding Area on North Beach. The site contained exposed surface debris, rust-stained gravel,and a separate patch of tar-stained gravel (degraded asphalt). Additionally, buried debris may beperiodically exposed as the gravel beach deposits shift or frost jacking occurs. This area receivesa large amount of ATV traffic due to its proximity to the bird rookeries on Sevuokuk Mountainvisited by local residents and tourists.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris from Site 1B (105 pounds) andthe surrounding beach area (2,865 pounds), including Marston matting, empty drums, sheetmetal, steel cables, and other miscellaneous debris. All dangerous surface debris has beenremoved. Buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Page 21 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilDuring the 1994 remedial investigation, subsurface soil samples were collected from threeborings and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals. One surface soil sample was collected from the rust-stained soil andanalyzed for TRPH, BNA, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Petroleum hydrocarbons andlead were detected in soil, but did not exceed screening levels based on ADEC Table Bmigration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341. Arsenic was also detectedin soil at concentrations ranging from 2 to 7 mg/kg. The calculated 95% UCL of the meanconcentration for arsenic at Site 1B is 4.8 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other chemicals were detected in soil above screeninglevels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341.GroundwaterIn 1994, three monitoring wells were installed at Site 1B, to a maximum depth of 20.5 feet.Groundwater was encountered between 10 and 14.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwatersamples were collected from the three wells and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO,DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No contaminants were detected ingroundwater above screening levels based on the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels in18 AAC 75.345.1.6.3 Site 1C – North BeachSite 1C covers the entire length of North Beach and consists of underwater metallic debrislocated just offshore. The majority of the debris is thought to be Marston matting used toconstruct the two military landing areas. North Beach is the primary area used by local residentsfor launching and landing boats.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all exposed surface debris (10,105 pounds) from theentire length of the North Beach, including corrugated roofing material, piping, Marston matting,empty drums, heavy machinery parts, metal cables, and other miscellaneous debris. Theremaining underwater debris does not pose a physical hazard and is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.1.6.4 Site 2 – Former Military Housing/Operations Burial SiteSite 2 is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the former Air Force Landing Area on NorthBeach, and just west of the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. Facilities associated with militaryhousing/operations, and a power plant, were reportedly demolished and buried at this site.Ordnance was potentially buried here as well, but investigations have not confirmed thispossibility. Exposed debris was observed at the site, including remnants of a rock fireplace,partially buried concrete pad, burned wood, scattered metal debris/gear, and discolored gravel.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 100 pounds of miscellaneous debris from Site 2. Theyalso removed a large quantity (total of 1,740 pounds) of cable spools, wheel rims, corrugatedmetal, and Marston matting from the vicinity of Site 2 (between Sites 1A and 3). Oil SpillConsultants, Inc (OSCI) removed the remaining exposed debris in 1999, but attributed allPage 22 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaquantities of debris removed to Site 3. OSCI also removed 24,982 pounds (12.5 cubic yards) ofpetroleum-stained soils from near Site 2. The stained soil was located adjacent to a large rock atthe base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 450 feet south of the Bering Sea/North Beach.This location was identified by Montgomery Watson as between Site 1A and 3. The partiallyburied concrete pad is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Ninesubsurface soil samples were collected from three borings and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, priority pollutant metals, PCBs, and explosives. Two surface soil samples were alsocollected at the areas of discolored gravel and analyzed for TRPH, BNA’s, and priority pollutantmetals. Fuels were detected in the soil below screening levels. Elevated levels of metals werealso detected in one surface soil sample above screening levels. Sampling results aresummarized in Table 2. No asbestos was detected in the fibrous material.With the exception of arsenic, metals were detected above screening levels in only one sampleout of 13. This single sample had anomalous concentrations of both lead (749 mg/kg) andchromium (391 mg/kg); the other samples demonstrated a mostly sympathetic relationshipbetween lead and chromium suggesting where lead is low, chromium will also be low. The 12other soil samples contained low levels of chromium (ND to 21 mg/kg) and lead (1 to 70 mg/kg).Chromium was not considered a contaminant of concern following the 1994 investigationbecause it did not exceed the 1994 screening levels (chromium screening levels have sincechanged). Further investigation was conducted in 1996 to determine the extent of leadcontamination surrounding this particular sample, since the lead results were more highlyanomalous. Eight surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for lead only. The samplingresults indicated the lead concentrations (3.6 to 63 mg/kg) were well below screening levels (400mg/kg). The 95% UCL of the mean lead concentration at the site does not exceed the ADECcleanup levels. Since lead was not elevated during the 1996 investigation, it is logical to assumethat the chromium contamination was similarly below levels of concern. Any remainingchromium is likely isolated and present in de-minimus quantities. The detected arsenicconcentrations (3 to 11 mg/kg) do not exceed site background concentrations. Although thearsenic concentrations exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion pathway cleanup level (5.5 mg/kg),the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated with pastmilitary activity.Page 23 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 2. Sampling Results at Site 2ChemicalCleanupScreeningLevel aLevel(1994)Soil (mg/kg)DRO10,250100 bTRPHNA2,000 biArsenic116.7 cChromium300390-78,000 dLead400500-1,000 eWater (mg/L)TRPHNAsheen (0.5)Range ofResults(1994)Range ofResults(1996)ND - 28ND - 7103 – 113 – 3911 – 749----3.6-630.2 – 0.5--95% UCL ofthe mean6.5 f82 – 165 g206 hNotes: NA - not available, ND - not detected, mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram (parts per million),mg/L - milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)bADEC Interim Guidance Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)cUSGS Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988)dUS EPA Region 3 Risk-Based Concentration Table (July 11, 1994), Cr III and Cr VIeUS EPA Region 5 Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites(September 7, 1989)fbased on the gamma distributiongrange of values based on non-parametric methodshcalculated using all results from 1994 and 1996isite backgroundIn 1999, OSCI collected a pre-excavation sample to characterize the stained soils for disposalpurposes; the sample contained gasoline and diesel range organics at 309 and 6,440 mg/kg,respectively. The concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the removed soils did not exceedADEC Table B Ingestion pathway cleanup levels (1,400 mg/kg GRO and 10,250 mg/kg DRO).PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticide/ herbicides, and leachable metals were not detected. AfterOCSI removed a large quantity of stained soils, the Corps of Engineers stopped furtherexcavation because the scope of the removal action was limited to stained soils associated withdrums and other debris. The contamination was more extensive than anticipated. Commentsfrom local workers revealed that the petroleum stain at this site probably resulted from oil thatwas drained from ATVs by Gambell residents. No post-excavation samples were collected,because the Corps decided the stained soil was outside the scope of work. The observedpetroleum contamination may be the result of more recent oil spills that are not related to formerDoD activities.GroundwaterThree monitoring wells were installed at the site during the 1994 investigation. Groundwatersamples were collected from the 3 wells and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, prioritypollutant metals, and explosives. Low levels of total hydrocarbons were detected in onegroundwater sample (see Table 2), but did not exceed ADEC Table C cleanup levels in 18 AAC75.345. No other analytes were detected in the groundwater.Military MunitionsEarth Tech, Inc. conducted two geophysical surveys at Site 2 during July and September 2000, todetermine the presence or absence of buried ordnance. First, the field team visually surveyed thearea and removed metallic scrap and debris from the surface. Next, metal detectors were used tomap the location of subsurface metal within three site grids. Mapped metallic anomalies werePage 24 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathen excavated to determine the source of the magnetic signature. No evidence of any ordnancewas found during the investigation.1.6.5 Site 3 – Former Communications Facility Burial AreaSite 3 is located approximately 700 feet south of the North Beach, near the base of SevuokukMountain. The preliminary assessment indicated the possible burial of Jamesway huts, powerplant generators, transformers, oils, batteries, and sulfuric acid. Exposed above-ground debrisincluded weasel tracks, Marston matting, pipe, empty drums, and anchors for guy wire.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 1,740 pounds of debris from the vicinity of Site 3,including cable spools, corrugated metal, Marston matting, and cable wires. In 1999, OSCIremoved an additional 3,030 pounds of surface debris, including weasel tracks, 3 empty fuelstorage tanks, Marston matting and drums. All dangerous surface debris has been removed. Theburied debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the Phase I investigation. Ageophysical survey identified two discrete areas with suspected buried material. Subsurface soilsamples were collected from two borings at depths of 2.5 and 5 feet, and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons, VOCs, priority pollutant metals, PCBs, sulfate/sulfur, and pH. No VOCs or PCBswere detected. The only petroleum hydrocarbon detected was DRO, but at concentrations belowcleanup levels. Several metals were detected in the soil, including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,mercury, selenium, and thallium. Beryllium and thallium exceeded initial screening levels, andfurther sampling was conducted during the 1996 Phase II investigation. Four surface soilsamples were collected; the results were all below detection limits. The thallium results from1994 were determined to be spatially limited. Table 3 summarizes the sampling results.GroundwaterTwo monitoring wells, MW09 and MW10, were installed during the 1994 investigation andencountered groundwater at depths of 8 to 9 feet below ground surface. Groundwater samplesfrom the two wells were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, priority pollutantmetals, and sulfates. Lead was detected in the groundwater from MW10 at a concentrationwhich exceeded the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup value. However, a filtered samplefrom this well did not contain any dissolved lead. A second monitoring well, MW09, locatedimmediately downgradient of MW10 did not contain detectable levels of lead in thegroundwater. Both monitoring wells are located downgradient of the village drinking watersupply well, and the groundwater gradient in the vicinity flows north toward the Bering Sea.Lead was not identified as a contaminant of concern, and no further groundwater sampling wasperformed at Site 3 after the Phase I investigation.Page 25 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 3. Sampling Results at Site 3ChemicalCleanup ScreeningLevelLevel(1994)Soil (mg/kg)DRO10,250 a100 ghArsenic116.7 faBeryllium2001.5 faCadmium10039 ebMercury1823 eaSelenium510390 edThallium5.57.0 eWater (mg/L)Lead0.015 c0.015Lead, dissolvedMaximumResult(1994)522667111315MaximumResult(1996)ND (2.52)ND (0.28)0.045ND (0.002)Notes: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)mg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Inhalation (May 26, 2004)c18AAC75, Table C (May 26, 2004)dUS EPA Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (April 4, 2004)eUS EPA Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (July 11, 1994)fUSGS Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988)gADEC Interim Guidance, Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)hsite background1.6.6 Site 4A – Former Quonset Huts near USAF Radar StationSite 4A consisted of collapsed Quonset Huts frames and transformer casings located on the topof Sevuokuk Mountain. In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed three empty transformercarcasses. In 1999, OSCI removed 14,772 pounds (7.4 tons) of unsafe debris, including twocollapsed Quonset hut frames, metal siding, drums, and petroleum-stained soil (1,877 pounds)associated with the drums and debris.SoilDuring the remedial investigation, three surface soil samples were collected adjacent to the fallentransformers and analyzed for PCBs. Asbestos samples were also taken around the fallenQuonset huts. No PCBs or asbestos-containing material (ACM) were detected in the soils.OSCI collected four confirmation soil samples from within and outside of the two Quonset hutfootprints following the 1999 removal action. The samples were analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/GRO), VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) metals.The 1999 confirmation samples contained concentrations of diesel range organics and metalswhich exceeded screening levels, including arsenic, chromium, and lead. A supplementalinvestigation was conducted in 2001 at Site 4A to verify the previous confirmation samplingresults. Four samples were collected based on field screening results and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons and RCRA metals. Two of the samples were also analyzed for hexavalentchromium. The 2001 sampling results indicated that all chemicals of concern were below theADEC Table B ingestion pathway cleanup levels (18 AAC 75.341) or site background. InPage 26 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaaddition, hexavalent chromium was not detected in the soil samples. Table 4 summarizes theconfirmation soil sampling results from Site 4A. The chromium detected in 1999 does not posea potential risk to human health or the environment because further investigation demonstratedthat the chromium exists the less toxic form (Cr III), and is not present in a significant quantity.No significant volume of contaminated soil remains at the site. The area consists of largeboulders on top of bedrock with small amounts of soil. Site 4A has been cleaned up to the extentfeasible, as there is minimal soil above bedrock.Table 4. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 4AChemicalCleanup ScreeningMaximumMaximumLevel bLevel aConcentration Concentration(1999)(1999)(2001)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11 c28.33.9Chromium3002642212.1Lead40040031144DRO10,2502501,310970Notes: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite background1.6.7 Site 4B – Former USAF Radar StationSite 4B was a US Air Force (USAF) radar station, located on top of Sevuokuk Mountain. Thesite covered an area approximately 375 feet by 500 feet. The radar station consisted of buildingsthat burned and caused ordnance to explode and scatter debris. In 1999, OSCI excavated 52 tonsof contaminated soil to a depth of 24 inches. The excavation area was approximately 29 by 37feet and was partly covered by boulders. The removal included soil with localized heavystaining and an oily substance. OSCI also removed 1.4 tons of miscellaneous metal debris fromSite 4B.SoilDuring the 1994 Phase I investigation, five surface soil samples were collected and analyzed forpetroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), PCBs, priority pollutant metals, BNAs, and dioxin/furans. Thesampling results identified elevated concentrations of metals and dioxins.During the 1996 Phase II investigation, four additional surface soil samples were collected fromthe edges of the stained soil area to delineate the extent of metals contamination. Samples wereanalyzed for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, and lead. The results were significantly lowerthan those detected during the Phase I. See Table 5 for a comparison of results.One pre-excavation soil sample and six post-excavation confirmation samples were collectedduring the 1999 removal action. The samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, GRO, VOCs,SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper and lead), anddioxin/furans. Sampling results are shown in Table 5. The concentration of dioxins decreasedsignificantly as a result of removing the soils. The USEPA and ADEC have not establishedcleanup levels for dioxins. The USEPA Region 9 has established a screening level of 3.9 ppt fordioxins in residential soil. The State of Alaska adjusts the EPA screening level by one order ofPage 27 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskamagnitude to derive a preliminary remediation goal for residential soil of 39 ppt dioxin. TheAgency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses a screening level of 50 ppt andan action level of 1,000 ppt for dioxins in soil.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 4B to verify the 1999 confirmationsampling results because the latitude and longitude coordinates were not documented. Four soilsamples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/ GRO) and RCRAmetals. As shown in Table 5, these confirmation samples contained no analytes which exceededcleanup levels. Antimony and copper were not analyzed in 2001 because they are not part of thestandard set of 8 RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,silver).Copper exceeded the ADEC Table B cleanup level of 4,060 mg/kg, based on the ingestionpathway, in 1 out of 6 samples collected in 1999. The highest concentration of copper in theremaining samples was 65.7 mg/kg. However, the maximum concentration of copper (6,940mg/kg) does not exceed the ADEC Table B cleanup level of 7,000 mg/kg based on the migrationto groundwater pathway. The 1999 sample with elevated copper also contained lead. Furthersampling in 2001 indicated lead at much lower levels, but copper was not included in theanalytical suite.Table 5. Comparison of Maximum Concentrations of Contaminants of Concern in Soil at Site 4BChemicalUnits199419961999 pre1999 post2001 postmaximummaximumexcavationexcavationexcavationresultsresultsresultmax resultsmax resultsAntimonymg/kg130ND (15)-3.3-Arsenicmg/kg3817-1.64.3Cleanuplevel aCadmiumCoppermg/kgmg/kg5226,60061,900---1.86,9400.4--Leadmg/kg3,24984039696TotalDioxins(TEQ)DRORROTRPHpg/g51.2--11.7 mg/L(TCLP)26241 a5.5 a11 e100 a4,060 b7,000 c400 a29--NA dmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg--690----4692,110--13,900984--10,000200--10,250 a10,000 aNANotes: ND – non detect, TEQ – total dioxin/furan equivalent, TCLP – toxicity characterization leaching procedure, NA – not available, -- notanalyzed for, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million), pg/g – picograms per gram (parts per trillion), mg/L – milligrams per litera18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, ingestion pathway (May 26, 2004)bAdditional Cleanup Levels, ADEC Technical Memo 01-007 (November 24, 2003), ingestion pathway or c migration to groundwaterdThe ATSDR screening level for dioxin is 50 ppt, the ATSDR action level for dioxins is 1,000 ppt. USEPA Region 9, Preliminary RemediationGoal, residential soil (October 2004) for dioxin is 3.9 ppt. The State of Alaska uses a preliminary remediation goal of 39 ppt.esite backgroundNo contaminants of concern remain above ADEC Table B ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels,with the exception of copper. Site 4B is located at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain. The site isdominantly boulders and bedrock, and very little soil is present. It is unlikely that water fromSite 4B impacts the drinking water supply at Site 5 at the base of the mountain since Site 5 issignificantly south of Site 4B and the mountain slopes due west at Site 4B. Surface runoff wouldPage 28 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskalikely travel west off of the mountain or enter bedrock fractures. The steep open slope likelychannels many fractures to the west. At the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, west of Site 4B,groundwater in the gravel spit migrates slowly to the north, away from the drinking watersupply.The elevated copper at Site 4B is an isolated occurrence, confined to de-minimus quantities ofsoil. The contamination is an unlikely threat to the public drinking water supply locatedsouthwest of the Site at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. It is impractical to remove additionalquantities of soil.1.6.8 Site 4C – Sevuokuk MountainSite 4C is located at the south end of Sevuokuk Mountain, and contained discarded drums alongan ATV trail. Scattered drums were collected from along ATV trails and the surrounding tundraat the southern end of Sevuokuk Mountain by OSCI during the 1999 field season. OSCIremoved a total of 12,516 pounds of drums and drum parts from the Army Trails (Site 10),which included the drums identified at Site 4C. All unsafe debris was removed during the 1999field season.SoilFive soil/sediment samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs during the Phase I remedialinvestigation. PCBs were not detected.1.6.9 Site 4D – Sevuokuk MountainSite 4D is located near the top of Sevuokuk Mountain. Three empty transformer casings andmiscellaneous debris were observed in the mountainside drainage above the pump house.In 1999, OSCI removed the three empty transformers from Site 4D. Wipe samples collectedfrom inside each transformer carcass did not contain any PCBs. All unsafe debris was removedduring the 1999 field season.Soil/Sediment/WaterDuring the 1994 investigation, one soil and four sediment samples were collected and analyzedfor PCBs. No PCBs were detected in the samples collected adjacent to the empty transformers.A background sample collected upgradient contained 0.194 mg/kg PCBs, which is well belowthe ADEC Table B Ingestion pathway cleanup level of 1 mg/kg. In 1996, groundwater from aformer infiltration gallery just downslope of Site 4D was also sampled and analyzed for BTEXand PCBs. No contaminants were detected in the groundwater.1.6.10 Site 4E – Western Face of Sevuokuk MountainVarious types of cable and wire are present on the ground surface along the sloped western faceof Sevuokuk Mountain. The Native Village of Gambell identified this area as an impacted siteduring preparation of a strategic project implementation plan for the Native American LandsPage 29 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaEnvironmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). The debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.1.6.11 Site 6 – Military LandfillSite 6 is located north of the Gambell High School and east of the new housing area. Thislandfill was used to dispose of building materials, vehicles, machinery, drums of latrine waste,and miscellaneous debris. A geophysical survey to delineate the extent of buried debris wascompleted in 1994.In 1999, OSCI removed exposed drums (7,897 pounds) and other metal debris (1,748 pounds).In 2003, NALEMP funded a removal action at Site 6. Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH)excavated and removed buried debris at the site, including empty 55-gallon drums used tocontainerize latrine waste, engine parts, vehicle parts, Marston matting, metal spikes, piping, tincans, miscellaneous household garbage, and used oil filters. MWH removed approximately1,000 drums and other debris, and excavated 2.5 tons of fuel-contaminated soils. There was nonotable evidence of fuel contamination associated with the buried debris.SoilOne soil sample was collected after removing surface debris from the site in 1999. OSCIcollected the confirmation soil sample from beneath the removed drum stockpile. The soilcontained no metals (except arsenic), fuels, solvents, PCBs, or pesticides above ADEC Table Bcleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway in 18 AAC 75.341.In 2001, a supplemental investigation was conducted to verify the OSCI sampling results and tofurther define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination. Two surface soilsamples were collected from the approximate location of the 1999 confirmation sample, andanalyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and RCRA metals. As shown in Table 6, no analytes exceededcleanup levels or site background.Five soil borings were also advanced to frozen soil during the 2001 field effort. Groundwaterwas not encountered in any of the soil borings. Soil samples were collected and analyzed forGRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, and target analyte list (TAL) metals. Sampling results aresummarized in Table 6. The detected arsenic concentrations exceeded the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The calculated 95% UCL of the mean concentration forarsenic at Site 6 is 7.2 mg/kg. The observed arsenic concentrations in soil are consistent withsite background levels, are not associated with a point source of contamination, and do notappear associated with past military activity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samplesat concentrations exceeding the ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the ingestionpathway.Page 30 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 6. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalCleanup Screening ConfirmationLevel aLevel bSample(1999)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11c25.3Antimony413.6Chromium300261.33Nickel2,00087DRO10,250250ND(9.35)Range of ResultsConfirmation Samples(2001)Range of ResultsSoil Borings(2001)6 – 7.73.7 – 13.2ND(0.2) – 7.31.1 – 591.3 – 120ND(5) – 1,2003 – 6.3ND(5) – 21Notes: ND - non detect, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundGroundwaterGroundwater was evaluated during the initial remedial investigation of 1994. Five borings weredrilled at Site 6. No water was found in three of the borings, but two borings encountered meltedporewater which was sampled through the auger. The groundwater samples were analyzed forpetroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, metals, sulfate, biological oxygen demand(BOD), coliform, and total suspended solids/total dissolved solids (TSS/TDS). Low levels ofdiesel range organics and several metals were detected in the samples. Table 7 summarizes thesampling results. Although several metal concentrations did exceed screening levels, the metalswere primarily detected in unfiltered water samples. Exceedances were attributed to soilparticles suspended in the water column. Groundwater has not always been present at Site 6 andthe suprapermafrost groundwater is not considered a likely source of drinking water. The majorsource of potential contamination has been removed from the site and no significant residualcontamination was found in the soil or groundwater.Table 7. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalRange of Results(1994)Groundwater (mg/L)DRO0.46 – 0.75Arsenic0.03 – 0.05Beryllium0.007Cadmium0.007 – 0.008Chromium0.107 – 0.364Chromium, dissolved0.006Lead0.12 – 0.172Lead, dissolved0.008Nickel0.08 – 0.153ScreeningLevel a1.50.050.0040.0050.10.0150.1Notes: mg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18 AAC 75, Table C (May 26, 2004)1.6.12 Site 7 – Former Military Power FacilitySite 7 is located north of the Gambell Municipal Building, and west of the Gambell School. Amilitary power facility was reportedly demolished and buried in this location. A military motorpool building was also believed to be located in this vicinity. The site contained a concrete padPage 31 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaand surface debris. A geophysical survey to locate buried debris was completed in 1994. Thesurvey revealed no major anomalies indicative of large amounts of buried metal. MontgomeryWatson removed all exposed surface debris in 1996. In 1999, OCSI verified that no measurablequantities of surface debris remained at the site.During 2003, MWH removed the concrete pad, underlying support timbers, a buried 55-gallondrum, and 1 cubic yard of incidental contaminated soils under NALEMP.SoilDuring the 1994 investigation, five soil borings were drilled to permafrost (6.5 to 15.0 feet belowground surface) and four were completed as monitoring wells. Two surface soil samples and 17subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, and prioritypollutant metals. The subsurface soil samples were also analyzed for PCBs.The investigation results indicated DRO and TRPH were present in surface and subsurface soil.The DRO concentrations did not exceed the ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on theIngestion pathway. There are no ADEC cleanup levels for TRPH. Table 8 summarizes theresults. No other analytes were present at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels.Additional soil borings were drilled in 2001 to further investigate the potential for soilcontamination, and to address continuing community concerns regarding Site 7. Three soilborings (SB7-18, SB7-19, SB7-20) were drilled to permafrost (6.2, 7.2 and 10.0 feet bgs). The2001 investigation results showed DRO in one soil sample at a maximum concentration of 710mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,200 mg/kg.Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kg, with a calculated 95%UCL of the mean concentration of 7.8 mg/kg at Site 7. Six of the eleven arsenic results exceededthe ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg arsenic. However, the observed arsenicconcentrations in soil are consistent with site background levels, are not associated with a pointsource of contamination, and do not appear associated with past military activity. PCBs were notdetected in any Site 7 samples. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples atconcentrations exceeding the cleanup levels.After the 2003 removal action, MWH collected five confirmation soil samples from the edges ofthe concrete pad excavation and one sample from beneath the excavated drum (see Figure 4).The soil samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, PCBs, and TAL metals. One sample containedDRO at 570 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,200mg/kg. This detection may correspond to leakage from a community fuel pipeline present at theedge of the pad. The five samples near the concrete pad contained arsenic levels ranging from4.2 to 34.9 mg/kg, which exceeds the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg, andmay correspond to leached preservative from the treated timbers used as a form surrounding theconcrete pad. The arsenic concentrations are also significantly higher than site backgroundconcentrations and may pose a risk to human health and the environment.Page 32 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 8. Sampling Results at Site 7 during 1994 investigationSS40,SB17MW24MW25SoilSS41(mg/kg)Arsenic3.0 – 4.02.0 – 5.42.0 – 4.01.0 – 2.0DRO1,950–ND20–94120–2712,090GRONDNDNDNDTRPH1,800–ND–4713–180400–1,3004,300BenzeneND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.005)MW26MW272.0 – 5.4NDCleanupLevel11 d10,250 aScreeningLevel2.0 b100 c2.018–1,840ND115–13,000ND(0.005)NDND–1621,400 aNA100 c2,000 cND(0.005)150 a0.5 cScreeningLevel b2.0Notes: NA - not available, ND - not detected. mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)cADEC Interim Guidance, Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)dsite backgroundTable 9. Sampling Results at Site 7 (2001 and 2003)SB118SB119SB120 SL001 SL002Soil(mg/kg)Arsenic6.3 –4.5 – 10.24.9 –34.99.67.39.8DROND45 - 67160 570100710GRONDNDNDNDNDRROND120 - 310ND1,300480BenzeneNDNDNDNDND(0.005)(0.008)(0.005) (0.02)(0.02)SL003SL004SL0054.227.93.2CleanupLevel a11 c1209911 VJ10,250 a250ND370ND(0.02)ND430ND(0.02)ND38 VJND(0.02)1,400 a10,000 a150 a30011,0000.2Notes: ND - not detected, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million), VJ – analyte positively identified, estimated value.a18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundGroundwaterDuring the 1994 investigation, four monitoring wells were installed at Site 7 (see Figure 4).Three monitoring wells (MW24, MW25, MW27) encountered perched groundwater, but theywere essentially dry wells. The monitoring wells were installed by drilling down into the ice tocreate a reservoir which would collect melted groundwater. A fourth well (MW26) wasabandoned without collecting a groundwater sample due to lack of water. Suprapermafrostgroundwater was collected from the three wells, but the lack of water in these wells preventedstandard well development. The groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. A sufficient quantity of water could not bewithdrawn from MW27, and the sample was only submitted for analysis of VOCs, DRO, andpriority pollutant metals. DRO, GRO and TRPH were detected in the groundwater. Benzene wasalso detected in monitoring well MW24. The DRO and benzene results exceed the ADEC TableC groundwater cleanup levels. Water sample turbidity ranged from 9.3 to 82.5 NephelometricTurbidity Units (NTUs). This suggests that the laboratory results included contributions fromsuspended solids. Table 10 summarizes the Site 7 groundwater results.Page 33 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 10. Sampling Results at Site 7 during 1994 investigationChemicalMW24MW25MW26MW27Groundwater (mg/L)DRO18.4GRO0.844TRPH4.2Benzene0.019Turbidity (NTUs)82.519.4--ND (0.0005)50.1------ADECCleanup Level a1.180.1031.1ND (0.0005)9.31.51.3NA0.0055bNotes: NA - not available, ND - not detected, NTU - nephelometric turbidity units, -- not analyzed formg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75 Table C cleanup levels (May 26, 2004)bgeneral standard for well samplingAdditional borings were drilled in 2001 to further investigate the potential for suprapermafrostgroundwater contamination, and to address continuing community concerns regarding Site 7.Three borings were drilled to permafrost (6.2, 7.2 and 10.0 feet bgs); but groundwater was notencountered in any of the soil borings.The supplemental investigation demonstrated that the groundwater at Site 7 is ephemeral, andsoil contamination is below cleanup levels. The risk of contaminant migration east towards theaquifer located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain is extremely low.Figure 4 – Sampling Locations at Site 7!<SB27-1HouseSB27-2!<!<SB27-3"Q" BuildingHouse!(SS41MW26!( SS40SB7-18!<A!<SB1707SL00107SL00207SL00307SL00407SL005!({0MW27!<SB7-19100FeetPage 34 of 66Former Concrete Pad(removed 2003)!( A!(!(!(A MW25A50FormerMW24!<Community fuel pipelineSB7-20Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6.13 Sites 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D – West Beach AreaSite 8 includes the area surrounding the airstrip from west beach (north of the airfield), east tothe western edge of Troutman Lake, and south to the northern shore of North Nayvaghat Lakes.Exposed Marston matting debris (8A) is located along the eastern side of the airstrip. Buriedmiscellaneous metallic debris (8B) has been reported south of the old village area, includingnumerous 55-gallon drums and a Jeep. A Navy Landfill (8C) is located northwest of the formerCivil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) housing area and south of the village landfill. TheNavy reportedly constructed this landfill during their utilization of the former CAA housing area.The Navy landfill may have asbestos-containing materials (ACM). An Army landfill was alsoreportedly located northwest of the Nayvaghat Lakes area. A geophysical survey to determinethe extent of buried debris at the reported Army landfill was conducted in 1994. The surveyresults indicated no significant anomalies, confirming the reported Army landfill was not present.AirstripSmall-arms ammunition debris including intact 0.30 caliber rounds is also located along thebeach (8D) southwest of Troutman Lake. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS. FUDS Program Policy (ER 200-3-1), Chapter 3 (3-2.4.5 Building Demolition andDebris Removal Projects.) states that “Inherently hazardous BD/DR must present a clear danger,likely to cause, or having already caused, death or serious injury to a person exercising ordinaryand reasonable care.” In the OE Response ActionMemorandum for the Gambell Site, signed 16 October2003, it states on page 1 “During the EE/CA fieldinvestigation, ordnance was found at only one of theGambell sites (Area D), comprised solely of small armsammunition. Small arms ammunition does not presenta hazard to human safety, the environment, or publicinterest unless intentionally subjected to intense heat orother energetic activities.” Intentionally subjectingthese small rounds to intense heat is not exercisingSite8Aordinary and reasonable care.The Marston matting at Site 8A was abandoned inplace when the military demobilized from the area inthe late 1950s. The exposed Marston matting debris islocated in an area heavily traveled by local residentsusing all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The debrisposes a clear danger to local residents who frequentlytraverse the area on ATVs and snowmachines due tothe sharp and jagged edges which protrude above theground surface and large piles which create anavigation hazard during the winter when partiallycovered by snow.In 1999, OSCI removed surface debris from Site 8A,including scattered metal, small quantities of wood andconcrete, and an exposed layer of Marston mattingTroutmanLakeATVTrailSite 12North AreaSite 8D±0500 1,000FeetNorthNayvaghatLakesFigure 5 – Site 8 vicinity mapPage 35 of 66Site 12South AreaDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaapproximately 30 feet wide and 4,500 feet long along the eastern side of the airstrip. OSCI didnot complete the planned removal of the Marston matting because buried electrical linesprevented safe implementation of the field activities. Approximately 1,820 feet of exposed metalMarston landing mat remains at Site 8A.Earth Tech, Inc. recovered approximately 800 small arms ammunition rounds from Site 8D inJuly 2000, and shipped the material off-site to a facility in Colfax, Louisiana for disposal.Soil/GroundwaterA remedial investigation was completed in 1994 and included collection of limited soil andgroundwater samples at the reported Army landfill area located northwest of the NayvaghatLakes area. No samples were collected from other sub-areas of Site 8. The investigation resultsindicated that all detected analytes in soil/groundwater were below ADEC Table B cleanuplevels, based on the migration to groundwater pathway.Military MunitionsIn 2000, Earth Tech, Inc. surveyed Site 8D using metal detectors to locate possible ordnance andexplosive materials. Highly weathered small arms rounds were documented in a beach burial pitsouthwest of Troutman Lake. Approximately 800 small arms ammunition rounds wererecovered from the surface of Site 8D and shipped off-site to a facility in Colfax, Louisiana fordisposal. An OE Response Action Memorandum dated August 2003 documented the selectedordnance and explosives response actions for the Gambell site. Institutional controls wereapproved to manage any existing ordnance-related hazards and residual risks. The institutionalcontrols were implemented during the summer of 2004 and consisted of distributinginformational pamphlets and posters about ordnance risks to local residents and businesses andholding a community meeting. An initial review to evaluate the continued effectiveness andreliability of the ordnance response action will be conducted in 3 years. After the initial reviewhas been conducted, recurring reviews will be performed at 5-year intervals. The need forrecurring reviews will be coordinated with regulators and stakeholders and justified in eachrecurring review report.1.6.14 Site 9 – Asphalt Barrel CacheSite 9 is located on the east side of the local airport runway. Drums of leaking tar were observedin two areas. A debris inventory prepared by Montgomery Watson in 1997 indicated drumscontaining asphalt (6,200 estimated pounds) and empty drums (900 pounds) were located withinSite 8, which includes the area referred to as Site 9.OSCI overpacked and removed nine drums of asphalt (4,458 pounds) and associated stained soils(4,790 pounds) from east of the runway during the 1999 removal action. All empty drums werealso removed. All unsafe debris and contaminated soil have been removed from the site.SoilOSCI collected one confirmation soil sample after removing the asphalt drums and stained soil.The sample was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, SVOCs,Page 36 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPCBs, pesticides, and metals. The results indicated that all analytes were either not detected orbelow the ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway.In 2001, two additional soil samples were collected to verify the 1999 results. The samples wereanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), and RCRA metals. Arsenic wasdetected at concentrations of 5.3 and 6.8 mg/kg, which exceeds the ADEC Table B ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. However, the levels are consistent with site background levels anddo not appear associated with past military activity. All other analytes were either below thecleanup levels or not detected.1.6.15 Site 10 – Sevuokuk Mountain TrailSite 10 consists of a trail system that originates at the southeast end of Troutman Lake andseparates into individual trails to the north, south, and east. Two trails lead to the top ofSevuokuk Mountain. Empty 55-gallon drums located approximately 250 feet apart marked thetrails. Other debris at the site included Marston matting and weasel tracks. No staining orstressed vegetation was observed during the initial remedial investigation and the drums wereeither empty or contained gravel.In 1999, OSCI removed all the scattered drums (12,516 pounds), miscellaneous metallic debris(1,388 pounds), and a small amount (540 pounds) of stained soils from beneath the drums. Allunsafe debris has been removed from the site.1.6.16 Site 11 – Communications Cable RouteSite 11 contained a sonar cable going up Sevuokuk Mountain, abandoned cable spools, and aremnant of braided metal cable on top of the mountain. The only evidence of sonar cables weresome cable spools observed near Site 4D during the 1994 remedial investigation. OSCI removedthe debris at Site 4D during the 1999 removal action. The remaining debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.1.6.17 Site 12 – North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal SiteSite 12 is located north of Nayvaghat Lakes on the southwest side of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV)trail. The site is divided into a north and a south area. The north area contained approximately120 drums, battery remnants, and miscellaneous metal debris. The south area containedapproximately 50 drums. The area south of Troutman Lake is within the City of Gambellboundary. The area is currently used primarily for recreation, subsistence food gathering, and asa gravel borrow source. However, this site has the potential to be developed for residential usein the future, given the flat topography and close proximity to a new drinking water source.In 1999, OSCI removed contaminated soil and debris from the site including drums, dried paint,and batteries from large vehicles consistent with former military use. OSCI removed 798 poundsof miscellaneous metal debris; 7,104 pounds of drums; 1,598 pounds of RCRA hazardousmaterials (lead contaminated soil, lead acid batteries, and lead paint); and 7,237 pounds ofpetroleum-stained soil associated with the drums.Page 37 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilA remedial investigation was conducted in 1994; soil confirmation samples were collectedfollowing the 1999 removal action. Additional investigation was performed in 2001.Three surface and two subsurface soil samples were collected in 1994. The soil samples wereanalyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Except for arsenic,the concentrations of metals detected in the soil samples were below screening levels. Arsenicconcentrations ranged from 4 to 10 mg/kg, consistent with site background levels. No otheranalytes were detected in the soil samples. Three confirmation surface soil samples were alsocollected after completing the 1999 removal action. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and DRO weredetected in soil at concentrations exceeding screening levels based on the ADEC Table Bcleanup levels, migration to groundwater pathway.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was completed at Site 12 to verify the previous confirmationsampling results. Five surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, RRO), and RCRA metals. Chromium and lead exceeded the ADECcleanup levels. DRO and cadmium were not detected at concentrations exceeding the cleanuplevels. The arsenic levels at Site 12 are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity. The sampling results are summarized in Table 11. Noother analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels.Table 11. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 12ChemicalCleanupRange ofRange of ResultsLevelResults(2001)(1999)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11 c3–66 – 9.4Cadmium5a0.18 - 142ND(0.2) – 1.6Chromium26 a2.6 - 205.7 – 162Lead400 b12.4 - 5627 – 1,530DRO250 a463ND(5) – 46Notes: ND - non detect, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, migration to groundwater pathway(May 26, 2004)b18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, ingestion pathway (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundWaterDuring the 1994 remedial investigation, one surface water sample was collected from NorthNayvaghat Lake, and two groundwater monitoring wells were installed. The three water sampleswere analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. DRO andmetals were detected at low levels in surface water and groundwater, but did not exceed theADEC Table C cleanup levels.Page 38 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 6 – Site 12 vicinity mapSerstripTrailtn.MW18ASS47kM10ATV10AikuvuoSepticareaSS46MW17((!!"$)+99GAM009SLA01GAM012SS150SW165#*01GAM0123SS151$"+)Lakes99GAM919SLvaghatSS48Nay{01GAM012SS152!(+$)"99GAM011SL050100Feet1.6.18 Site 13 – Former Radar Power StationSite 13 is located east of the pond between Troutman and North Nayvaghat Lakes. The radarpower station consisted of two wooden Quonset huts, one long wooden building, and several 150foot towers that were reportedly demolished and buried on-site. Stained soils and miscellaneoussurface debris such as steel wire, pipes, and Marston matting were observed at the site.A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994 to determine the extent of buried debris. Thesurvey revealed strong anomalies around two mounds and scattered surface debris which areprobably related to significant amounts of buried material. In 1999, OSCI removed 343 poundsof miscellaneous metal debris from surface areas at Site 13. The buried debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.Page 39 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilTwo surface and five subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedialinvestigation. The subsurface soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons(GRO, DRO, TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Surface soil samples were analyzedfor TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No analytes, except arsenic, were detected atconcentrations exceeding ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwaterpathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2 to 6 mg/kg, with a calculated 95% UCL of themean concentration at Site 13 of 4.5 mg/kg, compared to the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanuplevel of 5.5 mg/kg.WaterThree monitoring wells were installed during the 1994 remedial investigation. Groundwater wasencountered from 2 to 4 feet bgs and samples from all 3 wells were analyzed for VOCs, GRO,DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. DRO (0.053 to 0.159 mg/L) and TRPH (0.2to 0.4 mg/L) were detected at low levels, but did not exceed ADEC Table C cleanup levels.1.6.19 Site 14 – Navy Plane Crash SiteSite 14 is located approximately 7 miles south of the Village of Gambell. A Navy P2V-5Neptune reconnaissance plane crash landed at this location in June 1955 after being attacked byRussian aircraft. The aircraft’s gasoline tank exploded and most of the fuels burned leaving noapparent stains or any stressed vegetation at the site. Debris remains on the tundra, in the areaimmediately surrounding the crash site.The plane crash location is outside the military property boundary identified for the Gambell site,and is therefore not eligible for action under the FUDS program. There is no reason to believehazardous materials are/were present.1.6.20 Site 15 – Troutman Lake Disposal SiteSite 15 was reported to contain submerged ordnance and other debris at the north end ofTroutman Lake. The underwater debris (miscellaneous metal debris) is not eligible for furtheraction under FUDS.Military MunitionsDuring 2000 and 2001, Troutman Lake was investigated using geophysical surveyingtechniques. The entire lake bottom was mapped along a series of transect lines, to detectunderwater anomalies representative of piles of steel ammunition boxes. Metallic anomaliesdetected by the equipment were then further investigated using ice augers, depth soundingequipment, poles, and an underwater video camera to determine the source of the metal signal.An open water investigation was also conducted to verify the anomaly source using dredginganchors, depth-sounding leads, and an underwater camera. Anomaly locations within 20 feet ofthe lakeshore were verified by visual inspection. The source of the magnetic anomalies rangedfrom runway matting and 55-gallon drums, to geologic features such as iron and fault features.No evidence of ordnance or large piles of ammunition boxes was discovered in Troutman Lake.Page 40 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaAdditional details regarding the ordnance investigation can be found in the report FinalEngineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (Earth Tech Inc., 2002).1.6.21 Site 16 – Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 16 consisted of a 35 by 55-foot area of stained gravel, located immediately west of theMunicipal Building. The origin of the stain is unknown, and staining is most visible after arainfall event. A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994. The survey results revealed foursmall anomalies which may be related to buried materials. The buried debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Foursurface soil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), andpriority pollutant metals. Three subsurface soil samples from one soil boring were analyzed forVOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Groundwater was notencountered in the soil boring. Arsenic results ranged from 2 to 7 mg/kg, with a calculated 95%UCL of the mean concentration at Site 16 of 5.4 mg/kg. Only 1 out of 7 samples exceeded theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other contaminants were identified atSite 16 above the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater pathway soil cleanup levels.In 2001, four additional soil borings were drilled at the site based on community concerns. Thesoil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs or BTEX,and TAL metals. No analytes (except arsenic) were detected in any sample above ADEC TableB cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations rangedfrom 3.6 to 9.8 mg/kg. Only 1 sample exceeded the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity.1.6.22 Site 17 – Army LandfillsThe Army Landfills are located between the North Beach and Site 6 Military Landfill, which isnorth of the Gambell School and Municipal Building. The two landfills reportedly containedburied debris and/or trash, as well as exposed surface debris such as drums, Marston matting, andscrap metal. A geophysical survey of the area was conducted in 1994. The survey resultsindicated the potential for buried debris associated with the reported landfills. The remainingburied debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Exposed miscellaneous surface debris, including nodwell tracks, Marston matting, steel cableand scrap metal, was removed by OSCI during the 1999 removal action. The actual tonnage ofdebris removed was combined with Site 6 for a total of 1,748 pounds.SoilSoil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Five soil borings werecompleted to permafrost (7.5 to 10.5 feet). Samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(GRO, DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Arsenic ranged from 2 to 6Page 41 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskamg/kg in soil, compared to the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Only 1sample out of 13 exceeded the ADEC cleanup level. The arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected in soil above ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels.WaterMonitoring wells were not installed at the site because well completion was impractical. Meltedporewater samples were collected through the auger and submitted for analysis of VOCs, PCBs,petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), and priority pollutant metals. No groundwatercontaminants exceeded the ADEC Table C cleanup levels.1.6.23 Site 18 – Former Main CampSite 18 is located at the northeast end of Troutman Lake, between the current Municipal Buildingand the Gambell School. A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994 to determine the presenceof buried debris. The survey showed a linear anomaly in the center of the survey grid, betweenthe high school and the washeteria. This feature was thought to represent water delivery lines forthe existing Power Plant. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSoil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. One soil boring was drilledsouth of the anomaly due to the reported burial of discarded underground storage tanks in thevicinity. Subsurface soil samples and melted porewater were collected and analyzed for VOCs,petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. No analyteswere detected above screening levels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwaterpathway cleanup levels. Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 2 to 5 mg/kg, and did notexceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level.During the 2001 investigation, further sampling was conducted at Site 18 based on communityconcerns. One soil boring was placed adjacent to the north fence of the Municipal WaterTreatment/Washeteria Complex. The soil boring, 18A-1, was advanced to 17.5 feet belowground surface, and two soil samples were collected near the bottom of the boring at 12 and 14 ftbgs. The samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, andTAL metals. DRO was detected at concentrations ranging from 54 to 640 mg/kg in subsurfacesoil, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg.Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 5.6 to 5.9 mg/kg, which slightly exceeds theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected above screening levels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwatercleanup levels.GroundwaterIn 2001, one well point was also installed at the location of soil boring 18A-1 and free productwas observed. The free product recovered from the well point appeared clear and clean, and hadthe strong odor of fresh fuel, features not typical of degraded fuels from previous militaryactivities. The free product was not sampled because the origin of the fuel was believed to bePage 42 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskanon-military. In 1997, the City of Gambell lost a reported 10,000 gallons of fuel while pumpingfuel from the north beach (via pipelines) to Site 18, the missing fuel was never located.Further investigation of the reported free product was conducted in July 2004. A well point wasinstalled in the same location as the previous well point. A groundwater sample was collectedand analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel. A complete fuel characterizationanalysis (fingerprint) was not possible because enough free product could not be extracted fromthe water sample. The water sample had a sheen, but no obvious free product layer. The samplecontained 22 mg/L TPH, and the peak distribution was characteristic of a light diesel such asarctic diesel. The laboratory narrative report indicated the sample from Site 18 wascharacteristic of other fresh fuels dispensed in the United States and had experienced, at most,mild degradation from environmental exposure, based on interpretation of the chromatogram.1.6.24 Site 19 – Diatomaceous EarthSite 19 was identified as a separate area of concern by the Native Village of Gambell under theNALEMP program. This area coincides with the description of Site 18 presented above. Awhite powdery material was observed in a berm which borders Troutman Lake, and wasdetermined to be inert, diatomaceous earth previously used for water filtration by the military.Diatomaceous earth is an inert material which does not pose a chemical hazard, and thus cannotbe addressed further under the FUDS program.1.6.25 Site 20 – SchoolyardSite 20 is located north of the former Main Camp (Site 18) near the current Gambell School.The schoolyard contained two rubble piles that consisted primarily of concrete and rebar, plus apartially exposed concrete slab. The piles presented a physical hazard to local residents such aschildren attending school, ATV and snowmachine traffic. The rubble piles and concrete padwere removed in August 2003 under the NALEMP program.1.6.26 Site 21 – Toe of Sevuokuk MountainSite 21 is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and southwest of Site 5, and is thought tocontain buried miscellaneous wire and metallic debris from military activities. The buried debrisis not eligible for further action under FUDS.1.6.27 Site 22 – Former CAA HousingFormer Civil Aeronautical Administration (CAA) Housing units are located near the northeastedge of the Old Gambell section of the village. The CAA housing area consists of six homes andone lodge originally built as a weather data collection facility to help guide Russian pilots duringWorld War II. The Navy and Army also reportedly used the housing area in the Cold War eraduring their efforts to lay submarine detection cables off the coast of St. Lawrence Island. Thissite was identified as a concern under the NALEMP program due to the possibility that asbestoscontaining materials may be present in the structures.Page 43 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaThe buildings are presently occupied and/or owned by local residents, thus they do not qualifyfor further action under FUDS due to beneficial reuse.1.6.28 Site 23 – Debris from High School ConstructionSite 23 was identified by local residents as a concern in the Strategic Project ImplementationPlan (SPIP) produced for the NALEMP program. The area is located due east of the Gambelllandfill and consists of metallic debris that was originally unearthed during the construction ofthe Gambell High School. The City of Gambell moved the excavated debris to the local landfillfor reburial.Removal actions undertaken by current landowners are not eligible for reimbursement or furtheraction under FUDS. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.1.6.29 Site 24 – South of Municipal BuildingSite 24 is located south of the Municipal Building along the northern shore of Troutman Lake. Ageophysical survey of the site was conducted in 2000, and subsurface anomalies consistent withmetallic debris were found. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, one soil boring was drilled to frozen soil.Two soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO),VOCs, and TAL metals. The soil samples contained arsenic at concentrations of 5.7 and 6.3mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity. Fuels were not detected in the soil samples. No otheranalytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC Table B migration to groundwatercleanup levels.1.6.30 Site 25A – Village of Gambell South Housing UnitsLocal residents identified the south housing units, Site 25A, during the 2001 investigation as anarea that may be contaminated by fuel-related products of military origin. During constructionwork performed in 1997 by Alaska Village Safe Water, oily soils were encountered at thepermafrost interface. Residents are concerned that the military may have dumped barrels of oildirectly on the ground in this area.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental investigation, six soil borings were drilled to permafrost. Soilborings were selected based on the location of depressions and trenches identified on historicalaerial photographs, and disturbed ground identified by local residents. The field crew carefullyavoided buried utility corridors.Eighteen subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO, GRO, RRO), and BTEX. A subset of five samples was also analyzed for VOCs and TALmetals. The results were compared to the ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migrationPage 44 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskato groundwater pathway. Fuels, BTEX and VOCs were not detected above ADEC Table Bmigration to groundwater cleanup levels in any sample. Arsenic was detected at concentrationsfrom 2.2 to 19.2 mg/kg. Three of the five samples exceeded the ADEC Table B ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels, are notassociated with a point source of contamination, and do not appear associated with past militaryactivity.1.6.31 Site 25B – Low Drainage Area Southwest of ArmoryLocal residents identified Site 25B during the 2001 supplemental investigation as an area wherecontaminants may migrate and accumulate. The site is located west of the Sivuqaq Lodge,southeast of the Gambell store and fuel storage tanks, and near a local church and Army Guardbuilding.SoilTwo soil borings were drilled to frozen soil (depth of 11 and 12 feet) to identify potentialcontamination. Six subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO) and BTEX. One sample was also analyzed for PCBs. Thesoil sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. No analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding theTable B cleanup levels.1.6.32 Site 26 – Possible Debris Burial SiteSite 26 was identified from a 1953 aerial photograph as a possible debris burial feature. The siteis located east of the Gambell School near the Former Main Camp (Site 18). Local residentsreported finding metal debris, machinery, oily debris, and transformers in this vicinity.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, two soil borings were drilled to frozensoil. Four subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metals. Arsenic was detected at concentrations rangingfrom 3.6 to 7.7 mg/kg in surface and subsurface soils. One out of four samples exceeded theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected above the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels.1.6.33 Site 27 – Drum Storage AreaAnalysis of an aerial photograph from 1955 indicated this location was a historical drum storagearea. The community was also concerned about an area of rust-stained soil at this site. The siteis located north of the former military power facility (Site 7), within the new housing area. Thedrums stored at this site have been removed.Page 45 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, four soil borings were drilled to frozen soilto determine if contamination was present. Eight subsurface soil samples were collected andanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, PCBs, and TAL metals. Thesoil sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.4 to 16.9 mg/kg. Theobserved arsenic concentrations are consistent with site background levels, are not associatedwith a point source of contamination, and do not appear associated with past military activity.No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrations above the ADEC Table Bcleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway.1.6.34 Site 28 – Disturbed GroundSite 28 was identified from a 1972 aerial photograph as a disturbed area. This site is locatedsouth of Troutman Lake and west of an unnamed pond. The U.S. Army leased this area fromJanuary 1955 to May 1958 and utilized the area for communications.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental investigation, two soil borings were advanced to frozen soil todetermine if contamination was present. Six subsurface soil samples were collected andanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metalsThe sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 10 mg/kg. Thearsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appear associated with pastmilitary activity. No other analytes in the soil samples exceeded the ADEC Table B migration togroundwater pathway levels.Page 46 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.7 Summary of Site RisksContaminants of concern were identified during the Remedial Investigation by comparison torisk-based screening levels and cleanup criteria. Screening levels were based on the moststringent Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) soil and groundwatercleanup levels promulgated in 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75.341 and 345. TheADEC regulates cleanup of contaminated sites in Alaska. The cleanup levels established by theADEC are based on an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occur undercurrent and future site conditions and are designed to be protective of human health and theenvironment. The cleanup level from Table B1 or B2 that applies at a site depends on theapplicable exposure pathway based on ingestion, inhalation, or the migration to groundwaterpathway.The soil cleanup standards regulations in Tables B1 and B2 of 18 AAC 75.341 set out threedifferent sets of soil cleanup standards based on climate variations ("zones") throughout the state.These zones were developed based on a sensitivity analysis of the factors affecting the migrationof contaminants through the soil into groundwater. The resulting three climate zones were:"Arctic" (continuous permafrost), "Under 40 Inch Zone" (that area of the state receiving less than40 inches of annual precipitation), and "Over 40 Inch Zone" (that area of the state receiving morethan 40 inches of annual precipitation). The Gambell Site is located in area which receives lessthan 40 inches of rainfall per year.Each zone was also assigned a conservative estimate of the reasonable exposure frequency tocontaminated soil for an individual within that geographic area. This analysis looked attemperature, snowfall, and ADEC's past risk assessment data within each zone. This analysisshowed that average temperature and snowfall uniquely affect potential exposure in Alaska. Theresulting exposure frequency values used to develop the soil cleanup standards for the Under 40Inch Zone was 270 days (90 days non-exposure time). Standardized default exposure parametersdeveloped by the United States Environmental Protection Agency were used except for exposurefrequency as outlined above. The target hazard quotient for non-carcinogenic compounds wasset a 1, and the target cancer risk was set at 1 x 10-5 for carcinogens. Cleanup levels werecalculated based on a 30-year exposure duration consisting of 6-years as a child and 24-years asan adult.The ADEC regulations consider three scenarios – ingestion (potential pathway of exposure tohazardous substances in soil through direct consumption of the soil), inhalation (potentialpathway of exposure to volatile organic hazardous substances in the soil through volatilization),or migration to groundwater (potential exposure to hazardous substances in soil through directingestion of groundwater contaminated with concentrations of hazardous substances at levelslisted in Table C at 18 AAC 75.345(b)(1) as a result of movement of hazardous substancesthrough soil to the groundwater). In general, the most stringent pathway is selected as thecleanup level, however, if a particular pathway is not applicable to a site, then the selectedcleanup level is based on the remaining exposure pathways contained in Table B.The selected soil cleanup levels for all sites in Gambell, with the exception of Site 12, are basedon the Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion soil cleanup levels. Site 12 is located in closePage 47 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaproximity to the local aquifer, and the Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to GroundwaterPathway soil cleanup levels are applicable at these sites. The groundwater cleanup levelspromulgated by the State of Alaska in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C are based on drinking watercriteria, and utilize standard US EPA exposure assumptions (70 kg body weight, 30 yearsaveraging time – noncarcinogen, 70 years averaging time – carcinogen, 2 liters/day ingestionrate, 350 days/year exposure frequency, 30 years exposure duration, target hazard quotient of 1,and target cancer risk of 1x10-5).A comparison of the concentrations of contaminants of concern was presented in Section 1.6.The only sites with contamination remaining above soil cleanup levels are Site 7 and Site 12.Based upon the relatively small size of the contaminated source areas in comparison to thehabitats of ecological receptors, there is little potential for significant exposure of wildlife to thecontaminants. The potential for significant ecological impacts appears small. No threatened orendangered species commonly occur at the Gambell Sites.Page 48 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.8 Remedial Action ObjectivesSpecific remediation alternatives were developed and evaluated for contaminants of concern(COCs) at the Gambell site. The remedial action objectives are:At Site 7, protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk from potentialexposure to arsenic. Eliminate exposure via incidental ingestion of soils by removingsoils which exceed the site background level of 11 mg/kg arsenic.At Site 12, protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk from potentialexposure to chromium and lead. Eliminate exposure via incidental ingestion of soils ormigration to groundwater by removing soils which exceed the cleanup levels of 400mg/kg lead and 26 mg/kg chromium;Restore contaminated soils for future residential land use; andRemove exposed military debris which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death orserious injury to persons exercising ordinary and reasonable care.As part of the remedial investigation process, contaminants of concern were identified through acomparison of contaminant levels to risk-based screening levels and applicable regulatorycleanup levels. The primary COCs for soil at Gambell are arsenic at Site 7 and lead andchromium at Site 12. Contaminants at the other Gambell sites either do not exceed establishedcleanup levels, or exist in de-minimus quantities. The risks are below the target threshold of 1 x10-5 and result in no further action decisions for the remaining sites. These sites are available forunrestricted use.The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) regulates cleanup ofcontaminated sites, and has established soil and groundwater cleanup levels in 18 AlaskaAdministrative Code (AAC) 75.340 and 345. Cleanup levels established following ADECregulations are based on an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occurunder current and future site conditions. The cleanup levels are based on the most relevantexposure pathways at each site. The ADEC regulations consider three scenarios – migration togroundwater, ingestion, and inhalation. In general, the most stringent pathway is selected as thecleanup level, however, if a particular pathway is not applicable to a site, then the selectedcleanup level is based on the remaining cleanup levels contained in Table B. The selected soiland groundwater cleanup levels for all sites are risk-based and designed to be protective ofhuman health and the environment.The soil cleanup goals for Site 7 (Table 12) are based on the ADEC Table B2 ingestion pathwaysoil cleanup levels. The migration to groundwater pathway is not applicable at Site 7 due to thepresence of continuous permafrost which acts as a barrier to contaminant migration, and thesporadic presence of suprapermafrost groundwater at this site. The arsenic cleanup level of 11mg/kg represents the site background concentration.Page 49 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 12Site 7 Soil Cleanup LevelsArsenic a11 mg/kgDRO b10,250 mg/kgRRO b10,000 mg/kgSources:asite backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The soil cleanup goals for Site 12 (Table 13) are based on the ADEC Table B1 and B2 migrationto groundwater and ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels. Site 12 is located due south ofTroutman Lake, and the groundwater table is in close connection to surface waters.Table 13Site 12 Soil Cleanup LevelsArsenic a11 mg/kgCadmium b5 mg/kgChromium b26 mg/kgLead b400 mg/kgDRO b250 mg/kgRRO c10,000 mg/kgSources:asite backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Migration to Groundwater Pathway (May 26, 2004)c18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The soil cleanup levels for Sites requiring No Further Action (Table 14) are based on the on theADEC Table B ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels. The migration to groundwater pathwaywas determined to be not applicable due to the presence of continuous permafrost which acts as abarrier to contaminant migration, and the sporadic presence of suprapermafrost groundwateracross the Gambell sites.Table 14Soil Cleanup Levels for Sites Requiring NFADRO b10,250 mg/kg Chromium b300bRRO10,000 mg/kg Copper b4,060Antimony b41 mg/kg Lead b400aArsenic11 mg/kg Mercury b18Beryllium b200 mg/kg Nickel b2,000Cadmium b100 mg/kg Selenium b510mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgSources: a site backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The site background concentration for arsenic was determined based on an analysis of area-widearsenic concentrations, established background levels at other sites on St. Lawrence Island, andstate-wide arsenic background levels. Of all the samples collected in Gambell with detections ofarsenic, 96.6% of the results were below 11 mg/kg, the established background concentration ofarsenic at Northeast Cape on St. Lawrence Island for gravel soils is 11 mg/kg, and the averagearsenic concentration in Alaska ranges from 6.7 to 9.6 mg/kg (USGS 1988). At Site 12,Page 50 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskapreviously detected arsenic concentrations ranged from 3 to 10 mg/kg. At Site 7, previouslydetected arsenic concentrations ranged from 1 to 10.2 mg/kg, with the exception of the 2 datapoints identified as highly anomalous in the 2003 confirmation sampling results.The soil cleanup levels for all other sites in Gambell are based on the ADEC Table B cleanuplevels, under 40 inch zone, ingestion pathway, as promulgated in 18 AAC 75.341. These sitesrequire no further remedial action, based on an evaluation of current site conditions and samplingdata results, as presented in Section 2.7. In general, continuous permafrost acts as a barrier forsoil contaminant migration. However, migration of contaminants can occur as groundwatertravels in the active lens above the permafrost layer (suprapermafrost groundwater).Suprapermafrost groundwater occurs sporadically within the village of Gambell (i.e. in thevicinity of Sites 6, 7, 16, 17, 18). The groundwater flow direction from these areas is to thenorth, towards the Bering Sea. The groundwater aquifer that supplies drinking water to thecommunity is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 1,500-2,000 feet east ofthe village.Sites 4A and 4B, located at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, are beyond the likely recharge areafor the village water supply. These sites are situated on bedrock. Very little soil is found at thetop of Sevuokuk Mountain and groundwater is expected to run off the side of the mountain orenter bedrock fractures. It is unlikely that groundwater from Sites 4A and 4B could impact thedrinking water aquifer at the base of the mountain.Page 51 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.9 Description of AlternativesThe Corps of Engineers considered the following remedial alternatives for each site:No Further Action. No further action (NFA) is a response action selected when no additionalremedial actions are necessary to protect human health and the environment, based onestablished cleanup levels and regulatory standards. NFA is also used as a baseline to compareother responses.Institutional Controls. Institutional controls make use of restrictions to minimize exposure tocontaminants at a site. The restrictions can be physical, such as erecting a fence, or take the formof land management practices, such as requiring special building permits or not allowinginstallation of new wells in a particular area.Site-specific Actions. A feasibility study (FS) evaluated alternatives for Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8,and 12. These sites were recommended for potential remedial action based on the remedialinvestigation completed in 2002 which identified areas with petroleum and/or metalscontaminated soils. An evaluation of the site-specific exposure pathways indicated that ingestionof soils was the most relevant exposure pathway for Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 8. The level ofpetroleum contamination in soils at these sites do not exceed ADEC Table B cleanup levelsbased on the ingestion pathway. Therefore, the FS provided a detailed analysis of fouralternatives for the two remaining areas of concern, Sites 8 and 12.In 2003, a concrete pad was removed from Site 7. Confirmation samples collected fromunderneath the removed concrete pad indicated residual levels of arsenic which weresignificantly higher than site background and exceeded the ADEC risk-based cleanup level. TheFS was not updated to evaluate remedial alternatives for the arsenic-contaminated soil at Site 7.The No Further Action alternative was rejected for Site 7 because the chemical risk posed tohuman health and the environment would not be addressed since no actions would be taken toreduce the volume of arsenic contaminated soil. The alternative that is protective of humanhealth and the environment, complies with ARARs, and is cost effective, is excavation and offsite disposal in a permitted landfill, based on the small estimated quantity of contaminated soils.Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 2 - Debris Removal at Site 8Alternative 3 - Debris Removal at Site 8 and Soil Removal at Sites 7 and 12Alternative 4 - Debris Removal at Site 8, Soil Removal at Site 7, and In-situ Treatment ofContaminated Soil at Site 12Page 52 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.10 Comparative Analysis of AlternativesThe Corps of Engineers evaluated the remedial alternatives based on the nine evaluation criteriaestablished under CERCLA. The comparative analysis describes how each of the alternativesmeets the CERCLA evaluation criteria relative to each other.1.10.1 Threshold CriteriaThe remedial alternatives were first evaluated by comparison with the threshold criteria: overallprotection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The thresholdcriteria must be fully satisfied by candidate alternatives before the alternatives can be givenfurther consideration in the remedy selection process.Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentAlternative 1 is protective of human health and the environment and complies with ARARs forSites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, and 28.Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the chemical risk posed to human health and theenvironment since no actions would be taken to address the lead and chromium contaminatedsoil at Site 12 or the arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7. Alternative 3 would be protectivebecause the lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and the arsenic contaminated soil atSite 7 would be permanently removed and disposed off-site. Alternative 4 would be protective,because the lead contamination would be chemically bound with a reagent to reduce theleachability of the lead.Compliance With ARARsThis criterion addresses whether each alternative will meet all of the applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes or provides a basisfor invoking a waiver. All alternatives, except the no action alternative, had common ARARsassociated with the excavation of contaminated soil. The applicable requirements include thosecleanup standards promulgated by the State of Alaska in 18 Alaska Administrative Code 75.341and 345.Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce or remove lead and chromium in soil at Site 12, would notreduce or remove arsenic in soil at Site 7, would not meet state cleanup levels, and wouldtherefore not meet ARARs. Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs since the lead andchromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and the arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7 would beremoved and disposed off-island. Alternative 4 would also comply with ARARs, but additionaltests would have to be performed on the solidified soil following treatment to document thereduced leachability of the lead. Institutional controls would also be needed to verify theintegrity of the solidified material over time, and to control future landuse in the immediatevicinity.1.10.2 Balancing CriteriaFor those alternatives satisfying the threshold criteria, five primary balancing criteria are used toevaluate other aspects of the potential remedies. No single alternative will necessarily receivePage 53 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathe highest evaluation for every balancing criterion. This phase of the comparative analysis isuseful in refining the relative merits of candidate alternatives for site clean up. The five primarybalancing criteria are: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility,or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost.Long-Term EffectivenessThis criterion addressed the results of each alternative with respect to the risk remaining at thesite after the conclusion of the remedial action. Evaluation of this criterion includes anassessment of the magnitude of the residual risk from untreated waste or treatment residuals. Italso includes an assessment of the adequacy, reliability, and useful life of any controls that are tobe used to manage hazardous substances that remain on site after the remediation.Alternative 3 has the greatest long-term effectiveness because this alternative has the highestpotential to permanently remove the lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and thearsenic contaminated soil at Site 7. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the least long-termeffectiveness since neither includes action to reduce the amount of lead and chromiumcontaminated soil or the arsenic contaminated soil. Alternative 4 is less effective thanAlternative 3 over the long-term because it leaves the treated soil on-site. The solidified materialhas the potential to degrade over time in the harsh arctic climate due to continuous freeze thawcycles. Alternative 4 has a long-term effectiveness that is greater than Alternatives 1 and 2,because Alternative 4 treats the lead contaminated soil in-situ and reduces its leachability.Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through TreatmentEvaluation of this criterion included: an assessment of the treatment processes to be employed byeach remedial action and the types of wastes they would treat; the amount of waste that would bedestroyed or treated; and the projected amount of reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume.Also considered in this assessment is whether the alternative would satisfy the expressedpreference of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 121, forremedial actions that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous waste.Alternatives 1 and 2 do not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the lead and chromiumcontaminated soil or the arsenic contaminated soil. Alternative 3 reduces the volume ofcontaminants left on site through removal. Alternative 4 reduces the mobility and toxicity of thelead through chemical treatment.Short-Term EffectivenessThe potential health effects and environmental impacts of each alternative action duringconstruction and implementation were evaluated by this criterion. The factors assessed in thisevaluation include the protection of the community and site workers during implementation andconstruction, environmental impacts during implementation, and the estimated time required tomeet cleanup standards. None of the alternatives represent an unacceptable risk to thecommunity, workers or the environment during implementation and can be effectively managedby following a health and safety plan and using appropriate personal protective equipment tominimize exposure of site workers to contaminants. Additional measures such as use of safetyfencing/flagging would be taken to prevent residents from entering the areas duringimplementation of the alternative. Excavation of the contaminated soil at Sites 7 and 12 underAlternative 3 would involve about 4 days of field work. Under Alternative 4, treatment of thePage 54 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskacontaminated soils at Site 12 would require about 5 days of field work, plus 2 days to excavatesoil at Site 7.ImplementabilityAll of the alternatives can be implemented using commercially available services. Alternative 1and 2 could be easily implemented and few technical challenges would be expected. Alternative3 is more challenging. This alternative includes excavation and off-Island disposal of the metalscontaminated soil, and coordinating remote site logistics. Alternative 4 would be the mostchallenging to implement. Alternative 4 would require the application and mixing of a reagentwith the lead contaminated soil, utilization of additional equipment, additional laboratory testing,and increased time in the field. Alternative 4 would also require long term monitoring to ensurethe solidified material remains intact into the future and institutional controls which limit futuredevelopment at the site.Disposal sites are not available within Alaska but are available outside of Alaska in the lower 48United States. However, alternatives involving off-Island disposal could be implemented in onefield season. The in-situ treatment alternative cannot be effectively implemented at this site.CostsAlternative 1 has the lowest cost ($46,400) and Alternative 2 has the second lowest cost($460,900). Alternative 4 has the highest costs ($555,600) and Alternative 3 has the secondhighest cost ($538,200). Overall, the additional cost to remove and dispose of the lead andchromium contaminated soil is not significantly higher than Alternative 2 (Remove of ExposedDebris Only) and is less than Alternative 4 (Treat Contaminated Soil In-situ).The costs shown in Table 15 are based on the best available information regarding theanticipated scope of the remedial alternatives. The cost estimates were prepared to guide projectevaluation and implementation. Changes in the cost elements are likely to occur as a result ofnew information and data collected during the engineering design of the remedial alternative.This is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is expected to be within +50 to –30percent of the actual project costs.Page 55 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaCriteriaOverallProtectivenessCompliance withARARsShort-termeffectivenessTable 15. Comparative Analysis of AlternativesAlternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Remove Exposed Debris(Site 8A), RemoveRemove Exposed Debris Arsenic-ContaminatedNo ActionOnlySoil (Site 7), Remove(Site 8A)Lead and ChromiumContaminated Soil(Site 12)No risk reduction.Reduces human healthNo risk reduction Reduces physical hazardrisk posed byposed by debris.contaminated soil.NoNot applicableLong-termeffectivenessNoneReduction ofToxicity,Mobility, orVolumeNoneImplementabilityNo technical oradministrativeissuesCost$46,400NoYesYesManageable with healthand safety workplan.Reduces leachability oflead and eliminates humanDoes not eliminateEliminates human health health risks due to arsenic.human health risk posedrisks posed byIncreased potential forby contaminated soil.contaminated soil.degradation of thesolidified material giventhe harsh arctic climate.No treatment ofcontaminated soils, butReduces mobility of leadNone.volume left on-site isin contaminated soil area.reduced by landfilldisposal.More complex toimplement soil treatment ata remote site with noreadily available servicesNo technical issues,No technical issues, someor equipment. Treatmentsome coordination with coordination with Dept.technique requiresDept. of Transportationof Transportationmonitoring, institutionalrequired for debrisrequired for debriscontrols, and additionalremoval near runway.removal near runway.trips to the site, thusincreasing cost and risk ofalternative not meeting riskreduction objectives.$460,900$538,200$555,600No short-term risks.Page 56 of 66Manageable with healthand safety workplan.Alternative 4Remove Exposed Debris(Site 8A), Remove ArsenicContaminated Soil (Site 7),and In-Situ Treatment ofLead and ChromiumContaminated Soil (Site12)Reduces human health riskposed by contaminatedsoil.Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.10.3 Modifying CriteriaState AcceptanceThe State of Alaska, through the Department of Environmental Conservation, concurs with theselected remedial responses of soil excavation at Sites 7 and 12, debris removal at Site 8A, and adetermination of no further action at the remaining sites. However, the ADEC has requested theremaining small arms ammunition debris at Site 8D be removed. The decision may be reviewedand modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence ofpreviously undiscovered contamination or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to humanhealth or the environment.Community AcceptanceBased on written and oral comments received from RAB members, local residents, local Nativecorporation representatives, nonprofit environmental groups, and the RAB’s technical advisorduring the public comment period on the Proposed Plan, there appears to be support from the localcommunity for the Preferred Alternative at Sites 7, 8A, and 12. However, there is somedisagreement with the selected alternative of no further action for all remaining sites, due toconcerns that inadequate site characterization was conducted at the Gambell site, inadequate sitespecific background metal concentrations were defined, and a desire for additional assurances thatsites won’t pose a threat in the future due to changing climate conditions, melting of permafrost,undetected contaminants, and contaminant migration. The community also requested additionalyearly groundwater monitoring events into the future at Site 5 and throughout the Gambell area,for a broader list of analytes. The Corps of Engineers will conduct additional investigation of thegroundwater quality at Site 5, to demonstrate compliance with ADEC groundwater cleanup criteriain 18 AAC 75.345 Table C or establish a concentration trend for petroleum hydrocarbons. A finaldecision on any appropriate remedial action at Site 5 will be made in the future. The community isalso concerned that buried military debris may become exposed in the future through erosion, frostheaving, or changing permafrost conditions and impact construction activities or resident’s safety.The FUDS program cannot address these concerns directly, since the buried debris has not beenassociated with soil contamination or migration. The debris impacts are documented in the NativeAmerican Environmental Tracking System (NAETS) database and will be addressed by the NativeAmerican Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP), subject to eligibility and fundingconstraints. The Gambell NALEMP project is scoped to address surface/subsurface debrisremoval at the following sites: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24.In addition, USACE will develop a map for use by the community during construction activitieswhich depicts the general location of known buried military debris based on historic geophysicalsurveys and soil sampling results which exceed the Table B migration to groundwater pathwaycleanup levels.Detailed responses to each comment submitted on the Proposed Plan are contained in theResponsiveness Summary in the Appendix. The remedial alternatives were presented to thepublic at a Public Meeting held on July 21, 2004. The preferred alternatives presented at thepublic meeting were:Page 57 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaexcavation and removal of arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7,excavation and removal of lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12,one groundwater monitoring event at Site 5,removal of exposed debris at Sites 8A and 8D, andno further action for the remaining sites.Page 58 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.11 Principal Threat WastePrincipal threat wastes are those sources materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobilewhich generally cannot be contained in a reliable manner or would present a significant risk tohuman health or the environment should exposure occur. The primary contaminant source areasat the Gambell site (e.g., military debris, contaminated soil) have already been removed throughprevious removal actions. The remaining wastes do not constitute principal threat wastes basedon the relatively low toxicity and mobility of the contaminants in the surface soils.Page 59 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.12 Selected RemedyThe selected remedy is the final remedial action for 37 areas of concern at the Gambell FUDSsite. One area of concern will be considered under a future decision document. The remedyconsists of: no further action at 34 locations, removal of inherently hazardous military debris atone location, and excavation of contaminated soils at two locations. All debris and contaminatedsoils will be shipped off-Island for recycling or disposal at a permitted landfill. The selectedremedial alternatives for the 37 sites are:No Further Action at Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10,11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28Excavate and off-Island disposal of approximately 4 tons of arsenic-contaminated soilwhich exceeds 11 mg/kg at Site 7Removal and off-Island disposal of approximately 50 tons of exposed Marston matting atSite 8AExcavate and off-Island disposal of approximately 4 tons of lead and chromiumcontaminated soil which exceeds 400 mg/kg and 26 mg/kg, respectively at Site 12No Further Action SitesThe selected remedy of no further action for Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B,8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28 is protectiveof human health and the environment and satisfies all applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements.Site 7Excavate approximately 4 tons of arsenic-contaminated soil, which exceeds the cleanup level of11 mg/kg, from around the edges of the former concrete pad location. Dispose of soil at an offsite landfill. Collect confirmation samples and analyze for arsenic. This alternative is protectiveof human health and the environment because it permanently reduces the risk posed by the soilcontaining elevated arsenic. The no further action alternative was rejected because it would notmeet established regulatory criteria, or reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminatedsoil. Implementation of institutional controls or access restrictions is infeasible for the sitebecause it is located in a high-traffic, residential area of town.Site 8ARemove approximately 50 tons of exposed Marston matting along the east side of the runway.Transport the debris to an off-site landfill or recycling facility. This alternative will involvepicking up and consolidating the Marston matting. The Alaska District will coordinate with theAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and/or the Federal AviationAdministration during removal of the exposed debris to ensure airport operations are notdisrupted. This alternative effectively reduces the long-term physical hazard posed by the debris.Other alternatives were considered and rejected during the feasibility study phase. The exposeddebris would continue to pose a physical hazard to local residents if no further action is taken.Site controls such as installation of fencing near the runway at Site 8A would requirecoordination with and approval from the landowner, the Alaska Department of TransportationPage 60 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaand Public Facilities and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. Construction of fencing mayadversely affect maintenance of airport lighting/navigation aids or snow removal activities.Access restrictions were not retained for further evaluation.Site 12Excavate approximately 4 tons of lead and chromium contaminated soil, which exceeds thecleanup level of 400 mg/kg for lead and 26 mg/kg for chromium, and transport it off-site fordisposal at a permitted landfill. Collect confirmation samples and analyze for arsenic, lead,cadmium, chromium, DRO, and RRO. Excavation and off-site disposal of soil will permanentlyreduce the potential risk posed by contaminated soils at Site 12.The no further action alternative was rejected because it would not reduce the risk associatedwith the lead-contaminated soil. There would be no reduction in the toxicity, mobility, orvolume of contaminated soil. This alternative would not meet established regulatory criteria.Implementation of institutional controls or access restrictions was determined to be infeasible forthe site. In-situ treatment of the contaminated soils was also considered, but ultimately rejecteddue to challenges in implementation at a remote site and additional testing requirements.Cost Estimate for the Selected RemedyThe information in the cost estimate summary table is based on the best available informationregarding the anticipated scope of the remedial alternative. Changes in the cost elements arelikely to occur as a result of new information and data collected during the engineering design ofthe remedial alternative. Major changes may be documented in the form of a memorandum inthe Administrative Record. This is an order-of magnitude engineering cost estimate that isexpected to be within +50 to –30 percent of the actual project cost. The costs shown in thissummary table have been updated to include supervision and administration costs.Page 61 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 16. Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected RemedyRemedial ActionDescriptionWorkplansMobilizationField WorkDemobilizationLaboratory SamplesProject ReportingProject ManagementSUB TOTALSupervision and Administration (13%)TOTALCost$38,200$127,100$98,400$220,300$10,700$27,700$15,800$538,200$70,000$608,200Page 62 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.13 Statutory DeterminationsThe selected remedy satisfies the requirements under Section 121 of CERCLA and the NCP.The following section discusses how the selected remedy meets these requirements.The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies withapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.1.13.1 Protective of Human Health and the EnvironmentThe selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The current and futureexposure pathways are incidental ingestion of contaminated soil by local residents. The selectedremedy, by excavation and off-site disposal of soil, will eliminate the risk posed by thecontaminants of concern and achieve the risk-based cleanup levels promulgated by the State ofAlaska. Based on previous sampling results, the groundwater pathway does not pose a currentrisk to human health or the environment.1.13.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsThe action-specific, chemical-specific, and location-specific applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARARs) for the selected remedies are regulations promulgated by theState of Alaska in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 75, Sections 340 and341, as updated through May 26, 2004.The chemical-specific requirements for Site 7 are cleanup of contaminated soils to:10,250 mg/kg Diesel Range Organics10,000 mg/kg Residual Range Organicso Source: 18 AAC 75.341, Table B211 mg/kg Arsenico Source: 18AAC 75.340 (h)(1), site backgroundThe chemical-specific requirements for Site 12 are cleanup of contaminated soils to:5 mg/kg Cadmium26 mg/kg Chromium400 mg/kg Lead250 mg/kg Diesel Range Organics10,000 mg/kg Residual Range Organicso Source: 18 AAC 75.341, Tables B1 and B211 mg/kg Arsenico Source: 18AAC 75.340 (h)(1), site backgroundPage 63 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.13.3 Cost EffectivenessThe selected remedy represents the most cost-effective of the alternatives in comparison to theiroverall effectiveness proportional to their costs. The selected remedy provides the best longterm permanence and risk protection by removing contaminated soil which poses a risk to localresidents.Disposal sites are not available in Alaska but are available outside of Alaska in the lower 48Unites States. Debris removal activities could be completed in one field season, reducing theneed for additional site visits and mobilization costs. The in-situ treatment alternative cannot beeffectively implemented at this site given the complex remote site logistics.1.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to theMaximum Extent PracticableThe USACE and the State of Alaska have determined that the selected remedy represents themaximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a costeffective manner at the Gambell site. The on-site treatment alternative would be the mostchallenging to execute given the remote site conditions and requires additional testing,landowners’ consent, and implementation of institutional controls.1.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal ElementAlthough the selected alternative for the contaminated soil relies upon off-site disposal instead ofon-site treatment; the USACE and the State of Alaska have determined that this remedyrepresents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can beused in a cost effective manner at the Gambell site.1.13.6 Five-Year Review RequirementThe selected remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.Therefore, a five-year review is not required.Page 64 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.14 Documentation of Significant ChangesThere were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted forpublic comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy. The Corps of Engineers willconduct additional investigation of the groundwater quality at Site 5, to demonstrate compliancewith ADEC groundwater cleanup criteria in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C or establish a concentrationtrend for petroleum hydrocarbons. A final decision on any appropriate remedial actions at Site 5will be made after evaluating the investigation results.The proposed removal of small arms ammunition at Site 8D has been determined ineligible forthe FUDS program under the BDDR category, because the material does not meet the definitionof inherently hazardous debris, which presents a clear danger, likely to cause or having alreadycaused, death or serious injury to a person exercising ordinary and reasonable care. An ordnanceand explosives response decision, approved in August 2003, documented the appropriateresponse to be institutional controls focusing on providing community awareness and education,including ordnance information pamphlets and posters. The Corps of Engineers will recommendthat the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) provide fundingto remove the remaining small arms ammunition at Site 8D to fully address the remainingcommunity and state concerns regarding the beach burial pit. The impacts at Site 8D areidentified in the Native Village of Gambell’s Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP),updated February 2005.Page 65 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska2. Responsiveness SummaryThe primary avenues of public input have been through the Proposed Plan and public commentperiod. The Proposed Plan for Gambell was issued to the pubic on July 21, 2004. The publiccomment period was from July 21 through August 30, 2004. To encourage public comment, theUSACE inserted a pre-addressed form in distributed copies of the Proposed Plan. The commentforms were also distributed at the public meeting, held at City Hall in Gambell. The publicmeeting was attended by 14 people, including representatives from the Restoration AdvisoryBoard (RAB), the ADEC, and local residents. Oral comments were received at the meeting.Prior to the conclusion of the public comment period, 4 individuals submitted written comments.All comments received are documented in the administrative record file for the site. Detailedmeeting minutes from the public meeting are available to the public at the 4 informationrepositories. The repositories are located at the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRABuilding in Savoonga, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library in Nome,and the Alaska Resource Library and Information Services (ARLIS) in Anchorage. A completeresponse to public comments is contained in Appendix A.Page 66 of 66Appendix AResponsiveness SummaryAppendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaProposed Plan for Remedial Action, Gambell FUDS, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaJuly 2004Responses to Public Comments1) Comment (P. Miller):I remain concerned that residents of St. Lawrence Island (SLI) have not had sufficientopportunity or time to review and formally comment on this document. It is especiallycritical that people of SLI be given ample opportunity to comment, as this is a criticalphase of the CERCLA process. I suggest that the Corps of Engineers provide time at theSeptember 9 RAB meeting for additional public comments from RAB members and otherresidents on the proposed plan.Response:The comment period was initially extended from August 23, 2004 to August 30, 2004.During a Restoration Advisory Board meeting in Savoonga, AK on September 9, 2004,the Corps Project Manager stated that additional comments were always welcome, andmay be included in the Responsiveness Summary if received by the week of September20, 2004.2) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan for remedial action does not sufficiently respond to communityconcerns and some suggested courses of action. Particularly, the proposed plan does notprovide measures to ensure proper monitoring and protection of the community drinkingwater source. At least once yearly, water from monitoring wells in and around thevicinity of the community drinking water source should be sampled and analyzed forheavy metals, VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs.Response:The Corps will conduct additional investigation of the groundwater quality at Site 5. Aminimum of two monitoring events should provide the necessary information to assurethat the village water supply is not being affected by contaminants left by the military. Ifsignificant fuel contamination is found, further action may be warranted. A final decisionon Site 5 will not be made until after the additional groundwater monitoring is completed.The State of Alaska typically requires three or four sampling events to establish aconcentration trend. The FUDS program is not authorized to conduct prospectivegroundwater monitoring into the indefinite future. Long-term monitoring is typicallyconducted as part of a natural attenuation scenario whereby known contaminants are leftin place to degrade over time.3) Comment (P. Miller):During the public meeting, a Gambell resident raised a significant point about thevulnerability of the drinking water source because of the permeability of the gravelsubstrate and susceptibility to contamination from storm surges and flooding.Contamination can readily migrate in this environment. The sites cannot be viewed asAppendix APage 2 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaisolated from one another because the potential for cross contamination is high given thepermeability of the substrate.Response:We agree that the gravel substrate in Gambell is highly porous and the groundwatergradient is low. The predominant flow direction, however, is north towards the BeringSea. Salt-water intrusion is another likely impact from storm surge events, when flowdirections are periodically reversed. However, these events are rare and occur over shortperiods of time. There is no evidence of cross-contamination impacting the villagedrinking water supply.4) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan does not include adequate data to justify no further actiondeterminations for all but 4 of the 38 sites. Many of the sites warrant further investigationand cleanup.Response:The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) providedregulatory oversight during the remedial investigation and all subsequent phases of thecleanup activities. The ADEC concurs that additional investigation is not warranted atthese sites. Also, the Department of Defense’s NALEMP Program has included 25 ofthese sites for buried debris removal.5) Comment (P. Miller):The document must identify sources of contamination, including thallium, beryllium,arsenic, lead, chromium, VOCs, benzene, fuels, and PCBs. Pesticides should be includedamong the potential contaminants of concern (including DDT metabolites, mirex,endosulfan, lindane, and other pesticides known to be used during the time of the militaryoccupation) especially since we have reason to assume that DDT and possibly otherpesticides were used at the site.Response:The contamination identified in the Proposed Plan is primarily fuels and metals. Fuelswould have been used throughout the military installation, as a source of power forgenerators, heating, and vehicles. Metals such as lead and chromium are commonconstituents of batteries. Other metals are common components of alloys used inbuilding materials or equipment parts. PCBs are a known component of some oldlubricating and transformer oils but have not been documented at significantconcentrations in Gambell. Metals are also natural elements found in the earth’s crustand rock formations. Through the remedial investigation process, pesticides have notbeen identified as a potential contaminant of concern and would not be reasonablyexpected at the Gambell site.6) Comment (P. Miller):Analysis of historical records and interviews with former military personnel should bethoroughly conducted to determine other possible sources of contamination andcontaminants of concern.Appendix APage 3 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:The initial site inventory and planning phase of the project consisted of backgroundresearch, site reconnaissance, and interviews with local residents. In addition, aHistorical Time Sequence Aerial Photograph Analysis was conducted by the TopographicEngineering Center, this study included archival search of military records. As part ofthe ordnance investigation, an Archive Records Search was also conducted.7) Comment (P. Miller):The perception of most community members is that the Corps of Engineers has notadequately investigated reports of buried hazardous materials, including reports ofmunitions (including grenades and larger caliber UXO). Contamination may pose ahazard to health and safety, yet the concerns of the community have been too easilydismissed.Response: The Corps of Engineers has strived to be responsive to community concernsregarding buried hazardous materials or munitions. We have performed geophysicalsurveys and used heavy equipment to find such buried items, even re-checking areas.The Corps has also assigned QARs (Quality Assurance Representatives) to be on handduring removal actions to assure that a thorough debris removal job was accomplished.The Corps is greatly concerned about the public’s perception of our cleanup activities.We disagree that community members’ claims have been unreasonably dismissed, andwe continuously request input and feedback on site activities. We also have hired ageologist as a TAPP (Technical Assistance for Public Participation) advisor who canprovide additional technical assistance and interpretations to the community. We haveoffered suggestions on how to bring items to our attention, and we remain open to newevidence of buried debris or ordnance. We understand the community frustration that themilitary abandoned or buried its waste instead of removing it, and we diligently workthrough the FUDS program to evaluate the many leads we receive related to site cleanup.This includes investigating potential threats to human health and safety and theenvironment. In some areas, such as Troutman Lake, the potential for health or safetyhazards resulting from “undiscovered” ordnance remains so small that furtherinvestigations are just not warranted.8) Comment (P. Miller):In addition, although the Corps states that buried debris is not subject to remedial actionunder the FUDS program, the proposed plan must make provisions to remediate debrisand other hazardous material should it surface through erosion or frost heaving.Response:Program policy guidance for the FUDS program (ER 200-3-1) states that for eligibleBDDR projects, the conditions must have been hazardous as a result of prior DoD useand must have been inherently hazardous when the property was transferred or disposedof by GSA before 17 October 1986. The Proposed Plan cannot contain provisions for“what if” scenarios. In the future, if new evidence of military debris or hazardousmaterials becomes available, the data will be reviewed by the FUDS program todetermine if additional actions are necessary.Appendix APage 4 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska9) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan for remedial action must include provisions for sampling of indoor airfor volatile organics in the Gambell High School, other community buildings, and homesin the vicinity of the landfill and power facility sites (including sites 6, 7, and 17).Response:Volatile organic compounds have not been detected above cleanup levels in groundwateror soil samples collected at Sites 6, 7, and 17. There is no evidence to support indoor airsampling. The detected concentrations of volatile compounds in Gambell could notresult in significant indoor air pollution.10) Comment (P. Miller):Throughout the document, arsenic levels are considered “attributable to background” andnot of military source. In some cases, arsenic levels are averaged and no further action isjustified based on an average concentration. This is inappropriate and unjustified. Truebackground levels are not provided. Often arsenic levels exceed ADEC cleanupstandards. These sites should be remediated so that arsenic levels are below ADECcleanup standards.Response:It is appropriate to use average concentrations of arsenic on a site-specific basis. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recommends calculating a reasonablemaximum exposure (RME) for residential scenarios. Thus, the RME for chronicexposure on a site-specific basis is estimated using an average concentration of achemical of concern. Average concentrations are typically derived by statistical methodsby calculating the 95% Upper Confidence Level on the arithmetic mean of a dataset.U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance Fact Sheet (July 1996) states that “For data sets oflesser quality, the 95% upper confidence level on the arithmetic mean of contaminant soilconcentrations can be compared directly to the SSLs [soil screening levels]. The TBD[Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA 1996)] discussesstrengths and weaknesses of different calculations of the mean and when they areappropriate for making screening decisions.”Furthermore, according to Risk Assessment Handbook, Volume 1 Human HealthEvaluation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual EM 200-1-4 (January1999), background values should be expressed as the 95% upper confidence level on themean.Arsenic has been documented at levels above ADEC cleanup standards throughout thestate of Alaska. The ADEC recognizes that in some areas, naturally occurring levels ofarsenic are higher than the most stringent ADEC cleanup levels. The ADEC hasconcurred that arsenic below 10-15 ppm is not a concern. According to the USGS Report“Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988), theaverage arsenic concentrations in the state ranged from 6.7 to 9.6 mg/kg (geometric andarithmetic mean). The calculated ambient concentration of arsenic at Northeast Cape onSt. Lawrence Island is 7.8 to 11 mg/kg (tundra and gravel soil).Appendix APage 5 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaA statistical evaluation of the entire dataset (232 data points) of arsenic concentrations(excluding all non-detects) in Gambell demonstrates that 96.6% of the data falls below10.6 ppm and 97.4% of the data fall below 13.1 ppm. This dataset includes locationswhich have been subsequently removed during remedial actions at the site (e.g., thesample result of 38 ppm at Site 4B from 1994), or are planned for removal (e.g.,confirmation sampling results from Site 7 in 2003 of 27.9 and 34.9 ppm). A histogram ofthe data distribution is shown below, with the number of samples in each evenly spaced“bin” (i.e., an equally spaced interval) shown. The average arsenic concentration is 5.0mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 4.2, and a 95% upper confidence level of 6.2 mg/kg(Chebyshev, non-parametric method).Histogram of Arsenic Concentrations9080 8180Frequency70605150Frequency403020100111211100100110.6 3.1 5.6 8.1 10.6 13.1 15.6 18.1 20.5 23.0 25.5 28.0 30.5 33.0 35.5 >36Results (mg/kg)11) Comment (P. Miller):The document should cite screening levels for all contaminants of concern. Further, it isincorrect to make the assumption that certain data points are simply outliers. Forexample, the Site 2 sampling in 1994 indicated that levels for lead and chromiumexceeded screening levels. 1996 samples were tested for lead only and do not provide abasis for assuming that levels for other contaminants are below the ADEC cleanupthreshold. Site 2 requires further investigation and cleanup. The NFA determination isunjustified.Response:Screening levels are provided throughout the document. In some cases, sampling resultsare compared to proposed cleanup levels only and the screening step is not shown.Environmental data is inherently variable and an assessment of data distribution is areasonable rationale for identifying certain constituents as anomalous (i.e., outliers). AtSite 2 in 1994, only one sample out of 13 contained metals, besides arsenic, aboveAppendix APage 6 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskascreening levels. This single sample had anomalous concentrations of both lead andchromium; other samples demonstrated a mostly sympathetic relationship between leadand chromium suggesting that where lead is low, chromium will be low. Furtherinvestigation was conducted to determine the extent of lead contamination surroundingthis particular sample, since lead was more highly anomalous. The sampling resultsindicated lead was well below screening levels. Since lead was not elevated during the1996 investigation, it is logical to assume that the chromium contamination was similarlybelow levels of concern. Any remaining chromium is likely isolated and present in deminimus quantities. A surface debris cleanup was also completed at this location in1999. No further sampling is recommended for Site 2, and the ADEC concurs with theNFA determination.12) Comment (P. Miller):Site 3, p 12. Thallium and beryllium exceeded screening levels and other metals(including mercury and others) have been detected. Results cannot be dismissed asanomalies. This site warrants further investigation and cleanup.Response:The additional investigation performed in 1996 confirmed that thallium and berylliumwere not present above method detection limits. The ADEC concurs with the NFAdetermination for Site 3.13) Comment (P. Miller):Site 4 A, p 14. Although the document states that no significant volume of contaminatedsoil remains at the site, elevated levels of contaminants are present. Remedial actionshould include complete removal of all contaminated soil and coverage/reclamation ofthe area with clean soils and re-vegetation.Response:This area is a rocky outcropping of bedrock at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain.Vegetation is not present and reclamation with clean soils and re-vegetation is neitherpractical nor in harmony with the natural landscape.14) Comment (P. Miller):Site 4 B, p 14. The document states that “The concentration of dioxins decreasedsignificantly as a result of removing the soils.” However, dioxins and additionalcontaminants remain at levels of concern. Further removal actions are warranted herebecause of the potential for downgradient contamination. Dioxin contamination warrantsspecial remedial actions due to the extreme health hazards posed by even lowconcentrations.Response:The USEPA and ADEC have not established cleanup levels for dioxins. The USEPARegion 9 has established a screening level of 3.9 pg/g (parts per trillion, ppt) for dioxinsin residential soil. The State of Alaska adjusts the EPA screening level by one order ofmagnitude to derive a preliminary remediation goal for residential soil of 39 ppt dioxin.Appendix APage 7 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaThe Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses a screening levelof 50 ppt and an action level of 1,000 ppt for dioxins in soil. The residual dioxincontamination of 29 pg/g does not exceed the ADEC’s preliminary remediation goal of39 ppt. Furthermore, the dioxin contaminated soil has been removed to the maximumextent practicable. Dioxins are generally not very mobile except through the air;downgradient movement is unlikely given the setting. The ADEC concurs with the NFAdetermination for Site 4B.15) Comment (P. Miller):Site 5, p 18. Further action to identify and remove the source of DRO contamination mustbe taken. Monitoring of water for PAHs, DRO, solvents/VOCs, and PCBs from a closeseries of monitoring wells in the vicinity of the drinking water source is mandatory.Response:Further actions were completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998. The ADEC does not requireadditional groundwater monitoring. However, since several years have elapsed since theinitial groundwater sampling was conducted, additional groundwater monitoring will beconducted to determine the groundwater quality in the vicinity of Site 5. There is noreason to suspect PCBs, PAHs, solvents, or VOCs are present. Earlier sampling eventstested for DRO/RRO/GRO, BTEX, PAHs, PCBs, and/or VOCs. The only detectedcontaminant was fuel. The additional round of groundwater sampling will includesampling for DRO/RRO/GRO only.Should significant fuel contamination bediscovered, additional actions will be considered. A final decision on any necessaryremedial actions at Site 5 will be made after evaluating the additional groundwater datacollected.16) Comment (P. Miller):Site 7, p 21. Benzene sources and other contamination must be remediated at this site,and not just arsenic.Response:Debris removals have already occurred at this site. The detected benzene concentration isnot representative of groundwater across the site, and the groundwater is not considered adrinking water source. Benzene was not detected (DL 0.005 mg/kg) in the soil samplescollected from Site 7 during the initial phase of remedial investigation (1994). During asubsequent phase of investigation (2001), three soil borings were advanced to permafrostand soil samples were analyzed for BTEX, DRO/RRO/GRO, VOCs, PCBs, and metals.Benzene was not detected (DL 0.003 – 0.007 mg/kg). The only analytes detected abovethe ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels were arsenic and DRO.Arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kg. DRO concentrations ranged fromND(5) to 710 mg/kg. The DRO concentrations do not exceed the ingestion pathwayADEC cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg.Appendix APage 8 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska17) Comment (P. Miller):Site 12, p 26. I support the proposed alternative to remove sources of heavy metalcontamination. Additional sampling should be done to delineate the full extent ofcontamination.Response:Confirmation samples will be collected after the soil is excavated, to verify thecontamination was adequately removed.18) Comment (P. Miller):Site 14, p 28. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether the plane wascarrying hazardous and/or radioactive material.Response:According to E&E (1992), a Navy reconnaissance plane crash landed south of Gambell,the belly gasoline tank exploded and most of the fuels burned leaving no apparent stainsor any stressed vegetation surrounding the crash site.According to Navy documentation, on June 22, 1955, a P2V-5 Neptune of VP-9, whileon patrol, was attacked by two MiG-15s, which set fire to the starboard engine and forcedthe Neptune to crash on St. Lawrence Island, near Gambell. There were no fatalities.The plane burned almost completely.The plane crash location is outside the military property boundary identified for theGambell site. This is not a FUDS site, and is not eligible for action under the FUDSprogram. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe hazardous and/or radioactivematerials are/were present.19) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 5, Table 1. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Levels for All Sites and Sites 5 & 12: Whyare the Cleanup Levels different for DRO, RRO, Arsenic, Cadmium and Chromiumdifferent as noted in Table 1 for All Sites and Sites 5 & 12?Response:According to ADEC regulations (18 AAC 75), cleanup levels are based upon an estimateof the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occur under current and future siteconditions. The cleanup levels are based on the most relevant exposure pathways at eachsite. The regulations promulgated by the State of Alaska consider three scenarios –migration to groundwater, ingestion, and inhalation. In general, the most stringentpathway is selected as the cleanup level, however if a particular pathway is not applicableto a site, then the selected cleanup level is based on the remaining cleanup levelscontained in Table B of 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75.345. The migration togroundwater pathway is not relevant for sites on the main gravel spit because continuouspermafrost acts as a barrier for soil contaminant migration to a groundwater zone. Theflow direction of the groundwater above the permafrost is typically north, towards theBering Sea, whereas the groundwater aquifer that supplies drinking water is locatedAppendix APage 9 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaapproximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet east of the village. South of Troutman Lake near Site12, the groundwater may be in close connection with surface waters, and the moreconservative migration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels were selected.20) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 9, Site 1A-North Beach, Army Land Area, Investigation Summary: It does notdisclose how many soil and groundwater samples were collected in 1994. The onesurface soil sample does not seem enough, the geophysical survey boundaries for thelandfill are not noted, does this one surface soil sample denotes that is sufficient for theArmy landfill?Response:Site 1A refers to a beach area where Air Force landing activities occurred, i.e., theloading and unloading of barges bringing supplies to the installation. The geophysicalsurvey was conducted to determine the extent of possible buried debris and covered agrid measuring 400 by 200 feet. A cluster of anomalous areas was present in the easternhalf of the surveyed area. Two significant anomalous locations represented both surfacematerials and ferrous material at shallow depths. The predominant debris visible at thesurface included Marston matting, metal, and asphalt. The one surface soil samplecollected was sufficient to characterize the nature of the stained soils. The survey did notindicate a large landfill was present. The single surface soil sample was collected at arust-stained soil patch approximately four feet south of degraded asphalt along an ATVtrail. Three monitoring wells (MW6, MW7, and MW8) were also installed at Site 1B in1994. Three subsurface soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from the 2.5,5.0, and 10.0-foot depths in all three borings (a total of 9 samples). The only detection ofpetroleum hydrocarbons at Site 1B was 3.3 mg/kg of DRO at MW7 and 20 mg/kg ofTRPH in MW7 at 5 foot depth. Lead was detected at concentrations of 35 mg/kg in thesurface soil sample and at 117 mg/kg in MW8 at 15 feet depth. These concentrations aresignificantly below cleanup levels.21) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 9, Site 1B-North Beach, Air Force Landing Area: Do empty drums/barrels have to betested to see what they contained?Response:No. Empty drums are considered debris and are typically crushed for metal recycling orlandfill disposal.22) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 10, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: The discolored gravel, was itsampled?Response:Yes. According to the site description, exposed debris observed during the 1994investigation included remnants of an apparent fireplace, concrete pad, pieces of burnedwood, scattered metal debris and two locations of discolored gravel. Two surface soilAppendix APage 10 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskasamples were collected from these gravel areas, at 50 feet west and 30 feet east of theconcrete slab at Site 2. The physical description of the samples (SS27 and SS28) states“fine gravel, coarse sand, silt/stained red”. The samples were analyzed for fuels (TRPH),BNA (base/neutral/acid compound), and priority pollutant metals. The figure showingthe sample locations also labels nearby debris as “red brick and concrete buildingremains”. Laboratory results showed high concentrations of metals in one of the twosurface soil samples for chromium (391 mg/kg), and lead (749 mg/kg). The detectedmetals were most likely caused by the debris contained in the area. The debris wasremoved during the 1999 removal action. See also the discussion under Response toComment #11.23) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 11, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: Investigation Summary: 2ndparagraph, the sample from 1994 that exceeded the screening levels for chromium andlead. Which form of chromium is it? Form VI is a dangerous form of chromium and isvery mobile in groundwater and is almost always the result of human releases.Response:The sample was analyzed for total chromium. Speciation of chromium is not typicallyconducted during initial rounds of environmental sampling. However, during the 2001supplemental remediation investigation at Gambell, in a different site location (Site 4A),due to concerns over previously detected high levels of total chromium, two soil sampleswere collected and analyzed for both total chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr+6/CrVI). Hexavalent chromium was not detected. Chromium is a very reactive element, andtypically gets reduced to the Cr+3 (III) form when it reacts with soil. In general,chromium is rarely found in the +6 (VI) form in soil.24) Comment (V. Waghiyi):The arsenic levels that exceed the ADEC cleanup level, and that are determined“consistent across sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated w/past military activity”The many sites that are referred to, the “consistent across sites in Gambell”, are theymilitary sites in question? And has samples of arsenic ever been taken for backgroundlevels outside of the boundaries of the military bases in Gambell?Response:The sites referred to include all areas sampled under the various investigations. Since ourinvestigations are confined to the FUDS property, all sampling could be consideredmilitary sites. Only a few “outside” or “background” samples have been collected.Nonetheless, the statistical evaluation of arsenic, as described in the Response toComment #10 above, has been considered appropriate in Gambell.25) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: Chromium VI is dangerous, the single chromiumexceedance that is considered an outlier, what form is it and have background levels ofchromium been sampled outside of military boundaries to determine if the singlechromium exceedance is an outlier indeed?Appendix APage 11 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:The sample was analyzed for total chromium, therefore, the valence state of thechromium is not known. However, as discussed in the Response to Comment 23 above,hexavalent chromium is rare in soils, and has not been detected in Gambell.26) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: NFA, The village drinking water source is down gradientof site 2 & 3, warrants further sampling and monitoring.Response:According to groundwater level measurements taken at different times of the year, thevillage drinking water supply well is up gradient of Sites 2 and 3. Local residents didraise the issue of storm surges that might temporarily overwhelm the predominant waterflow directions during high water events. The short duration of these events would not beexpected to impact the drinking water aquifer.27) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Investigation Summary, 3rd paragraph: Are beryllium and thallium (site 3 levels)dangerous?Response:The level of beryllium documented at Site 3 (6 mg/kg) is significantly less than the mostconservative ADEC cleanup level, which is 42 mg/kg, based on the migration togroundwater pathway, as well as the ingestion cleanup level of 200 mg/kg. Theberyllium concentration is also well below the risk-based screening levels of 150 and 160mg/kg for residential soil calculated by two U.S. EPA regional offices (Region 3’s riskbased concentrations and Region 9’s preliminary remediation goals). The U.S. EPA doesnot publish national soil cleanup levels, and other EPA regional offices have notcalculated screening levels. The level of thallium initially detected at Site 3 during the1994 investigation (15 mg/kg) did exceed screening levels published by U.S. EPARegions 3 and 9 (5.5 mg/kg). However, screening levels are meant to be conservativenumbers and are not equivalent to cleanup levels. Further investigation was conducted todetermine the full extent of potential contamination. The more detailed investigation in1996 documented that thallium was at non-detectable levels (less than 0.28 mg/kg) at Site3, which is well below the EPA screening levels of 5.2 and 5.5 mg/kg. It is thus veryunlikely that thallium poses a risk to local residents. The ADEC has not promulgated acleanup level for thallium.28) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 15 Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Investigation Summary: 2nd Paragraph, DoEPA regions have different “risk-based concentrations”? Since we are in Region 10,does this US EPA, Region 3 risk-based concentration apply?Appendix APage 12 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:Only two U.S. EPA regional offices have calculated risk-based concentrations, based onnational guidance documents. U.S. EPA Region 3 and Region 9 both have tables ofscreening values for use in site investigations. The values are typically quite similar.Region 10 does not publish its own list of risk-based concentrations, thus either tablewould apply.29) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 16, Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Preferred Alternative: Were off militaryboundary background samples taken to see if the elevated copper is an isolatedoccurrence?Response:Two background surface soil samples were collected from north of the Radar Station(Site 4B), at the edge of the cliffs on the northern point of Sevuokuk Mountain. Copperwas analyzed for but not detected (detection limit of 2 mg/kg) in the two samples.Very little copper-impacted soil remains, and it is not practical to attempt removal.30) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 18, Site 5-Former Tramway Site, Investigation Summary: Since the only evidentactivity is from the military, and this site is by the Village water supply, the exceededlevel of DRO needs to be monitored and addressed.Response:The concentration of DRO detected in 1994 at MW16 was further investigated during asecond phase of study (1998) and could not be duplicated, therefore, the contaminationdiscovered at depth while drilling MW16 appears isolated (no large area of contaminationwas present). The 1998 replacement soil boring/monitoring well (MW32) was installedimmediately adjacent to the initial location of MW16 and the soil sampling resultsverified that the DRO contamination was not widespread. Four soil borings were alsocompleted at Site 5 during the 1998 investigation (SB33, SB34, SB35, and SB36) and nocontaminants of concern were detected. The DRO detected in groundwater frommonitoring well MW31 in 1998 remains a curiosity. Additional groundwater samplingwill be conducted to evaluate current site conditions. A final decision on any necessaryremedial actions at Site 5 will be made after evaluating the additional groundwater data.31) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 20, Site 6-Military Landfill, Investigation Summary: Have off military boundarybackground samples of metals been taken to determine that the levels of metals arenaturally occurring?Response:Two background samples were collected from a remote area in Gambell. Acomprehensive background study, with a statistically robust number of samples, has notbeen scoped because, with the exception of arsenic, elemental concentrations haveAppendix APage 13 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskalargely been below cleanup levels. Arsenic background levels have been computedstatistically as described above in Response to Comment #10.32) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 21, Site 7-Former Military Power Facility, Investigation Summary, 4th paragraph:Since this site is by the Gambell School and the DRO and benzene results exceed theADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels, this site needs to be addressed. Benzene is along term contaminant in groundwater, it cannot readily evaporate underground and sincelittle microbial activity occurs in underground water, it is not degraded.Response:Groundwater has not been consistently detected at Site 7 and is not considered a likelysource of drinking water for the community. The monitoring wells were installed bydrilling down into the ice to create a reservoir that would collect groundwater.Furthermore, the samples from the monitoring wells were poor groundwater samples –the lack of water in these wells prevented standard well development, thus “dirty” watersamples were submitted. Water sample turbidity ranged from 82.5 NephelometricTurbidity Units (NTUs) at MW24, to 50.1 NTUs at MW25, to 9.3 NTUs at MW27.Ideally, turbidity should be less than 5 NTUs for well samples. This suggests that thelaboratory results included contributions from suspended solids (soil). Additionalinvestigation conducted in 2001 demonstrated that the suprapermafrost groundwater atSite 7 was not present. Soil sampling results from 2001 indicated that the maximumconcentration of DRO was 710 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC ingestioncleanup levels of 10,200 mg/kg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples (detectionlimit of 0.005 mg/kg). These contaminant levels do not pose a tangible threat to theschool (which is not in the immediate area) or the community.33) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 27, Site 12, North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site, Investigation Summary, 2ndparagraph: The background levels for groundwater and surface water taken from MW-14located at the base of Sevoukuk Mt. are from Site 5, so therefore NOT BACKGROUND.Response:At the time of the Phase I Remedial Investigation in 1994, MW14 was designated abackground monitoring well. This site was selected because it was adjacent to the freshwater recharge area at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and presumed to be upgradientfrom any potential contaminant sources, such as the Former Military Housing/OperationsSite (Site 2) and Former Communications Site (Site 3). No metals were detected in thegroundwater at this location; the comparison levels designated as background wereactually the method detection limits for this sample from the 1994 investigation.The only detectable analytes found in groundwater from 2 monitoring wells (MW17 andMW18) installed at Site 12 were the metals barium, lead and zinc. The concentrations ofthese elements were significantly below the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels.Barium ranged from ND to 0.03 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 2.0 mg/L. LeadAppendix APage 14 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaranged from ND to 0.004 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 0.015 mg/L. Zinc rangedfrom ND to 0.018 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 11.0 mg/L.One surface water sample (SW165) was also collected at a small pond situated in thenortheast corner of North Nayvaghat Lake. DRO was detected at a concentration of 0.06mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. Chromium and zinc were also detected,but at concentrations well below the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels.Chromium ranged from ND to 0.007 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 0.1 mg/L.Zinc ranged from 0.048 to 0.049 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 11.0 mg/L.34) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 32, Site 22-Former CAA Housing, Preferred Alternative: Since the housing has thepossibility that asbestos-containing materials may be present in the structures, this siteneeds to be addressed to determine if the buildings do indeed pose a risk to the occupantsor local resident owners, they have a right to know!!Response:The FUDS program is not authorized to conduct remedial actions for structures that havebeen occupied and beneficially used since military use. Furthermore, FUDS programpolicy (ER 200-3-1) specifically states that the abatement of asbestos-containingmaterials (ACM) is an ineligible project, unless the abatement is incidental to completingan approved building demolition project.35) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 34, Site 26-Possible Debris Burial Site: Since this site is by the Gambell School, itwarrants cleanup since Local residents reported finding metal debris, machinery, oilydebris, and TRANSFORMERS in the vicinity, NFA is not an option due to the riskassociated with the site.Response:The 2001 remedial investigation demonstrated that soil contamination is not present atthis location. Therefore there is no risk from contaminants associated with this site. TheFUDS program is not authorized to excavate buried debris, unless hazardous constituentsare present and demonstrated to be migrating off-site.36) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 35, Site 28-Disturbed Ground, Site Description: The Army’s use of the land leasedJanuary 1955 to May 1958 needs to be determined, the community has a right to know ifit poses a risk!Response:According to the Findings and Determination of Eligibility (1985), 16.07 acres locatedimmediately south of Troutman Lake were obtained by Special Land Use Permit from theBureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Army in January 1955 and called “GambellArmy Site No. 2”, a defense site. This area was relinquished to BLM in February 1958.A small portion of this area, 0.23 acres, was obtained by notation of land records for theAppendix APage 15 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGambell National Guard in March 1962 and relinquished to BLM in February 1973.According to the Archives Search Report prepared by USACE (March 1998), the areasouth of Troutman Lake was used by the Army for communications.37) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Until credible samples of background arsenic levels are collected outside of the militaryboundaries in Gambell, Sites 1A, 1B, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25A, 26 and 28 needto be taken off of “Preferred remedial alternatives NFA” proposed plans until if indeedthe arsenic levels are not associated w/past military activity.Response:A comprehensive study of background metals values has not been conducted in thevicinity of Gambell. Such study has not been scoped because, with the exception ofarsenic, elemental concentrations have largely been below cleanup levels. Arsenicbackground levels have been computed statistically as described above in Response toComment #10. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that has been well documentedthroughout the state of Alaska at concentrations higher than the default ADEC cleanuplevels. Site 7 is the only site with a clear indication of elevated levels of arsenic. Thegravel soil at this site is proposed for excavation and removal in the Proposed Plan.38) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Are the following sites with buried debris scoped under NALEMP and will be removed?Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 & 24.Response:The Native Village of Gambell (NVG) successfully removed debris at Site 18 during the2004 field season under a Fiscal Year (FY) 03 Cooperative Agreement with theDepartment of Defense. The NVG also planned to remove debris at Sites 17 and 19during the 2004 field season, but encountered more debris than anticipated at Site 18 andmay not have completed those sites. These sites would then be addressed during the2004 field season. The NVG was awarded a FY04 NALEMP Cooperative Agreement foradditional work to be performed during the 2005 field season. The FY04 CA anticipatescleanup at Sites 3A, 5, 1A, 6, 1B, 2, 8C, 8B, 4E, 13, 23, 15, and 1C. Sites 21 and 24 areincluded in the Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) prepared by the NativeVillage of Gambell, but have not yet been funded for cleanup by NALEMP. Sites 11 and14 are not identified as impacts by the Native Village of Gambell in their SPIP.39) Comment (V.Waghiyi):Sites 3, 4A, 4B, 5, and any other site that had samples that initially had elevated levelsand are a risk to human health and the environment, and after additional samples weretaken a year or years later, the results showed decreased levels, goes to show that thecommunities knowledge that the groundwater migrates and as a result the differences inthe contaminant levels needs to addressed and long term monitoring are warranted andmust remediate and cleanup the contaminants when concentration levels are above risk tohuman health and the environmentAppendix APage 16 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:Sampling events are conducted over time and space to delineate the extent ofcontamination at a particular site. Sampling results that show a decrease incontamination can indicate several things. Natural attenuation for contaminants occursover time, or perhaps the samples just reflect inherent variation in contaminantconcentrations. Perhaps the subsequent sampling reached beyond the extent ofcontamination. In each of the areas mentioned, cleanup activities have already takenplace, and decreased levels of contamination can logically be attributed to these cleanupefforts. The latest sampling results suggest that neither further cleanup actions nor longterm monitoring is appropriate for these sites.40) Comment (R. Scrudato):One factor is clear from the data collected on the effects of the military occupancy is thatit is very difficult to effectively characterize and assess the environmental impacts withinthe Gambell area due to the complex hydrology and geology of the area. The highlypermeable and coarse grained nature of the cobble deposits are difficult to sample. Thepresence of permafrost, as well as the proximity of the impacted sites to the Bering Seaand the relative hydrologic influences of Troutman Lake, makes it difficult to effectivelycharacterize impacts to the various sites known to have been impacted by the release ofcontaminants during the time the military occupied the area.Response:We agree that site characterization has been challenging at the Gambell site.Nonetheless, investigations have been thorough enough to demonstrate that gross, largescale contamination is not a legacy of the Gambell FUDS. Whereas buried debris is acommonplace occurrence, contamination associated with that debris appears limited. TheADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate to proceed with a remedialdecision.41) Comment (R. Scrudato):Additional complications are imposed by the difficulties in gaining an understanding ofthe relationships of the Gambell cobble deposits (the spit) to the bedrock especially thetransition at the base of the elevated mountainous area, including the interrelationship ofthe fractured bedrock, the talus and the on-lapping cobble deposits. This transition zoneis particularly important to the source of the Gambell water supply since the infiltrationgallery is charged by the groundwater deriving from this complex interrelationship. Thisinterrelationship is also subject to seasonal changes and further complicated by thepresence of contaminated cobble soils within the recharge gallery area. As I havementioned in earlier correspondence, the hydrology of the infiltration gallery andrelations to the contaminants identified in the sites located in proximity to the infiltrationgallery are less than well defined.Response:We acknowledge that the complex hydrologic relationships between the aquifer and itsrecharge area in the vicinity of Gambell are not fully understood. To date, we do notrecognize an imminent threat to the water supply and we remain cautiously optimisticAppendix APage 17 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathat the status quo will be maintained. The cobble soils within the recharge gallery areahave been investigated during several phases of remedial investigation. A large source ofcontamination has not been identified which could impact the drinking water source. Inthe absence of water sampling results that indicate a definite problem, it is not an issuefor the FUDS Program.42) Comment (R. Scrudato):As I mentioned in my comments on the Gambell Feasability Report, it is important toprovide the Gambell residents with assurances that the environmental impacts derivingfrom the former military occupancy and release of contaminants at the various definedsites will not continue to affect their natural resources. The most effective way to providethis assurance is to establish a broad based monitoring program that will take intoconsideration the uncertainties inherent in effective site characterization due to thecomplex nature of the Gambell geology, hydrology, and relationship to permafrost,climatic changes and future land use to ensure that potential impacts will be identifiedand defined.Response:The purpose of site cleanups undertaken under FUDS is to remediate known sources ofmilitary contamination that pose a threat to human health or the environment. The Corpsused the most stringent level of protection under state guidelines (residential) whenconsidering the future land use in Gambell. It is not within the scope of the FUDScleanup to set up monitoring programs to safeguard against potential futureenvironmental concerns.Monitoring programs are established if recognizedcontaminants, above regulatory cleanup levels, are left in the ground and subject tonatural or induced remediation, or if institutional controls such as fencing or deedrestrictions are imposed. This does not appear to be the case in Gambell.43) Comment (R. Scrudato):I recommend a more comprehensive series of monitoring wells be established andmonitored throughout the Gambell area to ensure detection of contaminants will not goundetected. The Gambell residents should be provide a measure of confidence that futurepotential impacts will be detected and once detected effectively eliminated.Response:Monitoring for potential contaminants, indefinitely into the future, is not within the scopeof the FUDS Program. FUDS is a cleanup program, for known contamination.. If newinformation becomes available in the future regarding potential military impacts, theFUDS program will evaluate the data to determine the appropriate course of action.44) Comment (M. Apatiki):The overall concept of the Introduction and Description stated in this Documentregarding the Geophysical Surveys, Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies(RI/FS) that were conducted and the proposed Work Plans to perform the RemedialAction (Cleanup) by the Independent Contractor were excessively unexplicit for severalreasons stated in the following sections: The environmental impact on each of the SitesAppendix APage 18 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskado not seem to have a thorough examination and description regarding the analyticalsampling and previous cleanup actions. Specifically, the sites that were proposed for the“No Further Action”.Response:Please refer to the more detailed Remedial Investigation reports that are provided forpublic viewing at the Information Repository located at the Sivuqaq Lodge. The ADEChas provided regulatory oversight during the investigation and cleanup process for theGambell Site. The ADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate to proceedwith a remedial decision.45) Comment (M. Apatiki):The analytical DATA Collections conducted by the Independent Contractor, that werestarted since the year of 1985 do not correspond with the other analytical comparisonresults conducted by the contractor that should have excessively exceeded the ADECCleanup Level Protocol.Response:The analytical data collected over time at the Gambell site has been verified for accuracyand usability. Data regarding analytical sampling should be expected to change overtime, especially if cleanup activities occur between sampling events. Scientific analysisof the data requires an objective interpretation to best understand the meaning of theresults.46) Comment (M. Apatiki):In accordance with the local eye-witness perspectives, regarding the sites that wereproposed for the cleanup removal were recommended as the unfinished projectperformance because of the content of the debris sites were partially been removed andthat still had the remains of the unidentified anomalies and contaminant that were stillintact on sites.Response:The proposed cleanup action includes removal of debris at the airstrip (Site 8A) whichwas originally slated for removal during the 1999 debris removal action. The initialremoval action encountered live electrical wires that prevented safe working conditionsnear this debris. A health and safety plan, and coordination with local airport officialswill be conducted to ensure the remaining surface debris is completely removed.47) Comment (M. Apatiki):The overall condition of the 28 Sites indicated in this document were positively stillremains on sites and some still needs to be addressed thoroughly on behalf of thecommunities of the St. Lawrence Island that were affected by the FUDS/HTRW.Response:Between the FUDS and NALEMP Programs, substantial cleanup activities are planned inthe Gambell area. It is certain that these activities will result in a cleaner community, andAppendix APage 19 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaprovide opportunities for the local citizens to be involved, and for employment. TheADEC has provided regulatory oversight during the investigation and cleanup process atthe Gambell Site. The ADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate toproceed with a remedial decision.Appendix APage 20 of 20Alaska District Corps of EngineersStaff I Action Sheet~ ""~IiiDivisionConcur1PM-C2j'M,CW~OC£$_311 VB~:JM 1/ KJ45/AU::?'ll'aIlAA_-j,DE-DIt/') I6DEs:Please intial concur or non & dateNonDateDate:Decision Document for HTRW and BD/DR Response theNative Village of Gambell, AK(F10AK 0696)12'1 J",-l'5" -
ACAT FOIA Repository 28
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 28, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 4
Document Title: Fact Sheet: Decision Document for Gambell FUDS
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
"There were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted for public comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy" except further investigation into Site 5. For contamination/concerns that didn't meet FUDS eligibility requirements, USACE recommends using the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 28, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 4
Document Title: Fact Sheet: Decision Document for Gambell FUDS
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
"There were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted for public comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy" except further investigation into Site 5. For contamination/concerns that didn't meet FUDS eligibility requirements, USACE recommends using the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat28SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 28" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FACT SHEETDECISION DOCUMENTGambell Formerly Used Defense SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaBackgroundThe Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers is implementing remedial activities at theGambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) underthe authority of the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP).The Gambell site (FUDS #F10AK0696) is located onSt. Lawrence Island, approximately 200 milessouthwest of Nome in the Bering Sea and 36 mileseast of the Chukotsk Peninsula, Siberia. The Villageof Gambell is situated on a gravel spit on thenorthwest end of the island.The military established the Gambell site in the 1950sas part of a surveillance and intelligence-gatheringnetwork. Various units of the US Army and US AirForce utilized the area until the early 1960s.Decision DocumentThe Corps of Engineers completed a remedialinvestigation at the Gambell site and evaluatedremedial alternatives for the areas of concern. AProposed Plan was distributed to the community inJuly 2004. A public meeting was held on July 21,2004. A public comment period was from July 21 toAugust 30, 2004.June 2005determine whether petroleum hydrocarbons impactthe community drinking water. A final decision on anyappropriate remedial actions at Site 5 will be madeafter evaluating the investigation results.The proposed removal of small arms ammunition atSite 8D was determined ineligible for the FUDSprogram because the material does not meet thedefinition of inherently hazardous debris. Theexisting institutional controls will be maintained,focusing on community awareness and education,including ordnance information pamphlets andposters.The Corps of Engineers recommends that the NativeAmerican Lands Environmental Mitigation Program(NALEMP) provide funding to remove the remainingsmall armsammunition atSite 8D to fullyaddress theremainingcommunity andstate concernsregarding thebeach burial pit.Site 8DDescription of Selected RemedyThere were no significant changes between thePreferred Alternative that was submitted for publiccomment in the Proposed Plan and the SelectedRemedy.Site 5However, the Corps ofEngineers will conductadditional investigation of thegroundwater quality at Site 5,to demonstrate compliancewith ADEC groundwatercleanup criteria in 18 AAC75.345 Table C. Threeadditional groundwatermonitoring events will beconducted at Site 5 toThe selected final remedy involves excavation andoff-island landfill disposal of about 4 tons of arseniccontaminated soil from Site 7 (Former Military PowerFacility) and approximately 4 tons of lead andchromium contaminated soil at Site 12 (NayvaghatLakes Disposal Site).The target cleanuplevels are 11mg/kg for arsenic,26 mg/kg forchromium, and400 mg/kg forlead.Site 7F10AK069603_08.11_0014_a200-1eContact InformationCarey Cossaboom, Project ManagerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska DistrictP.O. Box 6898 (CEPOA-PM-FUDS)Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-0898(907) 753-2689 phone (907) 753-5626 faxCarey.C.Cossaboom@poa02.usace.army.milSite 8AInformation RepositoriesThe selected final remedy also includes the removalof about 50 tons of exposed Marston matting debrisalong the east side of the airport runway (Site 8A).No further action is the final selected remedy for 34other sites in Gambell (Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B,4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28).However, the NALEMP Program will address severalof these sites.Site documentation may be viewed at the followinglocations:Sivuqaq Corporation Building (Lodge)P.O. Box 101Gambell, Alaska 99742Phone: (907) 985-5826Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.Savoonga City HallP.O. Box 40Savoonga, Alaska 99769Phone: (907) 984-6614Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.University of Alaska FairbanksNorthwest Campus LibraryFront Street (Pouch 400)Nome, Alaska 99762Phone: (907) 443-8415Hours: Monday – Friday 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.Saturday 12:00 pm to 4:00 pmSite 12Next StepsThe remedial activities are tentatively scheduled tobegin during the late summer of 2005 though weatheror barging schedules may delay the work until 2006.Bristol Construction Services, LLC has been hired toperform the cleanup work.The fieldwork is anticipated to last about 2 weeks.The groundwater monitoring events will occur duringthe summer, fall, and spring.A final report will be prepared to document thecontaminated soil and debris removal activities.Alaska Resource Library and InformationServices (ARLIS)Suite 111, Library Building3211 Providence DriveAnchorage, Alaska 99508Phone: (907) 272-7547Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. -
ACAT FOIA Repository 29
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 29, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 2-4, 2005
Pages: 21
Document Title: Trip Report. Gambell FUDS and NALEMP Site Visit
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Lisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps) traveled to the Village of Gambell to conduct a site visit, hold a public briefing, and provide oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project. The primary objective of the August 2005 trip was a public briefing regarding the signed Decision Document for performing the final remedial actions in Gambell under the FUDS program. A second objective of the trip was to perform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted by the Native Village of Gambell IRA.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 29, Date Received July 2023
Year: August 2-4, 2005
Pages: 21
Document Title: Trip Report. Gambell FUDS and NALEMP Site Visit
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Lisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps) traveled to the Village of Gambell to conduct a site visit, hold a public briefing, and provide oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project. The primary objective of the August 2005 trip was a public briefing regarding the signed Decision Document for performing the final remedial actions in Gambell under the FUDS program. A second objective of the trip was to perform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted by the Native Village of Gambell IRA.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat29SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 29" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United States ArmyCorps of EngineersAlaska DistrictPO Box 6898 (EN-EE)Anchorage, AK99506-0898Trip ReportGambell FUDS and NALEMP Site VisitGambell, Alaska2 – 4 August 2005Prepared byLisa K. GeistEnvironmental Scientist18 August 2005F10AK096903_03.13_0002_aF10AK069603_03.13_0002_a200-1eTrip ReportGambell FUDS and NALEMP SiteGambell, Alaska2-4 August 20051. GeneralLisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers(the District or the Corps) traveled to the Village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island to conduct a site visit, hold a publicbriefing, and provide oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP)project. The team traveled to Nome, Alaska on August 2, 2005 and continued on to Gambell in the afternoon. Theteam returned to Anchorage on August 4, 2005.2. PurposeThe primary objective of the August 2005 trip was a public briefing regarding the signed Decision Document forperforming the final remedial actions in Gambell under the FUDS program. A second objective of the trip was toperform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted by the Native Village ofGambell IRA.3. BackgroundThe Gambell site was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force from approximately 1948 until the late1950s, but was largely dismantled in the early 1960s. Various facilities around the village of Gambell were constructedto provide housing, communications, and other functions. All DOD structures were demolished, burned, or scavengedand debris buried on-site.A Phase I Remedial investigation was started at Gambell in 1994. A Phase II investigation was completed in 1997. Aremoval action was conducted by Oil Spill Consultants during the summer of 1999 to remove surface debris andcontaminated soils. A Supplemental Remedial Investigation was conducted during 2001. A removal action wascompleted in 2003 by Montgomery Watson Harza under the NALEMP program to excavate buried drums and debris.The Native Village of Gambell (NVG) conducted additional debris removal activities in 2004 and continuing in 2005under the NALEMP program. The Corps of Engineers completed a Feasibility Study in February 2004, a ProposedPlan in July 2004, and received approval for the planned remedial actions through a Decision Document signed in July2005.4. Field ActivitiesThe major on-site tasks for the 2005 site visit were:a. Hold a Public Briefing regarding the signed Decision Document for Remedial Action in Gambellb. Observe the ongoing debris excavation activities being performed by the Native Village of Gambell under aCooperative Agreement with the Department of Defense NALEMP program.c. Provide oversight to the Native Village of Gambell staff conducting the NALEMP debris excavation activities.2On Tuesday, August 2, 2005, Carey Cossaboom and Lisa Geist arrived in Gambell around 1:00 pm. They met withGerald Soonagrook, field supervisor for the Native Village of Gambell NALEMP project to discuss the status of thedebris removal activities. Robert Tungiyan, the NVG Project Manager, was currently on leave.Edmond Apassingok mentioned that the village needs more people trained in 40 hour HAZWOPER, at least 5 morepeople plus the 8 hour refresher training for the existing crew. The village had difficulty finding enough qualified workersfor this summer’s work and two of the crew members are actually from Savoonga. One crew member was currentlytraveling to Anchorage for an 8 hour HAZWOPER refresher class.Carey and Lisa visited the work site in the afternoon and observed the field crew. Gerald Soonagrook showed themthe various work areas. Debris was being temporarily stored within the fenced area next to the washeteria. Alsowithin the fenced area was an open excavation (18B) that was recently sampled by Travis Peterson EnvironmentalConsultants (TPECI). The excavation pit at 18B will be backfilled once the NVG receives the sampling results fromTPECI. The open excavation was observed to contain debris protruding from the western sidewall. Gerald explainedthat additional excavation could not be conducted because they were restricted from digging closer than 30 feet to theexisting water storage tanks. Carey suggested cutting off the exposed debris before backfilling the hole. A large metalsafe or rectangular storage unit was observed adjacent to the 18B excavation. The large metal tank pulled from the18B excavation last year was also observed just outside the fenced area. The tank will be shipped off-site this year byNorthland Barge Services. The barge company does not require the tank to be containerized in a connex. See photosin appendix.Carey and Lisa viewed Site 19, where the diatomaceous earth had been excavated earlier in the field season. Anexposed water pipe is still present and may pose an impediment to future expansion of the water treatment plant andwasheteria. This concern should be added to the Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) and can most likely beremoved in the future through the NALEMP project. Gerald showed the team the location of the staged supersacksawaiting off-site transport, the connex with tools, scales (one scale has a broken LED and can only read some of thenumbers), spare tires, and other equipment for the project. The team also visited the gravel pit where the nonhazardous, inert diatomaceous earth was placed, as well as the gravel soils excavated during the 2004 field seasonwhich were determined to be non-contaminated soil based on laboratory sampling results. This pit, several hundred feeteast of the school, is a gently-sloped depression in the ground (gravel can’t hold steep sidewalls) about 30 feet acrossand 6 feet deep.The crew took 2 coffee breaks and a lunch break each day of our visit. They traveled from the worksite back to theoffice during coffee breaks which lasted 30 minutes. The crew also started wrapping up tasks around 4:30-4:45 pm inthe afternoon before heading back to the office before 5:00 pm.Carey Cossaboom confirmed the meeting room arrangements with Sivuqaq, Inc. The Public Briefing started at 7:25pm, approximately 5 people attended. Attendees also viewed a large format map prepared by the Corps whichshowed the areas planned for cleanup and summarized progress over the past several years. Additional details on themeeting are highlighted below.Attendees: Aaron Irrowigan, Jesse Lowrey, Winnie James, Rodney Unglowook, Sr., another community member, andSteve from ADEC, a visiting Village Safe Water representative in town for water/sewer work.Carey explained that the Corps of Engineers has 2 major projects on St. Lawrence Island. Bristol Environmental &Engineering Services is currently finishing demolition and debris cleanup and excavation of PCB-contaminated soils at3Northeast Cape. There is also work ongoing in Gambell under the NALEMP program, which is the NVG crew diggingup debris by the school building. Each project has a different funding source, with FUDS having a much larger budget –$30 million/year in Alaska compared to a nationwide budget of $10 million for NALEMP. Gambell’s project is one ofthe highest funded NALEMP projects in the country and has been for the past 2 years.The FUDS program will be coming to Gambell to complete final cleanup actions, maybe this summer. BristolConstruction has been hired to perform the work, and they are making plans to mobilize here after finishing at NortheastCape. The job is fairly short, and is projected to last about 2 weeks. However, there is the possibility Bristol will notfinish before the last barge departs and their contract has an option to store their equipment in Gambell over the winter.If Bristol doesn’t get here this summer, they will mobilize from Nome or Anchorage next summer.The work includes picking up runway matting left by the airstrip which wasn’t completed during an earlier cleanup effortbecause of lighting and electrical cables in the way. Two other areas are scheduled for cleanup, including one at thesouth end of Troutman Lake where batteries had been previously disposed and residual lead and chromium remain in asmall area of soil. The soil will be dug up and hauled away.Jesse Lowrey commented that this area (south of Troutman Lake) is where community members harvested greens formany years. Winnie James mentioned that a communications site was bulldozed at the south end of the lake, too,including towers with guy wires and 5-10 Quonset huts. Carey replied that the Corps is always open to newinformation and the work being done by the IRA outlines community priorities and identifies new sites. At the next RABmeeting, Carey plans to go with Winnie and Jeff Brownlee from the ADEC to visit the area previously identified byWinnie (at the base of Sevuokuk Mtn) as missed by the ordnance investigation team. They will do some digging basedon Winnie’s direction using the backhoe from the NALEMP project.The last site planned for cleanup activity is in town, identified as Site 7. In 2003, Montgomery Watson removed a largeconcrete slab from this area. The concrete was supported by creosote-treated timbers. Discolored gravel associatedwith the timbers had elevated levels of arsenic, a chemical used as a preservative in the timbers. This soil will be dug upand removed.Also under Bristol’s contract, they will test the groundwater at Site 5, near the village water supply. Three separatemonitoring events are planned, spanning different seasons and water levels.The small arms ammunition on the ground at the south beach was initially proposed for cleanup under FUDS, but nowthe Corps hopes to do this with NALEMP funding.Bristol hopes to conduct the work this summer, maybe during the 2nd or 3rd week in September. However, if the bargeschedule doesn’t work out, they could start early next summer instead. The NALEMP cleanup will take several moreyears to complete.Jesse Lowrey asked if the soil associated with the debris excavation by the washeteria was contaminated? Careyreplied that soil samples collected for analysis were clean. Jesse asked if monitoring was being conducted as the crewdug up debris? Carey replied that the crew notes areas where there may be contaminated soils, and often bag up soilthat appears contaminated. These are then tested when the consultants come to Gambell, about every 2 weeks.Monitoring is not being conducted as they dig because not a lot of dust is created and there has been very littlecontamination.4Rodney asked if the runway matting would only be removed adjacent to the runway, or anywhere? There are jaggedpieces in the road south of the runway which pose a hazard to ATV traffic. Carey replied that the intent was to removeall hazards in the immediate vicinity and he would make sure Bristol was aware of that debris.The meeting concluded by 9 pm.On Wednesday, August 3, 2005, Lisa Geist and Carey Cossaboom attended the Job Safety Tailgate meeting at theNVG Environmental Office. The field crew arrived between 8:00 and 8:15 am. Gerald Soonagrook conducted a briefsafety meeting at 8:30 am. The crew departed for the excavation site at 8:55 am. The field technicians voiced manycomplaints about the need for maintenance supplies and the process for ordering items. Carey stressed that the NVGProject Manager should approve any necessary purchases, Denise can place the orders, but the NVG needs to devisea routine process for ordering supplies. There appears to be a breakdown in communications between variouspersonnel of the NVG. The crew needs maintenance supplies for the heavy equipment such as filters, coolant, andgrease. Carey stressed that the heavy equipment must be maintained in good working order according to the usermanuals – it needs to be used for the duration of the project. Richard Ooseva, the loader operator, mentioned that onetire on the loader is low on air, has a gash, and needs to be replaced. It appeared the correct size valve was notavailable to utilize the City of Gambell’s air compressor equipment to attempt a repair. The backhoe also needs a newwindow on the lower left side of the operator’s cabin. The crew suggested that fueling the heavy equipment was alengthy process (20 minutes to drive one-way to the village tank farm) and wondered if a fuel bladder or othertemporary storage closer to the work site(s) would be possible. Gerald Soonagrook said that Robert Tungiyan didn’tleave any detailed instructions for him before going on leave. Gerald was aware of the need to order items, but didn’tknow what had already been arranged.The trailer being used to move debris from the excavation sites to the washeteria storage area is rented from EdmondApassingok at a rate of $25/day. It was unclear from the FY04 Cooperative Agreement if a trailer was originallyplanned for purchase. [Post-Meeting Note: Page 6 of the CA shows two ATVs with trailers were to be purchased.]Two pieces of window glass for the heavy equipment were ordered last year and are still in crates at the office –apparently they are the wrong pieces of glass (wrong side of cab). Carey suggested that they should analyze whether ornot it would be cost-effective to ship them back. If it costs as much to ship them back as they are worth, don’t bother.A box of blades for the sawsall was also at the office, but were not the right ones according to the crew. Careyvolunteered to bring the box back to Anchorage and return them to AIH for a credit to the NVG.Carey emphasized that the project must be run efficiently. The NVG needs to plan their activities and coordinateordering supplies, waste transport, connexes, etc. The NVG will be expected to make a good presentation at nextyear’s annual NALEMP meeting. There are many people in Washington, DC who are interested in this project andmay scrutinize it since Gambell is one of the highest funded sites in the country. The NALEMP program manager (PatRoth) may also come to Gambell later this summer/fall to conduct an audit of the project expenses/books.Denise stated that the project could really use a big site map for Gambell. Lisa left 2 large maps at the NVG office forthem to use, but can send a larger one showing all the sites on one sheet.After the crew left for the worksite, Carey and Lisa participated in the Northeast Cape weekly teleconference at 9 am.Then they went to the IRA Office to meet with Cheryl Koonooka, Bookkeeper and Tyler Campbell, General Manager.5Carey offered any assistance with the invoices and requests for advance they prepare and obtained receipts for the sawblades. While at the IRA Office, Gerald arrived to inform Tyler that the crew had severed a buried power line at theworksite.After lunch, Carey and Lisa visited the site, observed the newly built weather observation tower north of Site 6, andwalked to the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. A pile of marston matting and other debris was noted near the base of theguy wires, which had apparently been exposed when the weather station was installed. The power line was fixed byabout 2 pm in the afternoon. The crew took a break at 3:00 pm and returned to the site at 3:30 pm. The crew wasworried about hitting another power line and expensive phone line on the north side of the excavation at Site 18A.Carey and Lisa observed the general work operations. The backhoe removes a scoop of gravel from the pit,apparently to expose the large debris pieces, dumps it on a pile next to the pit, which the laborers then hand-pick outsmaller pieces of debris from it. The larger Quonset hut pieces appeared more difficult to extract from the excavation.Gerald explained that the crew had attempted to use chains to pull the larger debris from the excavation, but theytypically didn’t work. The loader was used to backfill the area where the power line was exposed, and also flattenedthe gravel pile created by the backhoe. Mostly Quonset hut framing was excavated today.Carey and Lisa met with the IRA Council at 3:30 pm at the NVG Environmental office. Council members presentincluded Edmond Apassingok, Chris Koonooka, Branson Tungiyan, Wayne Booshu, and Susie Booshu. Carey startedthe discussion stating that it was not clear how well the crew was doing because they didn’t have any connexes to placethe debris in, and therefore, the crew did not have an estimate of the weight of debris excavated. One of the keys toassessing the progress of the team is knowing how much tonnage is excavated. The crew essentially met last year’sprojected total of 85 tons. The Council was concerned about spending $2000/connex, which was not part of theoriginal budget, so they had instructed Robert Tungiyan to look for other sources of connexes from different projects intown. The Council was under the impression they couldn’t afford an extra $28,000 for connexes if they needed topurchase them from Northland. Carey congratulated the team on getting connexes at no cost last year, but also saidthat there would be no objections to paying for them. The Council was also concerned that there may be more debrisunder the playground and satellite dish located adjacent to the School. They have requested that Bering Straits relocatethe playground and satellite dish so the NVG crew can remove the debris underneath. The community is alsoconcerned that the debris dug up from the expansion of the High School had been reburied next to the landfill. Careyreplied that site was on the list to be addressed by NALEMP in the future.Edmond requested that the NVG be able to train substitute or on-call workers in 40 hour HAZWOPER. Carey willbring up the issue of training extra workers with the NALEMP program managers. However, Carey didn’t think thatNALEMP would train a lot of workers who didn’t actually work on the project. Edmond mentioned that NVG wantsto create a limit liability corporation (LLC), similar to one created by the Evansville Tribal Council. The NVG wouldlike to perform other cleanup jobs in the state, they are proud of their crew and want them to succeed. Currently thereare 7 crew members, but they would like to get an additional 5 to 10 people trained. The goal of the NVG is to havetheir project be a priority for cleanup like their village was a strategic, priority location 50 years ago during the war.Carey stressed that the ordering process needs to improve and the heavy equipment needs to be adequately maintained.Carey was concerned about the apparent lack of communication between the project manager, crew, and IRA office.Edmond feels that Robert Tungiyan is doing a good job. Carey mentioned that schedules are important and the projectneeds to get back on time. Carey asked if the NVG had a written contract with TPECI, Edmond replied no, just anotice to proceed. Carey said a written scope/contract protects both parties. [Post meeting note: Carey remembersreviewing a TPECI proposal that incorporated the SOW.]6The crew arrived back at the office at 4:40 pm. The meeting ended at 5:00 pm.Thursday, August 4, 2005The NALEMP crew was observed to arrive at the NVG office by 8:00 am. The crew did not depart the office until8:50 am. Lisa and Carey met with the ADEC Village Safe Water representatives at Sivuqaq Lodge and discussed thestatus of the monitoring wells at Site 5. The VSW personnel recommended recapping and locking all the monitoringwells to ensure the safety of the community’s water supply. The aquifer is very vulnerable to contamination and thewells must be secured. The VSW personnel had also observed the debris protruding from the open excavation insidethe washeteria fence, adjacent to the large water tank. They were quite surprised that the water tanks had beenapparently built on top of a buried debris pile. Carey explained that the NVG field crew planned to cut off theprotruding debris and fill in the excavation. They could not excavate more debris, however, due to restrictions ondigging less than 30 feet from the tank.Carey and Lisa visited Site 5 and checked on the status of the groundwater monitoring wells. See photos in appendixand figure, below. MW28 was observed to contain gravel between the inner and outside well casing, but the well itselfdidn’t contain visible gravel. The well was unlocked, but an interior cap was present on the PVC piping. MW31 waslocked (rusted in place). MW29 was locked (rusted in place). MW32 was not locked, the outer casing cap could belifted off, an inner cap on the piping was present. MW15 was not locked, but an inner cap was present. MW14 wasnot locked, and the inner cap was partially wedged between the casing the piping, from apparent frost jacking. MW30was locked (rusted in place).Back at the jobsite, the crew was observed to go on break at 10:30 am, and headed back to the site at 11:00 am.Carey and Lisa checked back in at the IRA Office to see if Cheryl had a new invoice ready, which she later delivered tothe Sivuqaq Lodge. The field team left Gambell at 1:30 pm, arrived in Nome and then Anchorage by 11:45 pm.75. Conclusions and RecommendationsDuring this trip, the District team visited with community members, the IRA Council, and members of the NVGNALEMP crew. The team provided oversight to ongoing NALEMP debris excavation activities, checked the status ofthe Site 5 groundwater monitoring wells, and conducted a public briefing regarding upcoming FUDS cleanup activities.The ongoing NALEMP project still seems a bit disorganized. The crew appears to work at the job site for an averageof 6 full hours per day. The backhoe operation seemed slow and somewhat inefficient. A lot of hand labor was used topick through debris, and additional time was being spent transporting the debris from the worksite to the temporarystaging area within the Washeteria fenced area. The lack of connexes could be a major problem if connexes are notobtained on the next barge shipment scheduled for arrival the week of August 15th. It was difficult to ascertain howmuch the absence of Robert Tungiyan contributed to the overall confusion, or if the crew in general need betterdirection/management.8Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photos 1-6: Village of Gambell welcoming cruise ship visitors, native dancing performance at Sivuqaq Lodge.Photo 1: Chris Koonooka (center, with child) Photo 2: Winnie James (seated on ATV)Photo 3: Native dancing demonstrationPhoto 4: Native dancing demonstrationPhoto 5: Group invited to dance(Branson Tungiyan, center in white)Photo 6: Local children9Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 7: Excavation 18A, adjacent to School, Photo 8: Excavation 18A, view northwest towardsview northeast towards schoolplayground, yellow tape is area transformer was dug upPhoto 9: Gerald Soonagrook NVG Supervisor andCarey Cossaboom, USACE PMPhoto 10: NVG crew sorting through debrisPhoto 11: Excavation 18A, view northeastPhoto 12: Excavation 18A, view east10Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 13: NALEMP LoaderPhoto 14: smaller debris excavated and supersackedPhoto 15: view northwest within Washeteria fence, Photo 16: close up view west towards water storage tanklimits of Excavation 18B, cannot dig closer than 30 ft to tank.Photo 17: Excavated safe or other itemPhoto 18: Close up of excavated item11Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 19: stockpiled debris, looking northeast Photo 20: Stockpiled debris, looking east towards Mtn.towards SchoolPhoto 21: Stockpiled debris at WasheteriaPhoto 22: Close up of excavated debrisPhoto 23: Close-up of stockpiled debrisPhoto 24: Trailer of debris being taken to stockpile12Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 24: Stockpiled supersacks with small debris pieces Photo 25: Creosoted timbers excavated from Site 18Photo 27: Protruding buried water pipe atedge of Troutman Lake and near Site 19Photo 29: Cables at Site 19, view northPhoto 28: Water pipe at Site 19, view eastPhoto 29: Close up of cables at Site 1913Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 30: Platform and concrete, view northeasttowards SchoolPhoto 31: Equipment/Supplies connexPhoto 32-33: Gravel pit used dispose of non-contaminatedsoils and diatomaceous earth from Sites 18 and 19, view west/northwest.Photo 33: NVG Field crew (from left to right) Photo 34: NVG Field crewQuin, Patrick, Levi Seppliu, Gerald Soonagrook, Ladd, Levi, Patrick, Gerald, Regi, Carey, RichardCarey Cossaboom, Richard Ooseva14Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 35: Excavation 18A, severed power line Photo 36: Excavation 18A, severed power linePhoto 37: Loader tire – back leftPhoto 38: Close up view of loader tire with gashPhoto 39: Loader with back tire needing airPhoto 40: Loader, good tires15Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 41: Trailer rented from Edmond ApassingokPhoto 42: Trailer to transport debrisPhoto 43: Loader with broken windowPhoto 44: Loader with broken windowPhoto 45: Non-military drum north of Site 18APhoto 46: Non-military drum north of Site 18A16Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 47: New weather station, north of snow fenceand north of extents of Site 6 excavation from 2003Photo 48: Exposed debris from weather stationPhoto 49: Debris exposed from weather stationinstallation, view northeastPhoto 50: Debris exposed from weather station,view eastPhoto 51: New weather station, view southwestPhoto 52: Debris pile from weather station installation17Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 53: Excavation at Site 18APhoto 54: Excavation at Site 18APhoto 55: Excavation at Site 18APhoto 56: Excavation at Site 18APhoto 57: MW28Photo 58: MW2818Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 59: MW 28Photo 61: MW31Photo 60: MW31Photo 62: MW32Photo 67: MW15Photo 63: MW32Photo 68: MW1519Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 64: MW29Photo 65: MW30Photo 69: MW1420Photo 66: MW30Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 70: Excavation 18APhoto 71: Excavation 18APhoto 72: Excavation 18APhoto 73: Excavation 18A21 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 30
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 30
Year: September 15-17, 2005
Date Received: July 2023
Pages: 25
Document Title:
Trip Report. Gambell FUDS and NALEMP Site Visit
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Lisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps), and Janesse Brewer of The Keystone Group (meeting facilitator) traveled to Nome, Alaska, and the Village of Gambell to attend a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting. The trip also included conducting a site visit, and providing oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project. The primary objective of the September 2005 trip was to attend the St. Lawrence Island RAB Meeting. A second objective of the trip was to perform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted by the Native Village of Gambell IRA. A third objective of the trip was to investigate reported buried debris or ammunition near the base of Sevuokuk Mountain with Mr. Winnie James, Sr.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 30
Year: September 15-17, 2005
Date Received: July 2023
Pages: 25
Document Title:
Trip Report. Gambell FUDS and NALEMP Site Visit
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Lisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (the District or the Corps), and Janesse Brewer of The Keystone Group (meeting facilitator) traveled to Nome, Alaska, and the Village of Gambell to attend a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting. The trip also included conducting a site visit, and providing oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) project. The primary objective of the September 2005 trip was to attend the St. Lawrence Island RAB Meeting. A second objective of the trip was to perform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted by the Native Village of Gambell IRA. A third objective of the trip was to investigate reported buried debris or ammunition near the base of Sevuokuk Mountain with Mr. Winnie James, Sr.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat30SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 30" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United States ArmyCorps of EngineersAlaska DistrictPO Box 6898 (EN-EE)Anchorage, AK99506-0898Trip ReportGambell FUDS and NALEMP Site VisitF10AK0696Gambell, Alaska15 – 17 September 2005Prepared byLisa K. GeistEnvironmental Scientist20 September 2005F10AK096903_03.13_0003_aF10AK069603_03.13_0003_a200-1eTrip ReportGambell FUDS and NALEMP SitesGambell, Alaska15-17 September 20051. GeneralLisa Geist (EN-EE) and Carey Cossaboom (PM-C-FUDS) from the Alaska District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers(the District or the Corps) and Janesse Brewer of The Keystone Group (meeting facilitator) traveled to Nome, Alaskaand the Village of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island to attend a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting. The tripalso included conducting a site visit, and providing oversight for the ongoing Native American Lands EnvironmentalMitigation Program (NALEMP) project. The team traveled to Nome, Alaska on Thursday, September 15, 2005 andcontinued on to Gambell in the afternoon. The team returned to Anchorage on Saturday, September 17, 2005.2. PurposeThe primary objective of the September 2005 trip was to attend the St. Lawrence Island RAB Meeting. A secondobjective of the trip was to perform ongoing oversight of the NALEMP debris excavation activities being conducted bythe Native Village of Gambell IRA. A third objective of the trip was to investigate reported buried debris or ammunitionnear the base of Sevuokuk Mountain with Mr. Winnie James, Sr.3. BackgroundThe Gambell site was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force from approximately 1948 until the late1950s, but was largely dismantled in the early 1960s. Various facilities around the village of Gambell were constructedto provide housing, communications, and other functions. All DOD structures were demolished, burned, or scavengedand debris buried on-site.A Phase I Remedial investigation was started at Gambell in 1994. A Phase II investigation was completed in 1997. Aremoval action was conducted by Oil Spill Consultants during the summer of 1999 to remove surface debris andcontaminated soils. A Supplemental Remedial Investigation was conducted during 2001. A removal action wascompleted in 2003 by Montgomery Watson Harza under the NALEMP program to excavate buried drums and debris.The Native Village of Gambell (NVG) conducted additional debris removal activities in 2004 and continuing in 2005under NALEMP. The Corps of Engineers completed a Feasibility Study in February 2004, a Proposed Plan in July2004, and received approval for the planned remedial actions through a Decision Document signed in July 2005.A Cooperative Agreement (CA) between the Department of Defense and the Native Village of Gambell forenvironmental cleanup work under NALEMP was approved in August 2004. The NVG also has a FY05 CA for workto be conducted next summer in Gambell. The NVG successfully completed work under a FY03 CA which includedexcavation of approximately 83.5 tons of debris and 33 tons of incidental contaminated soil during the 2004 fieldseason.4. Field ActivitiesThe major on-site tasks for the 2005 site visit were:a. Attend the St. Lawrence Island Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting2b. Provide oversight to the Native Village of Gambell staff conducting the NALEMP debris excavation activities.c. Investigation potential buried debris and ammunition with Mr. Winnie James, Sr.Thursday, September 15, 2005Carey Cossaboom, Lisa Geist and Janesse Brewer arrived in Gambell around 2:00 pm. Jeff Brownlee from the AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and Michelle Turner and Larry Pederson from BristolEnvironmental and Engineering Services had also just arrived. The Bristol team was preparing to conduct the plannedgroundwater monitoring at Site 5. Carey confirmed with Aaron Irrowigan, President of Sivuqaq, Inc., an invitation tomeet with the board at 10 am Friday morning. The team then met with Gerald Soonagrook, assistant project managerfor the Native Village of Gambell NALEMP project to discuss the status of the debris removal activities. RobertTungiyan, the NVG Project Manager, was out sick. Gerald Soonagrook informed the team that the Northland bargewith the empty connexes had turned back from Golovin due to bad weather. The field crew was not working anymore,because all the sites in the workplan were completed, with the exception of Site 17. However, the crew was onstandby if connexes were obtained.At 3:00 pm, Carey, Lisa and Janesse met with members of the IRA Council, Gerald Soonagrook (Assistant NVGProject Manager), Denise Koonooka (NVG Clerk), and Jim Durkin from Travis Peterson Environmental Consultants,Inc. (TPECI) (via teleconference) at the NVG Environmental office to discuss the NALEMP project status andprogress. Council members present included Branson Tungiyan and Jared ___. Several council members were notavailable due to travel to Nome and other business.Branson Tungiyan had several concerns to share with the Corps of Engineers. His primary concern was the safety issueof excavated debris sitting on the ground surface. Branson was also concerned about the open pit excavation on thenorth beach which would get flooded by waves and shifting gravels during a large storm. The debris from Sites 17, 18Aand 18B were also of concern because the supersacks may not withstand being exposed to winter conditions. Smallerpieces of debris could also get blown around during the winter and is of concern. Gerald informed the team that thedebris within the fenced washeteria area had been moved outside of this area in preparation for the arrival of the emptyconnexes. Branson stated that in the lower 48 states, debris would not be allowed to sit on private land in an unsecuredmanner, this is a safety concern. Branson stated that the open pit is also adjacent to the boat landing area and mayinterfere with subsistence activities or pose a danger to people gathering sea foods in that area, or traversing the beachon ATVs in the dark. Jim Durkin stated that Dave Miller from TPECI would be out to do the final confirmationsampling in a couple days, then the pit could be backfilled.Branson also stated that Site 17 is a health concern to the NVG based on the human latrine waste that was encounteredunderground. Carey asked what was the source of the latrine waste? Branson replied it must be from the militarybecause residents of Gambell had their own honey bucket dump(s) near the old village. Carey reflected that whenMontgomery Watson dug up drums from Site 6, the latrine waste was practically all gone. Branson said the smell isvery similar to that encountered when sunken houses are found in the old village area – the area to the left of theentryway was the bathroom and even after a long time, the same smells are encountered. Branson was concerned thatnext year when Site 17 is worked on again, the latrine smells could drift towards the residential area of Gambell andpose a health concern. Branson mentioned that concerns were raised by ACAT, too. Dr. Carpenter and Dr.Scrudato’s report also raised issues about high levels of contaminants.Gerald agreed that there is still a lot of debris to be removed from Site 17. Robert Tungiyan was supposed to get GPScoordinates for the exact location the latrine waste was encountered. Gerald said the latrine waste was underneath3debris such as steel runway mats. The crew was instructed by TPECI to stop work at Site 17 and told they needhepatitis B shots and other protective gear before continuing work at Site 17. Gerald observed that when MontgomeryWatson Harza dug up the waste at Site 6 two years ago, people tended to get more flus and bad colds. If people in thehousing area smell the waste from Site 17, there will be complaints next year. Furthermore, a lot of people are gettingsick right now. Gerald hypothesized that it is because of the exposed debris on the surface which is staged at Site 1A,17, and 18. Branson wants to get ACAT to do some air monitoring in the village. Depending on the wind direction, theexcavation activities caused a lot of dust. Carey stated that the proper precautions and method for dealing with theremaining waste at Site 17 can be determined during the winter. Branson asked Jim Durkin to provide TPECI’s opinionin the next year’s workplan. Jim agreed that their observations would be in the cleanup summary report.Gerald stated that the NVG Environmental program is trying to obtain connexes from other projects in town, includingthe Bering Straits Housing Authority. Bering Straits may have 3 empty connexes. There are about 31 supersacks full ofsmaller debris pieces. No incidental contaminated soil was encountered during the excavation activities. Gerald statedthat the native store might be getting a fuel delivery to top off their storage tanks. Gerald estimated that the NVG needsat least 10 connexes for the supersacks and lightweight corrugated metal excavated from Site 18. Some of the smallerdebris pieces could blow away if they aren’t containerized. Gerald stated that the NVG has a good cooperativeworking relationship with the City and Washeteria operators. Sivuqaq Inc. may also have a role because the debris issitting on their land. Carey asked if the debris could be put back inside the fenced area of the washeteria? Geraldreplied that not all the debris would fit.Carey stressed the importance of determining the tonnage of debris already excavated. This is especially important todetermine if the budget is on track and make sure enough money remains to pay for shipping and disposal of thematerials next summer. Gerald stated that he could use pallets to weigh most of the debris. The heavier items such asthe crane, bulldozer, and concrete blocks will have to be estimated weights. Gerald will have the crew return to workon Monday to start weighing all the debris. It might take a week to weight everything. Carey repeated that shipping thedebris will be the most expensive part of the project and it is critical we know how much debris we’re dealing with.Gerald raised a concern that Crowley Marine just bought out another marine shipper and freight shipping rates will likelyrise significantly next year. Gerald stated the debris is corroding quickly now that it is exposed to the air.Branson raised his last concern which is the environment. The drums which are being dug up were supposedlypunctured and the contents must have drained somewhere. He is concerned that the contents are sitting on top of thepermafrost and could impact the local drinking water supply. Global warming will cause the permafrost depth to keepincreasing and spread the contamination. Branson stated that a report from the water and sewer utility recentlydocumented poor quality of water in the community water supply due to increased mineral content and he didn’trecommend drinking water from the faucets. Branson indicated the NVG would look to TPECI for expertise on thisconcern and including it in the updated SPIP.After meeting with Branson, Carey and Lisa went over the presentation Denise had prepared for this evening’s RABmeeting. Gerald agreed to attend the meeting and give the presentation.Around 4:30 pm, Carey met with Winnie James, Sr. at the Sivuqaq Lodge. At the previous RAB meeting, Carey hadagreed do some exploratory digging with a backhoe at the area identified by Winnie as having been missed by thegeophysical investigation for potential buried ammunition or debris from the Air Force Camp near the base of SevuokukMountain. Winnie was busy that evening, but agreed to meet us tomorrow afternoon to show the team where to dig.4Carey confirmed the availability of the Q Building for the evening RAB meeting and contacted Debbie James, Mayor ofGambell, to unlock the building. See separate RAB Meeting minutes for a summary of the meeting. The RAB meetingstarted at 7 pm, and ended at 10 pm.Friday, September 16, 2005On Friday morning, Lisa Geist and Carey Cossaboom met with Gerald Soonagrook at 9 am to further discuss theNALEMP project status. Carey and Lisa were invited to a meeting of the Board of Sivuqaq, Inc. at 10 am at theSivuqaq Lodge. The following members were present: Aaron Irrowigan, Merle Apassingok, Leonard Apangalook,Job, Jerome, and ___. The Board asked about the possibility of constructing a monofill to receive non hazardousdebris from the FUDS and NALEMP projects in Gambell. Aaron stated that Sivuqaq was interested in obtaining morelocal benefit from the debris cleanup projects. Job observed that there was low risk associated with the non-hazardousdebris.Merle stated that Eugene Toolie was pleased with the completion of the first couple projects at Northeast Cape(cleanup of buildings and structures), however he is most concerned about the nasty stuff left in the landfill. Careyreplied that he is hopeful that the discovery of several full drums of POL fluids on the edge of the Site 7 landfill won’tderail the feasibility study process and planning efforts scheduled for the coming year.Carey asked if Sivuqaq had a location in mind for the possible monofill? Aaron replied that they would need to doadditional research and feasibility study for the area. Aaron speculated that the area on the south side of TroutmanLake near Site 12 and the fenced septic lagoon waste area may be a possibility. Lisa asked if this area would beconsidered too wet? Aaron replied the Board will suggest some possible sites in the future.Carey stated that FUDS can only consider using an existing landfill. The landfill would have to be built ahead of time.At Northeast Cape, a monofill made economic sense because of the large amount of debris. However, there are 2different programs ongoing in Gambell, and the NALEMP program may have a different perspective on a monofill.Carey needs to check the rates for tipping fees typically paid to a landfill. Carey explained that NALEMP may not havethe same restriction as FUDS and could consider the savings in shipping costs and apply them to construction of amonofill. Carey stated that a high estimate may be 300 tons of debris left in Gambell to be removed under NALEMP.Aaron mentioned that the City, IRA Council, and Sivuqaq will be having a joint meeting on the 29th of September.Carey agreed to explore the possibility of a monofill and do more research at the office. Merle expressed his sympathyfor the Hurricane Katrina tragedy and thanked Carey as a representative of the Corps of Engineers. The meetingconcluded at 11 am.Carey and Lisa returned to the NVG Environmental Office to meet with Gerald Soonagrook. Robert Tungiyan wasalso present. Gerald confirmed that the late fall/early winter is when the village tends to get salt water intrusion into thewaters supply. There is less water available at that time of year in the aquifer. Gerald thought that early November maybe the time period when water usage is at a maximum and the aquifer level is low.Lisa wondered if the dimensions of the heavy equipment pieces (crane and bulldozer) could be measured to helpestimate their tonnage. Gerald indicated the crew had used sorbant pads to get residual oils out of the crane. Site 17still has debris present on top of the latrine waste. Sites 18A, 18B, and 19 are done. Robert stated that last year theypaid $0.50 /pound for outgoing waste on the Northland barge. Truck and train transportation in Washington/Oregonwas $275 and $375 per connex, respectively. Carey repeated that we need to know the disposal costs at the landfill5(Waste Management, Arlington facility). Carey asked if the NVG had received any invoices from SGS Laboratory?Robert replied no.Carey reviewed the remaining sites to be addressed according to the various open Cooperative Agreements. Geraldstated they have no way of accessing/retrieving debris from Site 1A underwater. Site 2, the Air Force Camp at thebase of Sevuokuk Mountain could possibly be addressed if the budget allows for more digging. This site has alreadybeen located according to information from local elders. Robert estimated that the crew has dug up nearly double theamount of debris from last year. Robert explained that he made a request through Patrick Crosby at Northland for ashipment of connexes at the beginning of the summer, but Patrick left the company and the 25 containers that weresupposed to be delivered in June weren’t. Gerald confirmed that the heavy equipment could be stored at the citygarage again this winter. The security person is still working nights to keep watch on the debris piles and heavyequipment staged near Site 17. Lisa suggested if several connexes can be obtained locally, the supersacks and smallerdebris could be containerized and the connexes themselves could be arranged in a U shape to protect larger debris fromblowing around.At 1 pm, the field team met Winnie James, Sr. to do some exploratory digging. Quinn Slwooko operated the backhoe.Winnie James directed the operator to the areas most likely to contain the Quonset hut debris and discarded boxes ofammunition. Winnie stated that he was involved with throwing out boxes of ammunition from between the last 2 qunosethuts in the row. A mess hall was formerly located where a portion of concrete pad was exposed. A total of 5 separatepits were dug in an area of approximately 1000 square feet. The 1st pit contained some green canvas and wood debris.The other pits did not encounter any debris. Each pit was excavated to about 4 feet, and the gravel quickly sloughedback into the areas.The rough coordinates (using hand held GPS) at the center of each pit were:PitY CoordinatePit #1N 63.77903Pit #2N 63.77906Pit #3N 63.77901Pit #4N 63.77909 – 903Pit #5N 63.77909 – 911Monitoring WellN 63.77942Trail at base of Sevuokuk Mtn.N 63.77889X CoordinateW 171.69897W 171.69905W 171.69914W 171.69913W 171.69922 – 923W 171.69987W 171.69824The ATV trail at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain was approximately 140 feet (55 paces) east from the excavated pits.The MW was approximately 160 feet (65 paces) west of the pits. The backhoe operations were ceased at 3 pm andthe field team returned to the NVG Environmental office.The Bristol field team was conducting the groundwater sampling throughout the day. A total of 6 MWs were accessibleand contained water. MW28 was found to be dry, with gravel at a depth of about 10 feet below ground surface.Bristol also obtained access to the city water well building to take a sample from the city water supply. The city waterplant operator also informed the field team of the current pumping rates (approximately 18.5 gallons per minute) andinformed them that a higher pumping rate (about 30 gpm) had been used during the previous weeks to fill the waterstorage tank. Michelle Turner also informed Lisa that the QA sample bottles did not arrive on time, and the MS/MSDbottles were being used instead to fulfill this requirement. The Bristol team initially containerized the purge water from6the MWs in covered plastic buckets. Jeff Brownlee commented that the purge water could be discharged to the groundsurface since the wells were historically clean. Larry Pederson noted that the new locks which Bristol brought to securethe wells were too large to fit the existing holes. Some MWs also needed to have the bolts drilled out because theywere rusted and sheared off. Larry ordered smaller locks from Nome, but due to weather conditions, the locks did notarrive before the team departed the Island. Larry indicated that other Bristol personnel (Steve Johnson or RollieGoebel) would be in Gambell in the coming weeks and could permanently secure the MWs.Due to foggy weather conditions in Gambell, all afternoon flights were cancelled (Frontier, Hageland and Bering Air).The field team stayed overnight until planes were able to land on Saturday morning. During a walk to the local store thatevening, Michele Turner, Larry Pederson and Jeff Brownlee observed water being pumped out of the spill containmentpit of the local fuel tank farm. The hose emptying the bermed area flayed wildly about before discharging directly ontothe adjacent ground surface. They noted a distinct fuel odor, even at a distance away. This is further evidence that thewater table directly below the Gambell infrastructure is unsuitable as a potable water source.Saturday, September 17, 2005The first flights arrived in Gambell at 10:00 am and the field team departed for Nome. The next Alaska Airlines flightwas the 9:30 pm departure, arriving in Anchorage at 11:30 pm.5. Conclusions and RecommendationsDuring this trip, the District team visited with community members, the IRA Council, the Sivuqaq, Inc. Board, andmembers of the NVG NALEMP crew. The team provided oversight to ongoing NALEMP debris excavation activities,provided oversight of Bristol’s first round of groundwater monitoring at Site 5, and attended the St. Lawrence IslandRAB meeting.The ongoing NALEMP project still seems a bit disorganized. The NVG was unable to get connexes delivered due toweather conditions which prevented the Northland Barge from coming to Gambell. However, all sites planned fordebris excavation in the workplan were addressed, with the exception of completing Site 17 landfill. The NVG staffseems to understand the importance of determining the debris tonnage, but has difficulty keeping track of the overallbudget.7Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 1: Staged debris piles from Site 17 excavationPhoto 2: Staged debris piles excavated from Site 17 and 1A.8Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 3: Mr. Winnie James, Sr., Mr. Morgan Apatiki, and Mr. Carey CossaboomPhoto 4: Excavating exploratory pits near base of Sevuokuk Mountain. View east.9Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 5: View south towards community water supply and Site 5. Mr. Winnie James, Sr. on ATV.Photo 6: View southeast towards Sevuokuk Mountain. Backhoe excavating exploratory pits.10Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 7: Exploratory pits near Sevuokuk Mountain. View east.Photo 8: Mr. Winnie James, Sr. and Mr. Carey Cossaboom, USACE Project Manager.11Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 9: Digging exploratory pits. View east.Photo 10: Pit #1 with some debrisPhoto 11: Pit #1 with some debris12Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 12: Exploratory Pit #1, Quonset hut debris including wood and canvas (green).Photo 13: Backhoe filling in exploratory pits near Sevuokuk Mountain. View east.13Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 14: Backhoe filling in exploratory pits near Sevuokuk Mountain. View east.Photo 15: Backhoe getting ready to dig another pit. View northeast.14Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 16: Digging Pit #5 near Sevuokuk Mountain. View north-northeast.Photo 17: Backhoe digging pits. View north.15Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 18: Exploratory pits near Sevuokuk Mountain. View north.Photo 19: Exploratory digging with backhoe. View north.16Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 20: View north towards Bering Sea, area excavated in foreground.Photo 21: Gravel dug up from exploratory pits.17Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 22: Water seeps in side of Sevuokuk Mountain at its base along ATV trail. View east.Photo 23: View east at base of Sevuokuk Mountain, water seeps coming from side of mountain.18Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 24: Exploratory pits, view northwest from base of Sevuokuk Mountain.Photo 25: ATV trail at base of Sevuokuk Mountain, view north towards Bering Sea.19Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 27: ATV trail at base of Sevuokuk Mountain, view south towards community water supply.Photo 28: Trail at base of Sevuokuk Mountain, view west towards Village of Gambell.20Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 29: View east towards exploratory excavation pits.Photo 29: View east from Monitoring Well (unknown #) towards exploratory pits.21Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 30: Exploratory pits near Sevuokuk Mountain. View east.Photo 31: Gold dredge east of Nome.22Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 32: Gold dredge east of Nome. Larry Pederson, Janesse Brewer, Michelle Turner.Photo 33: Gold dredge east of Nome. Janesse Brewer, Michelle Turner, Jeff Brownlee.23Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 34: White Alice antennas on Anvil Mountain outside of Nome.Photo 35: White Alice antennas on Anvil Mountain outside of Nome.24Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska – August 2005Photo 36: View of Nome from Anvil Mountain and White Alice site.25 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 31
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 31, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 1
Document Title: Comments by ADEC on Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project Rev 0 planning documents
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Letter from Jeff Brownlee to Carey Cossaboom acknowledging receipt of the Rev 0 planning documents for the Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project and listing a handful of minor comments.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 31, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 1
Document Title: Comments by ADEC on Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project Rev 0 planning documents
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Letter from Jeff Brownlee to Carey Cossaboom acknowledging receipt of the Rev 0 planning documents for the Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project and listing a handful of minor comments.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat31SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 31" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNORDEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONDIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSECONTAMINATED SITES REMEDIATION PROGRAM555 Cordova StreetAnchorage, AK. 99501-2617Phone: (907) 269-3053Fax: (907) 269-7649http://www.dec.state.ak.usFile #660.38.006October 10, 2005Mr. Carey CossaboomU.S. Anny Engineer District, AlaskaMail Code CEPOA-PM-PP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-6898RE:Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the Gambell 2005 Remedial ActionWorkplanDear Carey:I have completed review of the documents titled USACE, Alaska District, Gambell FUDS Remedial Action,Contract No. W91IKB-05-P-OI03 Work Plan Revision 0 (July 2005). We received the workplans on September 1,2005. The workplans meets the requirements of 18 AAC 75.335 and are approved.I have a couple specific comments on the documents:1.2.3.4.In Sections 3.3 - 3.6 of the Sampling Plan, please reference Table 3.5, which specifies the analytes to betested.Section 3.9.1, SAP: Ifa single sample is used to characterize a soil waste stream it should be compositedfrom several discrete locations.Section 3.9.2, SAP: If there is no odor or sheen associated with the purge water, please discharge to theground surface at Site 5. The site is historically clean with the exception of one sample that was at theTable C cleanup level. If a granulated carbon filter is available the purge water can be run through thatjust to be conservative.Appendix B: Please note I don't need to see the instrument users manual if you want to decrease the sizeof the documents.Please note DEC review and concurrence on this workplan is to ensure that the work is done in accordance with Stateof Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations. While DEC may comment on other state and federal lawsand regulations, our concurrence on the plan does not relieve responsible persons from the need to comply with otherapplicable laws and regulations, for example the DOT&PF restrictions involving work near the airstrip.If you have any questions, please call me at (907) 269-3053.Sincerely,Environmental Specialistcc:Mr. Steven A. Johnson, Bristol Environmental, Anchorage200-1fF10AK069601 _07.01_0002_aG:\sPAR\sPAR-CS\38 Case Files (Contaminated Sites)\660.38.006 Gambell\GambeI12005 RA wp comment letter.doc200-1fF10AK069603_07.01_0002_aoPrinted nn Recycled Parer -
ACAT FOIA Repository 32
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 32, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 15
Document Title: Response by Bristol Construction Services to ACED comments on Rev 0 planning documents for Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Construction Services; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Responses by Bristol Construction Services to the ACED's comments (corrected version) on BCS' Rev 0 planning documents for the Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project. Most responses accept suggested changes, with the exception of a couple regarding the number of monitoring wells and chromium concentration.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 32, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2005
Pages: 15
Document Title: Response by Bristol Construction Services to ACED comments on Rev 0 planning documents for Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Construction Services; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Responses by Bristol Construction Services to the ACED's comments (corrected version) on BCS' Rev 0 planning documents for the Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project. Most responses accept suggested changes, with the exception of a couple regarding the number of monitoring wells and chromium concentration.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat32SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 32" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
.1i;~N111 W. 16th Avenue, Suite 302Anchorage, Alaska 99501·510999501-5109907-743-9399 Phone907-743-9398 Fax56016-007November 30, 2005USAED Alaska DistrictNorthern Area OfficeU.S. Army Corps of EngineersP.O. Box 35066Fairbanks, AK 99703-0066Attention: Mr. Paul Schneider, P.E.Correct BCS Responses to USACE Comments on Rev 0 Planning DocumentsW911KB-05-P-OI03W91lKB-05-P-OI03 Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionGambell, AlaskaDear Mr. Schneider:The purpose of this letter is to provide Bristol Construction Services, LLC's (BCS's) correctresponses to the U.S AnnyArmy Corps of Engineers' comments on the Rev 0 planning documents forthe Gambell FUDS Remedial Action project. We initially transmitted our responses to youunder our serialized letter 56001-006 dated November 11, 2005. Unfortunately, the responsesattached to letter 56001-006 were not complete. Please discard them and replce them with thoseattached to this letter.We suggest we hold a Comment resolution Conference in the near future to discuss and developa mutual understanding of the modifications we will make to the Rev 0 planning documents.Because of leave time scheduled by BCS project staff, we suggest meeting either during theweek of December 5, 2005, or after January 2, 2006. We look forward to meeting with you todiscuss our responses.If you have questions or wish to discuss our responses, please call me at (907) 743-9322.Sincerely,Bristol Construction Services, LLC>~-{;,[ji~~C;'i!i~~Steven A. Johnson, P.E.Project ManagerAttachment: Corrected BCS ResponsesA subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation200-H• FlOAK069601_07.01_0001_aF10AK069601_07.01_0001_a200-HF10AK069603_07.01_0001_aREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 1COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseWork Plan1.Sec 3.2.2/p. 12Reference to Table 4-1 should be Table 3-1AReference will changed in Work Plan.2.Sec 3.4.1/p. 12The Waste Accumulation Point is not apparent on my copyof Figure 3. If it's there, please highlight it in the final copyAFigures will be edited to clarify WasteAccumulation Point.3.Sec 3.6/p. 14Using 26 mg/Kg as the cleanup level for chromium may beimpractical with the XRF.Given the unlikelihood ofhexavalent chromium, we should reconsider this in ourreview session.AThis will be discussed during the commentreview conference.4.Sec 4.0/p. 19The Project Schedule dates need to be updatedAThe project schedule will be updated in thefinal Work Plan.Sampling and Analysis Plan1.Paragraph 3.4As stated in the scope of work: -all viable wells, minimumof 5 of the 8 known wells, are to be sampled. The SAPstates a maximum of 5 are to be sampled. This isincorrect.WCarey Cossaboom - This was changedduring negotiations. Maximum of 5, withOptions to sample up to two more.2.Paragraph 4.2.3State under what conditions, the sampler will decide toTypically, we want the wellcollect a well sample.parameters, pH, temp, DO, conductivity, etc. to stabilize.That sometimes takes more than 3 well volumes. Taking asample immediately after 3 well volumes regardless of theparameter readings may result in a poor sample that doesnot reflect contaminant levels in the aquifer.AItem 6 has been changed as follows:Page 1"Collect the following field measurementsform the groundwater (down the well) orpurge water. The well should be purgeduntil these parameters have been stabilizedso that the variance between subsequentmeasurements are no greater than thoselisted below.Temperature - OSCSpecific conductance - 3%Conductivity - 3%Salinity - 3%Dissolved oxygen - 10%pH - 0.5 unitsOxidation-reduction potential - 10mVTurbidity - 10% or 3 readings below 10NTUs."IUSACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.1I3.Paragraph 4.2.3PROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer ICOMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:IIReviewConferenceExplain how the purge water will be containerized. Statingthat it will be put into a bucket is insufficient as a bucket isnot an appropriate storage device for potentiallycontaminated water. Also explain how the water will bestored while you await analytical results for the water andhow it will be stored if it must be stored over the winter.AIBristol Environmental ResponseThe following text will be added to item 5:"Basedhistoricaluponknowledge,purgewater will be disposed on by spillingon-site."4.GeneralPQLs:PQLs do not meet the DoD000 QSMPQls: some of the listed PQls000 QSMrequirements. Ensure the lab will comply with DoDrequirements and is current in its NELAP accreditation forthe methods to be used.ASGS (our project laboratory), will complywith DOD QSM requirements and verify that000 QSM control limits are met.DoD5.Table 5-3Preparation method for total metals analysis in soils is3050B.ATable 5-3 has been corrected.AThe following text will be added to theWaste Management Plan:Waste Management Plan1.GeneralIf placarding will be required for any wastes, the contractormust meet DOT security requirements; 49 CFR 172.704;172.800. The new manifest with preprinted manifestnumbers will be required by September 5, 2006."DOT security requirements specified under49 CFR 172.704 -172.800 will be followed ifPreprintedplacarding is required.manifests will be used for wastes shipped5, 2006."after September 5,2006."Environmental Protection Plan1.GeneralIf removal of Marston matting will disturb more than 1 acreof land, then the NPDES permit requirements may apply.AThe following text will be added to theEnvironmental Protection Plan:"If Marston matting removal disturbs morethan 1 acre of land, requirements from theNPDES General Permit for StormwaterLarge and SmallDischarges from largeConstruction Activities will be followed."Page 2USACEI ResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 1COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReviewIBristol Environmental ResponseSite Safety and Health Plan1.Table 6-1Trail repairs and stream crossings are not applicable to theanticipated work in Gambell.AReferences to trail repairs and streamcrossings have been removed from Table6-1.2.Page 63Include phone number for the Gambell Health Clinic.AThe phone number for the Gambell HealthClinic has been added to Section 11.7.3.Figure 3Please correct typos.AAll figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected.Page 3IUSACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 2COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIWork Plan1.2.p. 9, Line 11p. 16, Line 23The cleanup level of 11 mg/kg is a site-specific backgroundlevel approved by the ADEC as a cleanup level. It is not apromulgated ADEC cleanup levelAThis paragraph may be clarified by inserting text whichstates ... constructed using five foot sections of 2 inch ...AThe text has been edited to the following:"The wooden timbers were treated witharsenic resulting in soil contamination in thisarea in excess of the site-specificbackground level of 11 mglkg approved bythe Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation (ADEC)."The text has been edited to the following:'Then the temporary well point will beconstructed using five-foot section of twoinch inside diameter stainless steel drivescreen and black iron riser pipe."3.All figuresNo scale bars included. Should be determined for futurereference, or at least in Remedial Action Report figures.AAll figures will be reviewed and scale barsincluded where possible.4.Figure 3Please correct typos in Source text: investigationAAll figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected.5.Figure 4Please correct typos in Source text: NAlEMP, Excavation.The border depicting Site 7 is not distinguishable fromother solid black lines on the figure which indicatebuildings, other areas of concern not related to this project,etc. Site boundaries could be deleted.AAll figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected. Drawings will be reviewed toeliminate confusion.6.Figure 5Consider labeling trails as such.AThe trails will be labeled.7.Figure 6MW16 is no longer present and should not be included onthe figure.AMW16 will be removed from all drawings.Alaboratory control limits will be reviewed toconfirm that they meet DOD QSMrequirements.Sampling and Analysis Plan1.Page 4GeneralMethod QC requirements (PQls, control limits, etc.) mustmeet DoD QSM limits.USACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCAnON: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 2COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental Response2.Table 3-6 andparagraph 3.9.1You cannot mix wastes from different sites that havedifferent contaminants. Waste with arsenic contaminationcannot be mixed with the wastes that have chromium andother metal contamination. This is a RCRA requirement.Mixing soil from the two sites would be considered dilutionunder RCRA.AAgreed.mixed.3.Paragraph 4.2.3Well parameters must be stable prior to sampling, simplypulling out three well volumes may not be sufficient.AItem 6 has been changed as follows:The waste streams will not be"Collect the following field measurementsform the groundwater (down the well) orpurge water. The well should be purgeduntil these parameters have been stabilizedso that the variance between subsequentmeasurements are no greater than thoselisted below.Temperature - 0.5°CSpecific conductance - 3%Conductivity - 3%Salinity - 3%Dissolved oxygen - 10%pH - 0.5 unitsOxidation-reduction potential - 10mVTurbidity - 10% or 3 readings below 10NTUs."4.GeneralQA laboratory will be assigned by the District ChemistAThe District Chemist has assigned STL,Seattle as the QA laboratory.5.Table 5-3Preparatory method for metals analysis in soils is SW3050.ATable 5-3 has been corrected.Waste Management Plan1.Page 7, Line 13The waste accumulation point is not shown on Figure 3.AThe waste accumulation point was added toFigure 3.2.Figure 3Please correct typos.AAll figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected.Page 5USACEI ResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionS1. Lawrence Island, AlaskaLOCATION: St.REVIEWER: Reviewer 2COMMENTSIDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:I ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIEnvironmental Protection Plan1.P. 7, lines 9-10Alaska Natives are not exempt from the Act. The Actallows Alaska Natives to take marine mammals subject tocertain restrictions.AText will be edited to clarify that AlaskaNatives are not exempt from the Act.2.P. 15, Section 4.Identifying a list of permits and laws is useless withoutdetermining which apply to the proposed action. Identifyand coordinationspecific knownpermit,legal,requirements as a starting point for contractor compliance.AAgreed. Only project-specific permits andlaws will be identified.3.P. 20, line 25.Wording related to NHPA is ambiguous. Reworks so it isclear that workers will not disturb or remove artifacts orremains from the work sites or from anywhere else whilethey are employed on the island.AText will be edited to make it clear thatworkers will not disturb or remove artifactsor remains from any site while they areemployed on the island.4.P. 21, line 1The affected sites are not on Federal land. ARPA of 1979does not apply.AText will be edited to reflect comment thatsites are not on federal land.5.GeneralThroughout the document, Gambell is referred to as thevillage of Gambell or the Village of Gambell. Gambell islisted as a second class city the State of Alaska. TheNative Village of Gambell is the village corporation thatowns surface rights to much of the lands in andsurrounding Gambell. The City includes everyone inGambell. The village corporation includes only members"tribe," and specifically excludes other Natives andof that "tribe,"races. Texts should be edited to maker it plain whether itrefers to the a group of Natives comprising part of theGambell population or the community. We generally use"community" for more general references to avoidambiguity and to avoid the appearance that we areignoring other population segments.AText will be edited to clarify whether thevillage corporation (Village of Gambell) orthe community (City of Gambell) is beingreferenced.Page 6USACEResDonseResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 3COMMENTSIDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:I ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIWork Plan1.GeneralPlease note DEC review and concurrence on this work planis to ensure that the work is done in accordance with Stateof Alaska environmental conservation laws and regulations.While DEC may comment on other state and federal lawsand regulation, our concurrence on the plan does notrelieve responsible person from the need to comply withother applicable laws and regulations, for example theDOT&PF restriction involving work near the airstrip.AAcknowledgedSampling and Analysis Plan1.Table 3-3Ingestionllnhalation cleanup levels should apply for theentire Gambell site.ATable 3-3 has been corrected to reflectingestion & inhalation pathway cleanuplevels.2.Page 13, Line 7Clarify that five foot section of 2 inch screen and pipe will beused.AThe text has been edited to the following:"The temporary well point will beconstructed using five-foot sections of 2inch inside diameter stainless steel drivescreen and black iron riser pipe."3.Section 3.4More details should be provided regarding the anticipatedgroundwater sampling timeframes. Low/high water leveldata or pumping rates should be included from the AlaskaVillage Safe Water or other sources. Provide reasoning forproposed sampling dates.ABCS will obtain data on groundwater levelsfrom VSW and determine the appropriatesampling schedule. Our rationale for theproposed sampling times will be presentedat the Comment Resolution Conferenceand then included in the final document.4.Page 18,13Tank scrap is not anticipated in Gambell.AText has been edited to the following:"Compatibility field screening (discussed inSection 4.1.3) will be conducted to aid in theconsolidation and bulking of potentialpetroleum, oil, and lubricant-contaminatedwater, other liquids, sludges, residues,sediments, and containerized hazard andtoxic waste (Con-HTW) if discovered onPage 7USACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IIPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 3COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIsite."5.All FiguresPlease correct typosAAll figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected.6.AppendixChange sample log location to Gambell sites.ASample sites, analyses, etc. have beenchanged to those appropriate for theGambell FUDS project.7.AppendixInclude laboratory sheets for SGSAPlease note that CT&E and SGS are thefonns havesame company, however SGS formsbeen included in the Appendix.The correct phone number for the USACE Archaeologist,Ms. Margan Grover, is 753-5670.AThe text has been changed to:Please correct typos.AEnvironmental Protection Plan1.2.Page 8Page 21, Line 8Figure 3"The OARQAR will notify Ms. Margan Grover,the USACE Archaeologist at (907 753-5670and will forward the photographs and notesto her. Ms. Grover will consult with thePreservationOfficeStateHistoricalregarding findings."All figures will be reviewed and typoscorrected.USACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.TIPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaLOCATION: S1.REVIEWER: Reviewer 4COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:IIConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseWork Plan1.Paragraph 3.8As stated in the scope of work: all viable wells, minimum of 5of the 8 known wells, are to be sampled.WCarey Cossaboom - This was changedduring negotiations. Maximum of 5, withOptions to sample up to two more.Sampling and Analysis Plan1.Sec. 3.1I think some additional detail is needed to make sure we'vethought through the best way to remove the As-contaminatedsoil. For starters, the surveyed corners should be locatedand squared to approximate the actual slab location. Next,the top 8" of soil (gravel) should be scraped away to removethe backfill. Excavate a 2-3 foot wide swath along thecenterline of the framing timbers which should have lines theBias theoutside edges of the former concrete pad.excavation towards ay stained or timber-remnant soils. Biasexcavation to corners where high As soils were collected.Hand tools may not cut it.ABCS agrees that additional detail isappropriate and wishes to discuss thistheCommentResolutionduringConference.2.Sec. 3-2Four-six inches may not be deep enough. I would think thatwe might concentrate the dig upon one or two "hot spots"and dig down a foot or two. Hand tools may not cut it.APer the SAP, 4-6 inches will be excavatedand the site field screened for furthercontamination. However, we would like toduringCommentdiscussthistheResolution Conference.3.Pg. 16, Table 3-7Parameter (sp.)ATable 3-7 will be reviewed and typoscorrected.Page 9IUSACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.I4.I 4.2.3, number 5PROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 4COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:IYou should not be sampling until these parameters havestabilized such that variance from previous well volume is notgreater than as follows:IConferenceReview IAI Sec. 4.2.3What will you do if the well purges dry?Item 6 has been changed as follows:"Collect the following field measurementsform the groundwater (down the well) orpurge water. The well should be purgeduntil these parameters have been stabilizedso that the variance between subsequentmeasurements are no greater than thoselisted below.Temperature - 0.5°CSpecific conductance - 3%Conductivity - 3%Salinity - 3%Dissolved oxygen - 10%pH - 0.5 unitsOxidation-reduction potential - 10mVTurbidity - 10% or 3 readings below 10NTUs."Temp. -.1 degree CCondo -3%0.0.-10%pH-0.1 unitORP -10 mVTurb. -10%, or 3 readings below 10 NTUsIf parameters don't stabilize after an hour of purging, well canbe sampled.5.Bristol Environmental ResponseAAAn additional item (item 6) has been addedstating:"If the well purges dry, this will be assumedto be one well volume. The well will beallowed to recover and be purged again fora total of 3 well volumes or purged dry atotal of 3 times."Page 10USACEI ResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: S1. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 5COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIWork Plan1.Sec. 3.2.2Subs are in Table 3-1AReference to the subcontractor list will becorrected.2.Sec. 3.3Supply additional detail to demonstrate that a sufficient effortwith be made to consolidate existing survey information andsite basemaps to create a fully geo-referenced, ESRIArcGIS 9ArcView 9.x) compatible basemap with applicablelayers for the Gambell site per the SOw. This task requiresa definite plan to assure proper location of specific featuresat Site 7 and 12.ABCS's GIS specialist will attend theCommentResolutionConference toparticipate in this discussion. The results ofthis discussion will be presented on a tsakby-task basis in the final plans.3.Sec. 3.4.1Update accordinglyASection 3.4.1 will be updated to reflect thatequipment will not be shipped from NECape.4.Sec. 3.4.1, p 12,line 25Where on Figure 3 is the WAP?AFigures will be edited to clarify WasteAccumulation Point.5.Sec. 3.4.1,13, line 11Where on Figure 3 is the barge loading area?AFigures will be edited to clarify bargeloading area.6.Sec. 3.4.1, pg 13,line 6Update accordinglyAReference to Table 3-2 will be corrected.'7.Sec. 3.5, pg. 14,line 6 & 7"shown on Figure 4 as the Former Concrete Slab."AText for Sec. 3.5 has been edited to:Sec 3.5I think some additional detail is needed to make sure we'vethought through the best way to remove the Ascontaminated soil. For starters, the surveyed corners shouldbe located and squared to approximate the actual slablocation. Next, the top 8" of soil (gravel) should be scrapedaway to remove the backfill. Excavate a 2-3 foot wide swathalonQ the centerline of the framing timbers which should8.Page 11pg."BCS will excavate up to four tons ofarsenic-contaminated soil at Site 7 in thearea shown on Figure 4 as the FormerConcrete Slab."ABEESC agrees that additional detail isappropriate and wishes to discuss thisduring the comment resolution conference.USACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 5COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental Responsehave lined the outside edges of the former concrete pad.Bias the excavation towards any stained or timber-remnantsoils. Bias excavation to comers where high As soils werecollected. Hand tools may not cut it.9.Sec. 3.6, pg. 14,line 20Figure 5 does not show the historical sampling points.AThe historical sampling points will beadded to Figure 5.10.Sec. 3.6Four-six inches may not be deep enough. I would think thatwe might concentrate the dig upon one or two "hot spots"and dig down a foot or two. Hand tools may not cut it.APer the SAP, 4-6 inches will be excavatedand the site field screened for furthercontamination. However, we would like todiscuss this during the comment resolutionconference.11.Sec. 3.8Please include that all eight wells will be fitted with newlocking caps or new locks for the protective casing. Refer tophoto log from August 2005 (USACE) to assess lockrequirements.AThe following text has been added to Sec.3.8:ABCS will obtain data on groundwater levelsfrom VSW and determine the appropriatesampling schedule.A rational for theproposed sampling times will be included inthe final document.ASec. 3.9 has been corrected.12.Sec. 3.8, line 13Based on discussion with Village Safewater, the seasonallow water period is in the ApriVMay timeframe. I am seekingactual information from the Native Village of Gambell. Thisperiod would be important to sample as the TAPP advisorhas suggest the groundwater gradient could be overcome bypumping demands, thereby drawing contaminates from thevillage proper. I would think this would be doable. Then oneround mid summer.13.Sec. 3.9, line 231st word = The (Then.)st"All wells will be fitted with locking caps ornew locks for the protective casing."Sampling and Analysis Plan1.2.Page 12Sec. 2.5/p. 4Sec. 2.6.2/p. 5The SAP should explicitly state here that the environmentalsamplers will be on the ADEC Qualified Persons list, inaccordance with the SOW and regulations.It should be stated that the analytical laboratory will not sub-USACEResDonseI ResponseThe following text has been added to Sec.2.5:"In accordance with the SOW, allenvironmental samplers will be on theADEC Qualified Persons list."The following text has been added to Sec.REVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 5COMMENTSIDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:I ConferenceReview Icontract any work without the approval of the USACE projectchemist.Page 13Bristol Environmental ResponseI2.6.2:uSGS will not subcontract any work withoutthe approval of the USACE projectchemist."USACEResponseREVIEWCOMMENTSDATE:LocationItemNo.IPROJECT: Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionLOCATION: S1. Lawrence Island, AlaskaREVIEWER: Reviewer 6COMMENTSDOCUMENT: Groundwater Sampling for Gambell FUDS Remedial ActionPHONE:II ConferenceReview IBristol Environmental ResponseIIWork Plan1.Page 15Insure that here or in the safety plan that there is anindividual identified with responsibility for NOTAM notificationto FAA and a contact number at FAAAThe individual responsible for filing theNOTAM and the FAA contact name andnumber will be added to the WP and theSAP.2.GeneralSee general comment about "village" in the EnvironmentalProtection Plan comments.AText will be edited to clarify whether thevillage corporation (Village of Gambell) orthe community (City of Gambell) is beingreferenced.AText has been added to sections 3.1, 3.2,3.3, and 3.4 saying the following:Sampling and Analysis Plan1.Sections 3.3-3.6Reference Table 3.5, which specifies the analytes to betested."The number of samples and parametersare specified in Table 3-5. "2.Section 3.9.1If a single sample is used to characterize a soil waste streamit should be composited from several discrete locations.ASection 3.9 will be modified to includecomposite sampling of the soil wastestreams.3.Section 3.9.2If there is no odor or sheen associated with the purge water,please discharge to the ground surface at Site 5. The site ishistorically clean with the exception of one sample that wasat the Table C cleanup level. If a granulated carbon filter isavailable the purge water can be run through that just to beconservative.AThe following text will be added to item 5:Please note I don't need to see the instrument users manualif you want to decrease the size of the documents.A4.Page 14Appendix Buponhistoricalknowledge,"Basedpurgewater will be disposed on by spillingon-site."Agreed. User's manuals will be deletedfrom the SAP.USACEResponse -
ACAT FOIA Repository 33
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 33, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 4, 2006
Pages: 1
Document Title: Memo reviewing the Groundwater Monitoring Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska) to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Comments on the Gambell Groundwater Monitoring Report December 2005.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 33, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 4, 2006
Pages: 1
Document Title: Memo reviewing the Groundwater Monitoring Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska) to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Comments on the Gambell Groundwater Monitoring Report December 2005.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat33SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 33," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
~~&~~ ~~ &~&~~&DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONDIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSECONTAJ\UNATEDCONTAt'lINATED SITES PROGRAMFRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR555 Cordova StreetAnchorage, AK 99501 -2617Phone: (907) 26~757826~7578Fax:(907)269-76491J.ttp:!!'!!.Y-Lw.dec.sta.!~.,~.kJ].~L1J.ttp:!!~y.I. w.dec.sta.!~.,~1-:.l1.~LFile # 660.38.006January 4, 2006Mr. Carey CossaboomU.S. Army Engineer District, AlaskaMail Code CEPOA-PM-PP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AF'B,M'B, Alaska 99506-6898RE:Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Comments on the Gambell GroundwaterMonitoring Report December 2005.Dear Carey:I have completed review of the document titled USACE, Alaska District, Gambell FUDS RemedialAction, Contract No. W911 KB-05-P-O 103 Groundwater Monitoring Report,Report. Revision 0 (December2005). We received the report on December 28, 2005.Overall the report looks good. None of the samples apprh!ched.ee§iWpapprh!chcd..ee§iWp levels. I have a couplespecific comments on the documents:J ."'.' .. ' ••.... ,-.;-,1. Section 4.1: Please note if a temporary benchmark was used to complete the level loop andif it was the same mark used in previous brroundwatergroundwater surveys. Even though the wells mayhave frost jacked the survey readings taken at this event should be able to stand alone toproduce groundwater elevations. Please produce a contour map with the calculatedgroundwater flow direction.2. Appendix D, Table 2: I don't think the RPD is 0% for those compounds with nondetect inone sample and small detections in the other. Since zero can't be averaged the RPDwouldn't be calculated.3. Please explain in the introduction or conclusion& that this remedial action is the result of adetermination made during the proposed plan/ROD and that this is' the first of (three orfour?) seasonal sampling events.If you have any questions, please cal! me at (907) 269-3053.~~~C:~::~iccm~El.,ilOmnen:£!1.1:'Sincerely,Je1T BrownieEn\iironmenta't-sPe~ialistcc:Mr. Steven A. Johnson, Bristol Environmental, AnchorageG:''sPARISPAR-CS\38G:',SPARISPAR..CS\38 Case Files (Contaminated Sitesll§60 Ga1]]l;;~lj\660.38.006Garnb,,!N2~·_G;;n!!:Olt:.!ili.':':i}.!.]rouJL(j,'~;!!~rGamPtl}\660.38.006 Garnb"l1:p~'..G;)DlDll:.111:?':':i)!.jrouJl..(j,',,';:u~r Moni!oril}g.R.J1!ort.doc. R.JJ!ort December_~OO5December_~OO5.doc200-1fF10AK069603_03.01_0026_aoI'rilllLdPrinkd Oilon RecycledRccycleJ f\,perf\qler -
ACAT FOIA Repository 34
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 34, Date Received July 2023
Year: June 2006
Pages: 5
Document Title: Memo: Environmental Compliance Status, 2006 FUDS and NALEMP Activities at Gambell
Agency/Organization:
NEPA Planner
Document Summary:
The memorandum summarizes the environmental compliance review and NEPA status of the FUDS and NALEMP environmental cleanup activities planned in and around Gambell for the summer of 2006. The memo also includes a letter asking about the impacts on Essential Fish Habitats.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 34, Date Received July 2023
Year: June 2006
Pages: 5
Document Title: Memo: Environmental Compliance Status, 2006 FUDS and NALEMP Activities at Gambell
Agency/Organization:
NEPA Planner
Document Summary:
The memorandum summarizes the environmental compliance review and NEPA status of the FUDS and NALEMP environmental cleanup activities planned in and around Gambell for the summer of 2006. The memo also includes a letter asking about the impacts on Essential Fish Habitats.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat34SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 34," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
CEPOA-EN-CW-ERMEMORANDUM FOR RECORDSUBJECT: Environmental Compliance Status, 2006 FUDS and NALEMP Activities atGambell.1. This memorandum summarizes the environmental compliance review and NEP Astatus of the FUDS and NALEMP environmental cleanup activities planned in andaround Gambell for the summer of 2006.2. After a review of the FUDS and NALEMP 2006 work plans, Chris Floyd and GuyMcConnell ofCEPOA-EN-CW-ER determined that the proposed activities are acontinuation of recent previous work in the Gambell area and constitute only a minorexpansion ofthe activities covered by the 1998 EA. Two proposed activities notspecifically described in the EA include (a) the removal of scattered submerged debrisfrom nearshore areas ofthe Bering Sea and Troutman Lake, and (b) excavation ofdeeply-buried demolition debris from a site adjacent to the current village landfill.Debris removal from Troutman Lake and the Bering Sea will be a continuation of thedebris collection and removal that has occurred on immediately adjacent tidelands. Theremoval of submerged debris will be accomplished by hand, or by draglines attached tothe debris and hauled in to shore. The site adjacent to the landfill (Site 23) was a disposalarea for military metallic debris unearthed during the construction of Gambell HighSchool. The buried debris now threatens to interfere with the operation and expansion ofthe village landfill, and will be excavated and transported away from St. Lawrence Islandfor disposal. This activity is thus a direct continuation of previous debris removal effortsin the Gambell area.Chris Floyd contacted the Alaska Department ofNatural Resources, and informed themof the proposed work and of potential deviations from the EA. The OPMP initiated a 10day ACMP comment period on the proposed changes. No comments were received, andthe OPMP issued a letter (ID 2006-0651AA, dated 12 July 2006, signed by NicoleAllison) stating that no further ACMP consistency review is required.3. Chris Floyd consulted with CEPOA-CO-R-N (Don Rice and Alan Skinner) on CWASection 404(b)(l) requirements. Recent site photographs of the proposed project siteswere available from CEPOA-EN-EE (Lisa Geist). The Regulatory specialists concludedthat the proposed activities would not constitute discharge or fill-placement into waters ofthe United States pursuant to Section 404(b)(l), in that (a) most of the sites could not beconsidered wetlands due to sparse or absent vegetation and very coarse soils, and (b) nofilling is proposed for those areas that potentially could be wetland.4. CEPOA-EN-CW-ER determined that no species listed under the ESA will be affectedby the proposed project activities. The project sites are close to the village, and in areasalready significantly impacted by human activity. There are two Steller sea lion hauloutF10AK069603_01.20_0501_a200-1esites on St. Lawrence Island listed as Critical Habitat areas, but these sites are farremoved from the project areas. Marine mammals would not be affected by the proposedactivities. Chris Floyd contacted the NMFS for recommendations on Essential FishHabitat (EFH), in a letter dated 22 June 2006. The NMFS responded in an emailmemorandum (dated 6 July 2006, from Donna Graham), stating that it had determinedthat the proposed activities will not result in any adverse effect to EFH and further EFHconsultation is not necessary.5. CEPOA-EN-CW-ER archaeologist Margan Grover provided a letter (dated 22 June2006) to the State Historic Preservation Officer, listing the proposed project sites,describing the status of cultural resources at the sites, and requesting concurrence that nohistoric properties will be affected, and no historic properties will be adversely affected,by the proposed activities. The letter also states that an individual from the localcommunity will be selected by the Native Village of Gambell to monitor project activitiesfor possible impacts to cultural resources. The response period for this letter ends on 28July 2006; no response has yet been received from SHPO.6. The proposed activities are within the scope of activities addressed in the 1998 EAand FONSI. The additional activities are minor, local expansions of those activities, thathave no potential for significant effects to the environment.7. CEPOA-EN-CW-ER has concluded that NEPA planning and other environmentalcompliance and coordination requirements have been satisfied for the 2006 projectactivities, and that no further coordination or documentation is necessary. Projectactivities in areas of potential historical concern (e.g., Sites 8B and 21) will not proceeduntil the SHPO response period has ended, and any comments from SHPO addressed.The submerged debris removal and excavation of Site 23 will also be delayed until theSHPO response period has ended.CONCUR:McConnell C?r--J;:r GJVlCossaboom @--.CEPOA-OC ~DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898Elmendorf AFB, ALASKA 99506.0898JUN 2 2 2006REPLY TOATTENTION OF:Environmental Resources SectionMs. Jeanne HansonNational Marine Fisheries Service222 West Seventh Avenue, Box 43Anchorage, Alaska 99513-0077Dear Ms. Hanson:The Alaska District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in the continuingcleanup of debris and contaminated soil left by past military activities in and near the NativeVillage of Gambell on St. Lawrence Island (Figures 1 and 2). Cleanup activities underconsideration for the summer of 2006 include the removal of submerged metallic debris, such assteel matting, drums, and wire, from nearshore areas of the Bering Sea and Troutman Lake(shown as Areas 1C and 15, respectively, on Figure 2), as well as the excavation ofburied debrisand contaminated soil from several onshore sites (areas shaded in red on Figure 2). Scheduledcommercial barges landing at established barge landing sites at Gambell will be used to landequipment and supplies, and to transport debris and containerized waste material away from St.Lawrence Island.We request recommendations concerning potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat. Wehave reviewed the information at the NMFS interactive EFH website, and find that Pacificsalmon is the only species for which EFH has been designated near the project area.Thank you for your cooperation. If you need more information, please contact Mr. ChrisFloyd at (907) 753-2700, or by e-mail at: Christopher.B.Floyd@poa02.usace. army.mil.Sincerely,u;;K#~Guy R. McConnellChief, Environmental Resources SectionEnclosure•' ~ ...-:;;~,.icGAMBELL.... t . . ..----·,.,. ~ --- - ·_,""!!'jJ""_,.,.C!J!1 '......,' ~'~-e - ·...~PROJECfLOCATION---"'·-l,rIINi.:!..-rI~-4TRAVIS/PETERSON ENVIRONMEM'ALCONSULTING, INC.3305ARcnCDOULEVARDSUfll: 102ANCIIORAGE. AlASKA 99503PROJECt' No: 1132-0SCFIGURE lLOCATION & VICINITYNATIVE VILLAGE OF GAMBELLFILE: 1132- Gambcll/058- Work Plan & 2006 Field Work/J4.'"....18' ~~.. . ..~:...- -- ~...5 -:;::""--:...·-1A/10-M21-==~....' I17H20 .;..-28r='.:s:::":"y.~K15___ _--...... :.1''·'.~..... ~_...___,.- ....;:....... ___.,-: ! -
ACAT FOIA Repository 35
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 35, Date Received July 2023
Year: July 2007 (Revised from August 2006)
Pages: 1424
Document Title: Gambell FUDS Remedial Investigation, August 2006 Groundwater Sampling Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Bristol Construction
Document Summary:
This Groundwater Monitoring Report documents groundwater sampling performed three times during 2005-2006. By sampling in different months, groundwater monitoring was planned to coincide with both high and low water events. This report discusses the third of three groundwater sampling events. Groundwater sampling was performed by Bristol Construction Services, LLC (Bristol), in Gambell, Alaska, in August 2006. Field activities were conducted on August 16 and 17, 2006. The primary objective of the groundwater sampling was to monitor the concentrations of target analytes in the area adjacent to the City of Gambell’s water supply (Site 5), groundwater depths, and flow direction. Gambell’s water is supplied by a single infiltration gallery, located approximately 2,000 feet east of the townsite, at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. Water derived from the gallery is considered to be surface-influenced and potentially susceptible to contamination.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 35, Date Received July 2023
Year: July 2007 (Revised from August 2006)
Pages: 1424
Document Title: Gambell FUDS Remedial Investigation, August 2006 Groundwater Sampling Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), Bristol Construction
Document Summary:
This Groundwater Monitoring Report documents groundwater sampling performed three times during 2005-2006. By sampling in different months, groundwater monitoring was planned to coincide with both high and low water events. This report discusses the third of three groundwater sampling events. Groundwater sampling was performed by Bristol Construction Services, LLC (Bristol), in Gambell, Alaska, in August 2006. Field activities were conducted on August 16 and 17, 2006. The primary objective of the groundwater sampling was to monitor the concentrations of target analytes in the area adjacent to the City of Gambell’s water supply (Site 5), groundwater depths, and flow direction. Gambell’s water is supplied by a single infiltration gallery, located approximately 2,000 feet east of the townsite, at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. Water derived from the gallery is considered to be surface-influenced and potentially susceptible to contamination.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat35SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 35," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
U.S. Army Corps of EngineersAlaska DistrictGAMBELL FUDS REMEDIALINVESTIGATIONGAMBELL, ALASKAContract No. W911KB‐05‐P‐0103FUDS No. F10AK069603AUGUST 2006 GROUNDWATERSAMPLING REPORTREVISED FINALJULY 2007111 W. 16th Avenue, Third FloorAnchorage, Alaska 99501-5109Phone (907) 743-9399Fax (907) 743-9398F10AK069603_03.10_0004_a200-1eAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016TABLE OF CONTENTSSECTIONPAGEACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. iii1.0INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................11.1Objectives....................................................................................................................11.2Report Organization ....................................................................................................11.3Site Setting ..................................................................................................................21.3.1Site History .............................................................................................................21.3.2Chemicals of Concern .............................................................................................22.0GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.................................................................32.1Physical Setting...........................................................................................................32.2Geology .......................................................................................................................33.0GROUNDWATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES........................................................53.1Groundwater Sampling ...............................................................................................53.2Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples ..............................................................63.3Decontamination Methods ..........................................................................................63.4Investigation-Derived Waste Disposal........................................................................63.5Deviations From the Work Plan..................................................................................64.0FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................74.1Hydrogeology..............................................................................................................74.2Field Parameter Data.................................................................................................104.3Analytical Data .........................................................................................................124.3.1Groundwater..........................................................................................................124.3.2Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples ........................................................184.3.3Data Verification Report .......................................................................................194.45.0USACE and Stakeholder Review..............................................................................19REFERENCES..............................................................................................................21July 2007iREVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016TABLESTable 1Water Level Measurements ....................................................................................8Table 2Well Depth Measurements......................................................................................9Table 3Groundwater Field Parameters .............................................................................11Table 4Groundwater Analytical Results ...........................................................................15Table 5Trip Blank Results ................................................................................................17FIGURESFigure 1Location MapFigure 2Vicinity MapFigure 3Remedial Action Sites LocationsFigure 4Groundwater Surface Contours – September 2005Figure 5Groundwater Surface Contours – July 2006Figure 6Groundwater Surface Contours – August 2006APPENDICESAppendix AGroundwater Sample Data SheetsAppendix BLaboratory Data Package (CD)Appendix CChemical Data Quality Review ReportAppendix DChemical Data Quality Assurance ReportAppendix EADEC Data Review ChecklistAppendix FUSACE and Stakeholder Comments and Contractor’s Responses to CommentsJuly 2007iiREVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS°CAKADECBristolBTEXCOCDODROEPAGROIDWMDLmg/LmVNTUORPPAHpptPQLPWSQAQCRROSGSdegrees centigradeState of Alaska MethodAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationBristol Construction Services, LLCbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenescontaminant of concerndissolved oxygendiesel-range organicsU.S. Environmental Protection Agencygasoline-range organicsinvestigation-derived wastemethod detection limitmilligrams per litermillivoltsnephelometric turbidity unitoxygen reduction potentialpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsparts per thousandpractical quantitation limitGambell public water system wellquality assurancequality controlresidual-range organicsSGS Environmental Services, Inc.STLSWUSACESevern Trent LaboratoriesEPA Solid Waste MethodU.S. Army Corps of EngineersJuly 2007iiiREVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016(Intentionally blank)July 2007ivREVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601611.0INTRODUCTION2This Groundwater Monitoring Report has been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of3Engineers (USACE), Alaska District, under Contract No. W911KB-05-P-103, for the4Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site Remedial Investigation. Groundwater sampling was5scheduled to be performed three times during 2005-2006. By sampling in different months,6groundwater monitoring was planned to coincide with both high and low water events. This7report discusses the third of three groundwater sampling events. Groundwater sampling was8performed by Bristol Construction Services, LLC (Bristol), in Gambell, Alaska, during9August 2006. Field activities were conducted on August 16 and 17, 2006, in accordance with10the requirements in a work plan prepared by Bristol (Bristol, 2005a).111.112The primary objective of the groundwater sampling was to monitor the concentrations of13target analytes in the area adjacent the City of Gambell’s water supply (Site 5), groundwater14depths, and flow direction. Gambell’s water is supplied by a single infiltration gallery,15located approximately 2,000 feet east of the townsite, at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain.16Water derived from the gallery is considered to be surface-influenced and potentially17susceptible to contamination.181.219This report is organized into five sections, as described below:OBJECTIVESREPORT ORGANIZATION202122•Section 1.0 contains introductory information, and describes the objectives and theorganization of the report. The report also contains a discussion of the site setting,including the site history and potential contaminants of concern (COCs).2324•Section 2.0 contains information on the general physical setting, geology, andgroundwater hydrology.25262728•Section 3.0 contains information on the field procedures, including those forgroundwater sampling. Deviations from the work plan, quality assurance/qualitycontrol (QA/QC) samples, decontamination methods, and investigation-derived waste(IDW) disposal, are also discussed.29•Section 4.0 presents the analytical results.30•Section 5.0 contains the references used in this report.July 20071REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601611.3SITE SETTING2Gambell is located on the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of the3Bering Sea, approximately 195 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. Gambell is approximately450 miles from the Siberian Chukotsk Peninsula (Figure 1). The village of Gambell is built on5a gravel spit, projecting north and west from the island (Figure 2). Gambell is located at an6elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sea level. Native Yup’ik people, who lead a7subsistence-based lifestyle, inhabit the village.81.3.19The Gambell area was used by the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force from10approximately 1948 until the late 1950s. Various facilities around the village of Gambell11were constructed to provide housing, communication, and other functions.121.3.213The potential COCs at Site 5 are dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. The main14COCs for groundwater are: gasoline-range organics (GRO); diesel-range organics (DRO);15residual-range organics (RRO); benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX);16polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and the metals arsenic, barium, cadmium,17chromium, lead, nickel, and vanadium.Site HistoryChemicals of ConcernJuly 20072REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601612.0GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING22.1PHYSICAL SETTING3The locations of the seven groundwater monitoring wells, and the public water system well4house at Site 5, are shown on Figure 3. Site 5 is the location of the village’s water supply.5Gambell’s water is supplied by a single infiltration gallery, located approximately 2,000 feet6east of the townsite, at the base of the Sevuokuk Mountain. The infiltration gallery was7constructed in 1996. Water derived from the gallery is considered to be surface-influenced,8and potentially susceptible to contamination.92.210St. Lawrence Island consists of isolated bedrock highlands of igneous, metamorphic, and11older sedimentary rocks, surrounded by unconsolidated surficial deposits, overlying a12relatively shallow erosional bedrock surface. The Gambell village area is underlain by highly13permeable unconsolidated gravels and coarse sands. The gravels have strong linear14topographic expressions, and were likely deposited as successive beach ridges. The gravels15may be deposited on an underlying wave-cut terrace of the same bedrock that comprises16Sevuokuk Mountain (Patton and Cjeltsey, 1980).17Sevuokuk Mountain is composed of quartz monzonite, a gray, coarsely crystalline rock, rich18in quartz and feldspars. The mountain is topped by a flat, wave-cut plateau. Beach material19is primarily cobble (one-inch stones) with some coarse sand.GEOLOGYJuly 20073REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016(Intentionally blank)July 20074REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601613.0GROUNDWATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES2Fieldwork was performed on August 16 and 17, 2006. Fieldwork performed included the3following:4•Collecting groundwater samples from six monitoring wells for analysis,5•Collecting a sample from the Public Water System (PWS) well, and6•Measuring and recording the depth to groundwater and field parameters.7Water from the PWS well was collected from a tap prior to the village’s holding tank and8chlorination system. Water was collected downstream of the system’s “roughing filter” which9removes large particles.10Field activities are documented in the groundwater sampling forms (Appendix A).113.112Field parameters were measured from each well after purging a minimum of three well13volumes. Purging was continued until field measurements stabilized. Field measurements14were taken for temperature, specific conductance, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen15(DO), pH, and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), using a YSI 556 water quality meter.16Turbidity was measured using a Hach 2100P turbidimeter.17Samples were collected in accordance with the sampling procedures outlined in the sampling18and analysis plan prepared by Bristol (Bristol, 2005b), with the following exception: water19was purged and samples were collected via a peristaltic pump, not by bailers. This was done20because DO and ORP results were inconsistent during the September 2005 sampling event,21possibly due to aeration during bailing. Field personnel followed laboratory instructions for22field sample preservation. Analytical laboratory services were provided by SGS23Environmental Services, Inc. (SGS), in Anchorage, Alaska. QA samples were sent to Severn24Trent Laboratories, (STL) in Seattle, Washington.25During the August 2006 sampling event, six monitoring wells (MW-14, MW-15, MW-29,26MW-30, MW-31, and MW-32) and the PWS were sampled. Groundwater samples were27analyzed for GRO, using State of Alaska Method (AK)101; BTEX by U.S. EnvironmentalGROUNDWATER SAMPLINGJuly 20075REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161Protection Agency (EPA) Solid Waste Method (SW) 8260B; DRO by AK102; RRO by2AK103; PAH by EPA Method SW8270C selective ion monitoring; and arsenic, barium,3cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and vanadium, by EPA Method SW6020. MW-31 was4sampled only for GRO/BTEX and metals because of low sample volume. Groundwater5sample data sheets are presented in Appendix A.63.27QA/QC samples and trip blanks were collected as part of the groundwater sampling event.8Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate samples were collected during the second round of9sampling. QA/QC samples were collected, using the same sampling techniques and flow10rates as primary samples. The QA/QC analytical results are discussed in Section 4.3.2.113.312The water level meter and YSI 556 meter were decontaminated between samples using an13Alconox® and distilled water solution, followed by a distilled water rinse. Each well was14purged using a new length of Teflon®/silicon tubing.153.416Investigation-derived waste (IDW) consisted of purge water, decontamination water, used17tubing, and personal protective equipment. As per direction from the USACE project18manager and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) representative19during the first sampling event, and based upon the historically clean status of the wells, IDW20water was discharged to the ground. Used tubing, gloves, and miscellaneous sampling and21decontamination items, were disposed of as municipal waste.223.523There were no deviations from the work plan, with the exception of disposal of IDW and use24of a peristaltic pump for purging wells.QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLESDECONTAMINATION METHODSINVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE DISPOSALDEVIATIONS FROM THE WORK PLANJuly 20076REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601614.0FINDINGS2Conditions observed at the site, measurements taken, and analytical results, are presented in3this section.44.15Groundwater levels in all monitoring wells at the site were measured by Bristol on August 16,62006. All water level measurements were performed within an 8-hour period. MW-28 was7dry and appeared to be filled with gravel to 3.75 feet below ground surface. Survey8information, water depth for the August 2006 sampling event, and water elevation data for the9September 2005, July 2006, and August 2006 sampling events are presented in Table 1.10For the September 2005 Groundwater Sampling Report, groundwater elevations were based11upon well casing elevations as presented in well boring logs. Because of the possibility that12seasonal frost action may have moved the well casings, introducing error into the elevation13data, the wells were surveyed by Mr. Scott McClintock, the registered surveyor, as part of14Bristol’s July 2006 scope of work. The data from these surveys was used to redraw the15groundwater elevation contours for September 2005. The corrected September 200516Groundwater Surface Elevation Contour is presented as Figure 4, the July 2006 Groundwater17Surface Elevation Contour is presented as Figure 5, and the August 2006 Groundwater18Surface Elevation Contour is presented as Figure 6.19The groundwater surface elevation data presented on Figures 4 through 6 indicate that:HYDROGEOLOGY202122•The predominant groundwater flow direction during the summer months in thevicinity of the village well is to the northeast, parallel to the toe of the SevuokukMountain;232425•The effects of pumping the village well can be seen on the groundwater surfaceelevation data. Pumping the village well results in the groundwater surface gradientbecoming steeper upgradient (southwest) of the village well; and262728•The groundwater table dropped approximately one foot between the July 2006 andAugust 2006 sampling events. This is probably a seasonal event caused by lowergroundwater recharge rates in late summer.July 20077REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016Table 1Water Level MeasurementsLocation Coordinates234567Monitoring WellNorthing(feet)aEasting(feet)aSurveyedElevation(feetMSL)bDepth toWater(feet)TotalDepth(feet)WaterColumnDepth(feet)WaterElevationSept 2005(feet)WaterElevationJuly 2006(feet)WaterElevationAug 2006(feet)PWSc3575838.821364299.53--9.35d----------MW-143576453.511365197.1010.3110.3410.860.511.461.17-0.03MW-153576159.641364950.3510.119.8012.482.681.901.650.31MW-28e3576075.321364551.0013.03drydrydrydrydrydryMW-293575964.511364744.7812.3911.4615.003.542.572.350.93MW-303576382.911364939.0710.089.8411.301.461.781.520.24MW-313576201.861364658.0513.6012.3412.760.422.402.161.26MW-323576026.551364844.0913.2812.9015.022.121.961.780.38Notes:aLocation coordinates for all monitoring wells are in NAD 83 Zone SPC AK 9.bSurveyed elevations for monitoring wells are from top of casing.cLocation coordinates for PWS were collected from outside the fence on the north side of the well house by GPS and were converted to NAD 83 Zone SPC AK 9.dDepth to water information recorded by the City of Gambell.eMW-28 appeared to be filled with gravel.-=not availableNAD=North American Datum of 1983GPS=Global Positioning System PWS=Gambell Public Water System WellMSL=mean sea levelSPC=Alaska State Plane Coordinate SystemMW=Monitoring Well8July 20078REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161Well depth measurements from the original boring logs, as well as all three sampling events,2are presented in Table 2.3Table 2Well Depth MeasurementsWell Depth from Top of CasingMonitoring WellInitial Well DepthaSeptember 2005July 2006August 2006MW-1411.7510.7510.8610.86MW-1512.7512.2812.4012.48b16.023.37not measurednot measuredMW-2915.4114.9015.0415.00MW-3012.4810.9111.3611.30MW-3115.8012.3612.7812.76MW-3215.8914.4114.8215.02MW-284567Notes:aWell depth was obtained from boring logs. The length used was from the total depth of casing to top of casing.bMW-28 appeared to be filled with gravel during the September 2005 sampling event.MW = monitoring well8Well depth measurements appeared to change between the September 2005 and the July 20069sampling events. The total well depth, as measured during each of these events, was10compared to the original boring logs. With the exception of MW-28, which had been filled11with gravel sometime between development and the September 2005 sampling event, MWs12ranged from 0.47 feet to 3.44 feet shallower during the September 2005 sampling event than13is stated on the boring logs.14It is possible that sediment and small particles gathered in the bottom of the well between15their original development and the September 2005 sampling event. Some of this sediment16could easily have been displaced during sampling in September 2005 because of the use of17bailers for sampling. Because well depth was measured in all cases before field screening and18sampling, the change in well depth would not have been noticed until the next sampling event.19The lack of significant change in well depth between the July 2006 and August 2006 sampling20events supports this conclusion since a peristaltic pump, which causes less disturbance to21sediment at the bottom of the well, was used during the July 2006 and August 2006 sampling22events. Given this explanation, well depth measurements taken in August 2006 would not be23expected to be significantly different from those taken in July 2006: use of a peristaltic pump24for sampling in July 2006 would limit the amount of sediment and small particles disturbedJuly 20079REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161from the bottom of the well and removed during sampling. The short time between sampling2events would provide little opportunity for additional sediment to be laid down before the3August 2006 sampling event.44.25Groundwater samples were measured for the following field parameters: temperature,6specific conductance, conductivity, salinity, DO, pH, ORP, and turbidity. Field parameter7measurements are presented in Table 3. Because of the potential for bailing to allow the8sample to oxygenate, wells were purged using a peristaltic pump. The water was put through9a flow-through cell where field parameters were taken. Field parameters and samples for10PWS were collected from a tap in the well house because collection directly from the well11was not possible with the existing plumbing. PWS samples were collected from the same tap12during all sampling events. The samples were collected after the roughing filter, which may13decrease turbidity measurements.14Temperature results ranged between 0.82 degrees centigrade (°C) and 4.02°C. For all15sampling locations DO ranged from 7.87 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 13.12 mg/L. One16hundred percent saturation at 1.0°C occurs at 14 mg/L. MW-31 DO is very close to complete17saturation. Normally, a well is purged until at least three well volumes is removed (and field18measurements equalize) before a sample is collected to make sure that the water being tested19is representative of the water in the aquifer surrounding the well, and not the water that had20been sitting in the well. The water sitting in the well has been exposed to different conditions,21for example, it is exposed directly to the atmosphere (via the open well casing). This can22affect field measurements (such as DO and redox), as well as analytical measurements. For23example, water that may have DRO and be exposed to air (thus a higher DO than otherwise24found in water in the aquifer) may be biodegraded and, therefore, have lower levels of DRO25than is found in the surrounding aquifer.26Because MW-31 could not be purged adequately, the oxygen measurements from the well did27not reflect the water in the aquifer as much as it reflected water sitting in the well (which had28been exposed to air and was probably fully oxygenated because of that). Because MW-31 did29not recharge quickly enough to allow three well volumes to be purged (or to allow the fieldFIELD PARAMETER DATAJuly 200710REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161parameters to equalize) before water samples were collected, the DO levels measured in MW-231 must be considered questionable.3The field parameter data for most sampling locations are consistent with some variations; the4specific conductance, conductivity, salinity, and turbidity for MW-31 are much higher than5for other locations. Specific conductance, conductivity, and salinity measurements are6related. The relatively high levels of salinity in MW-31 may cause the high specific7conductance and conductivity results. Groundwater was field-screened for salinity to8determine if saltwater intrusion was an issue. Salinity results for all monitoring wells, with9the exception of MW-31, were between 0.08 parts per thousand (ppt) (80 mg/L) and 0.15 ppt10(150 mg/L). This is below the ADEC drinking water criteria of 250 mg/L for sodium and11chloride. Salinity results for MW-31 were 0.30 ppt (300 mg/L), which is higher than the12ADEC drinking water criteria of 250 mg/L for sodium and chloride.13Table 3UnitsPWSaMW-14MW-15MW-29MW-30MW-31bMW-32°C1.742.674.025.330.823.072.46Specific ConductanceµS/cm10510399166176367140ConductivitymS/cm0.1880.11800.1650.2670.3260.6300.245Salinityppt0.090.080.080.130.150.300.12Dissolved Oxygenmg/L10.5610.838.467.8712.6413.129.30pHpH units5.815.674.985.007.056.384.82ORPmV142.4253.8298.2294.6183.5225.2283.7TurbidityNTU0.340.360.950.130.721760.33ParameterTemperature1415161718192021Groundwater Field ParametersNotes:Wells were purged until field parameters stabilized, with a minimum of three well volumes purged from each well. Finalfield parameter results are presented.a = PWS samples were collected from within the well house and after a roughing filter; turbidity results may be biasedlow.b = MW-31 contained approximately 0.5 liter of water. The lowest pump setting was used, and the well was allowed torecover. Water level recovered 1.5 inches within eight hours. Groundwater field parameters were taken from initialpumping before well stabilization.°C=degrees centigradeNTU=nephelometric turbidity unit(s)µS/cm=microsiemens per centimeter, adjusted for temperatureORP=oxygen reduction potentialmilligrams per literpH=potential hydrogen=millisiemens per centimeterppt=parts per thousandmV=millivoltsPWS=Gambell public water system wellMW=monitoring wellmg/LmS/cmJuly 200711REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161Turbidity results for all samples, with the exception of MW-31, were below 1.0 nephelometric2turbidity unit (NTU). The turbidity result for MW-31 was 176 NTUs. This is very likely due3to the low water level in MW-31 and the fact that it did not recharge in a reasonable time.4Therefore, any water pulled from this well was not reflective of the water surrounding the5well, but contained particles.6The pH results average for MW-30 and MW-31 are also higher with pH measured at 7.05 and76.38, respectively, compared to an average of 5.26. ORP levels for all sampling locations8ranged between 142.4 millivolts (mV) at PWS to 298.2 mV at MW-15.94.310A summary of groundwater analytical results from the August 2006 groundwater sampling11event is presented below. The complete laboratory data package is provided in Appendix B.124.3.113Analytical results for groundwater samples collected during the August 2006 groundwater14sampling are presented in Table 4. Analytical results for trip blanks are presented in Table 5.15No analytes were detected in the groundwater samples at, or above, their respective cleanup16levels. Monitoring well MW-30, MW-30 QC duplicate, MW-30 QA duplicate, and PWS17contained DRO at 0.495 mg/L, 0.71 mg/L, 0.736 mg/L, and 0.0699 mg/L, respectively. The18cleanup level for DRO is 1.5 mg/L. DRO chromatograms for MW-30, MW-30 QC duplicate,19and MW-30 QA duplicate, showed patterns that may be consistent with a highly weathered20middle distillate fuel. The DRO result from PWS was between the practical quantitation limit21(PQL) and the method detection limit (MDL); therefore, amounts of DRO cannot be22accurately quantified. The DRO chromatogram for PWS was not consistent with a middle23distillate fuel. In the opinion of the Project Chemist, the PWS chromatographic pattern24cannot be definitively identified. It is not consistent with the pattern of a middle distillate (for25example, it does not have a single large peak of a gausian-type curve that is commonly seen in26chromatograms of middle distillate fuels such as Diesel Fuel #2).ANALYTICAL DATAGroundwaterJuly 200712REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161Monitoring well MW-30, MW-30 QC duplicate, MW-30 QA duplicate, and PWS contained2RRO at 0.113 mg/L, 0.073 mg/L, 0.110 mg/L, and 0.170 mg/L, respectively. All RRO results3were between the PQL and MDL; therefore, amounts of RRO cannot be accurately quantified.4The RRO chromatogram for PWS was not consistent with a middle distillate fuel. In the5opinion of the Project Chemist, the PWS chromatographic pattern cannot be definitively6identified. It is not consistent with the pattern of a middle distillate (for example, it does not7have a single large peak of a gausian-type curve that is commonly seen in chromatograms of8middle distillate fuels such as Diesel Fuel #2).July 200713REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016(Intentionally blank)July 200714REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016Table 4Sample NumberLocationGroundwater Analytical Results06GAM05GS1706GAM05GS2206GAM05GS2306GAM05GS2506GAM05GS1906GAM05GS2106GAM05GS2006GAM05GS1806GAM05GS24PWSMW-14MW-15MW-29MW-30MW-30MW-30MW-31MW-3206GAM05GS1906GAM05GS19Duplicate ofTest MethodUnitsCleanupLevelsaAK101mg/L1.3ND (0.100)0.0114 NJ, TB, BND (0.100)ND (0.100)0.0171 NJ, TB, B0.0144 NJ, TB, BND (0.050)ND (0.100)ND (0.100)BenzeneSW8260Bµg/L5ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.10)ND (0.400) JLND (0.400)TolueneSW8260Bµg/L1,000ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)0.010 NJ, TB, BND (1.00) JLND (1.00)EthylbenzeneSW8260Bµg/L700ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (0.10)ND (1.00) JLND (1.00)Total XylenesSW8260Bµg/L10,000ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (0.10)ND (3.00) JLND (3.00)DROAK102mg/L1.50.0699 NJND (0.300)ND (0.300)ND (0.300)0.4950.7360.71--ND (0.300)RROAK103mg/L1.10.170 NJ, BND (0.500)ND (0.500)ND (0.500)0.113 NJ0.110 NJ0.073 NJ--ND (0.500)SW8270C SIMµg/L2,200ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)AcenaphthyleneSW8270C SIMµg/Lb2,200ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)AnthraceneSW8270C SIMµg/L11,000ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Benzo(a)anthraceneSW8270C SIMµg/L1ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Benzo(a)pyreneSW8270C SIMµg/L0.2ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Benzo(b)fluorantheneSW8270C SIMµg/L1ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Benzo(g,h,i)peryleneSW8270C SIMµg/L1,100ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Benzo(k)fluorantheneSW8270C SIMµg/L10ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)----ND (0.0500)ChryseneSW8270C SIMµg/L100ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneSW8270C SIMµg/L0.1ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)FluorantheneSW8270C SIMµg/L1,460ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)FluoreneSW8270C SIMµg/L1,460ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyreneSW8270C SIMµg/L1ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)NaphthaleneSW8270C SIMµg/L700ND (0.100)ND (0.100)ND (0.100)ND (0.100)ND (0.100)ND (0.100)0.0070 NJ, JH--ND (0.100)PhenanthreneSW8270C SIMµg/L11,000ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)PyreneSW8270C SIMµg/L1,100ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.0500)ND (0.10)--ND (0.0500)ParameterGRO/BTEXGRODRO/RROPolynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonsAcenaphtheneJuly 2007bb15REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016Table 4Sample NumberGroundwater Analytical Results (continued)06GAM05GS1706GAM05GS2206GAM05GS2306GAM05GS2506GAM05GS1906GAM05GS2106GAM05GS2006GAM05GS1806GAM05GS24PWSMW-14MW-15MW-29MW-30MW-30MW-30MW-31MW-3206GAM05GS1906GAM05GS19LocationDuplicate ofTest MethodUnitsCleanupLevelsaArsenicSW6020µg/L50ND (10.0)ND (10.0)ND (10.0)ND (10.0)ND (10.0)ND (10.0)0.93 NJ, JND (10.0)ND (10.0)BariumSW6020µg/L2,0003.56 B6.61 B7.55 B19.5ND (3.00)ND (3.00)0.54 NJ, J12.313.7CadmiumSW6020µg/L5ND (2.00)ND (2.00)ND (2.00)ND (2.00)ND (2.00)ND (2.00)ND (2.0) JND (2.00)ND (2.00)ChromiumSW\6020µg/L1005.834.979.097.69ND (4.00)ND (4.00)3.5 JND (4.00)6.62LeadSW6020µg/L152.830.520 NJ, BND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)0.391 NJ, B0.12 NJ, J10.30.421 NJ, BNickelSW6020µg/L1001.49 NJ1.66 NJ1.19 NJ1.82 NJ1.31 NJ1.16 NJ1.5 NJ, J7.362.11VanadiumSW6020µg/L260ND (20.0)ND (20.0)ND (20.0)28.1ND (20.0)ND (20.0)ND (2.0) JND (20.0)ND (20.0)ParameterTotal MetalsNotes:a18AAC75, Table C, Groundwater Cleanup Levels (updated October 16, 2005) unless note b.bAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation Technical Memorandum 01-007 dated November 24, 2003, calculated Table C Groundwater Cleanup LevelsJuly 2007µg/L=micrograms per literGRO=gasoline-range organicsNJ=results between PQL and MDL, value estimated--=not availableJ=value estimatedPQL=practical quantitation limitAK=State of Alaska MethodJL=value estimated with a potential low biasPWS=Gambell public water system wellB=Analyte found in sample less than 5 times the concentration in the method blank; results may be biased high or false positive.MDL=method detection limitRRO=residual-range organicsBTEX=benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenesmg/L=milligrams per literSIM=selective ion monitoringDRO=diesel-range organicsMW=monitoring wellSW=EPA Solid Waste MethodEPA=U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyND=nondetectTB=Analyte found in sample 5 times the concentration in the trip blank; results may be biased high or false positive.16REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016Table 5Sample TypeTrip Blank ResultsTrip BlankTrip BlankTrip BlankCollection DateTrip Blank8/16/06Sample Number05GAM05GSTB4-105GAM05GSTB4-205GAM05GSTB4-305GAM05GSTB5Laboratory NumberSGS1064875-10SGS1064875-11SGS1064875-12STL 580-3377-2Units2GROµg/LND (100)111ND (100)ND (0.050)Benzeneµg/LND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (0.400)ND (1.0)Tolueneµg/LND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)0.089 NJ, BEthylbenzeneµg/LND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.00)ND (1.0)Total Xylenesµg/LND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (3.00)ND (1.0)Notes:µg/L=micrograms per literB=GROMDL==Analyte found in sample less than 5 times the concentration in the method blank. Results maybe high or false positive.gasoline-range organicsmethod detection limitJuly 200717NDNJPQLSGSSTL=====nondetectresults between PQL and MDL, value estimatedpractical quantitation limitSGS Environmental Services, Inc.Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 560161Because of low well recovery volumes, only GRO and BTEX samples were collected from2MW-31. Neither GRO or BTEX was present at a concentration above the MDL.3Chromatograms from previous sampling events showed a pattern consistent with a middle4distillate fuel from MW-31.5GRO was detected in MW-14, MW-30 and MW-30 duplicate at 0.0114 mg/L, 0.0171 mg/L,6and 0.0144 mg/L. The results were between the PQL and MDL; therefore, amounts of GRO7cannot be accurately quantified. Also, amounts of GRO were found in the sample at less than8five times the concentration in the method blank and amounts of GRO for the samples from9MW-30 were found in the sample at less than five times the concentration in the trip blank.10Results may be biased high or false positive and have been flagged appropriately.11Metals were variously detected in each of the monitoring wells and PWS. The metals barium,12chromium, lead, nickel, and vanadium were detected at very low levels from these wells.134.3.214QA/QC samples were collected during the August 2006 groundwater sampling event.15Laboratory-prepared method blanks, laboratory control samples, laboratory sample duplicates,16and trip blanks, were also part of the QA/QC program. Analytical results for the trip blanks17are provided in Table 5.18QA/QC (duplicate/triplicate) samples were collected at a rate of one per 10 samples, or 1019percent. QC samples were analyzed by SGS for the same parameters, and in the same20extraction batches as the primary samples. QA samples were sent to STL and were analyzed21for the same parameters as primary samples. QA/QC samples can be used to evaluate the22precision and reproducibility of primary sample results.23Trip blanks were submitted with each sample delivery, and were analyzed for GRO/BTEX.24No equipment rinsate samples or field blanks were collected. Three trip blanks for four25coolers were submitted to SGS. All of the submitted trip blanks were below PQL levels for26all analytes, with the exception of GRO in trip blank 05GAM05GSTB-4 which was detected27at 111 micrograms per liter. The results for samples associated with trip blankQuality Assurance/Quality Control SamplesJuly 200718REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016105GAM05GSTB-4 and those shipped without an accompanying trip blank have been2qualified.3The trip blank submitted to STL contained toluene below the PQL. This compound was also4found in the associated method blank.54.3.36All laboratory results generated as part of the August 2006 groundwater sampling event have7undergone data verification and review. The Chemical Data Quality Review Report and the8Chemical Data Quality Assurance Report are presented in Appendices C and D, respectively.9The ADEC Data Review Checklists are presented in Appendix E. In summary, the data10verification found most data usable as delivered by the analytical laboratories. Some data11required qualification due to results of field QA/QC, laboratory QA/QC, or failure to adhere12to method criteria, and have been flagged appropriately. No data was rejected. Data is13presented with appropriate qualifiers in both tables and figures (where applicable) in this14Groundwater Sampling Report.15No analytes were detected in the groundwater samples at, or above, their respective cleanup16levels. GRO was detected in MW-14, MW-30, and MW-30 duplicate; DRO was detected in17PWS, MW-30, and MW-30 duplicate; and RRO was detected in PWS, MW-30, and MW-3018duplicate. Some metals were detected in all monitoring wells.194.420This is the revised final report submitted for this project. The final report was submitted on21May 25, 2007. This revised final report addresses USACE comments that were not22adequately addressed in the final report. USACE and stakeholder comments were addressed23and incorporated into this document. Comments made by the USACE and stakeholders on24earlier versions of this document are presented in Appendix F.Data Verification ReportUSACE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEWMay 200719FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016(Intentionally blank)July 200720REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-0103Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 5601615.0REFERENCES23Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18, Section 75.345, Table C, Groundwater Cleanup Levels,2005 (October 16).456Bristol Construction Services, LLC (Bristol), 2005a (July). Sampling and Analysis Plan(Revision 0). Prepared for USACE to Support the Gambell FUDS Remedial Action,Gambell, Alaska.78Bristol. 2005b. Work Plan (Revision 0). Prepared for USACE to Support the Gambell FUDSRemedial Action, Gambell, Alaska.910Patton, W.W.&B. Cjeltsey, 1980. Geologic Map of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. USGSMiscellaneous Investigation Map No. I-1203.July 200721REVISED FINALAugust 2006 Groundwater Sampling ReportContract No. W911KB-05-P-01031Gambell FUDS Remedial InvestigationBristol Project No. 56016(Intentionally blank)July 200722REVISED FINALL:\Jobs\56016 Gambell FUDS Remedial Action\70 Reports and Document Submittal\Native Files\August 2006 GW\Rev 2\August 2006 GroundwaterMonitoring_REVISED FINAL.docFIGURESAPPENDIX AGroundwater Sample Data SheetsAPPENDIX BLaboratory Data Package(Provided on CD)ANALYTICAL REPORTJob Number: 580-3377-1Job Description: Gambell FUDSFor:Bristol Env & Eng Services Corporation111 W. 16th Ave.Suite 301Anchorage, AK 99501Attention: Ms. Michelle T. TurnerTerri L TorresProject Manager IIttorres@stl-inc.com09/18/2006Project Manager: Terri L TorresSTL Seattle is a part of Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.This report is issued solely for the use of the person or company to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying or disclosure other thanby the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you have received this report in error, please notify the sender immediately at253-922-2310 and destroy this report immediately.Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.STL Seattle 5755 8th Street East, Tacoma, WA 98424Tel (253) 922-2310 Fax (253) 922-5047 www.stl-inc.comPage 1 of 383Case Narrative for job: 580-3377Client: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationDate: 09/15/2006VOLATILE ORGANICSSamples 580-3377-1 and 580-3377-2 were analyzed for BTEX in accordance with EPA SW-846Method 8260B. The samples were analyzed on 08/31/2006, which was one day past therequired method holding time.There were no manual integrations performed on the field or quality control samples in thisproject.The recovery of the surrogate Trifluorotoluene in sample 580-3377-1 exceeded quality controllimits. All other surrogates were within control limits. No further action was taken on this outlier.Toluene was detected in method blank MB 580-10651/1 at a level that was above the methoddetection limit but below the reporting limit. The value should be considered an estimate, and hasbeen flagged “J”. The associated sample results have been flagged “B”.No other difficulties were encountered during the volatile organics analyses.All other quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICSSample 580-3377-1 was analyzed for semivolatile organics in accordance with EPA SW-846Method 8270C. The sample was prepared and analyzed on 08/25/2006, which was two dayspast the method required holding time for preparation. The sample was analyzed within themethod required holding time.There were no manual integrations performed on the field or quality control samples in thisproject.The recoveries of Acenaphthylene and Benzo[a]pyrene in the LCS and the LCSD associated withanalytical batch 580-10210 exceeded the QC acceptance limits. The recoveries for thesecompounds in both the LCS and LCSD were high, however the recoveries in the LCSD werewithin the DoD marginal exceedance limits. These compounds were not detected in theassociated sample. No further action was taken on these outliers.The recoveries of several analytes in the LCS and the LCSD associated with analytical batch580-10210 exceeded the QC acceptance limits. The recoveries for these compounds in both theLCS and LCSD were high, however the recoveries were within the DoD marginal exceedancelimits. No further action was taken on these outliers.No other difficulties were encountered during the semivolatile organics analysis.All other quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.Page 2 of 383GASOLINE RANGE ORGANICSSamples 580-3377-1 and 580-3377-2 were analyzed for gasoline range organics in accordancewith State of Alaska Method AK101. The samples were analyzed on 08/31/2006, which was oneday past the required method holding time.There were no manual integrations performed on the field or quality control samples in thisproject.No other difficulties were encountered during the gasoline range organics analyses.All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.DIESEL AND RESIDUAL RANGE ORGANICSSample 580-3377-1 was analyzed for diesel and residual range organics in accordance withState of Alaska Method AK102 and AK103. The sample was prepared and analyzed on08/25/2006, which was two days past the method required holding time for preparation. Thesample was analyzed within the method required holding time.Following DoD QSM guidelines, manual integrations were performed only when necessary andare in compliance with the laboratory’s standard operating procedure, Acceptable ManualIntegration Practices, SOP No.: S-Q-004, including Addendum 1. The reason(s) for manualintegration have been documented on the affected chromatogram(s), which is/are provided in theraw data package. The raw data also includes the original chromatogram(s) prior to any manualintegration being performed. Manual integrations were performed on the following samplesanalyzed on May 2, 2006; IC 49920 5000 AK. Manual integrations were performed on thefollowing samples analyzed on August 25, 2006; 580-3377-H-1-A.No other difficulties were encountered during the DRO and RRO analysis.All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.TOTAL RECOVERABLE METALSSample 580-3377-1 was analyzed for total recoverable metals in accordance with EPA SW-846Method 6020. The samples were prepared and analyzed on 08/29/2006, which was within themethod required holding times.Sample 580-3377-1 required dilution prior to analysis.Barium, Chromium, Lead, Nickel and Vanadium were detected in method blank MB 580-10401/8A at levels that were above the method detection limit but below the reporting limit. The valuesshould be considered estimates, and have been flagged “J”. The associated sample results havebeen flagged “B”.No other difficulties were encountered during the total recoverable metals analysis.All other quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.Page 3 of 383METHOD SUMMARYClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationJob Number: 580-3377-1DescriptionLab LocationMethodVolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSPurge-and-TrapSTL SEASTL SEASW846 8260BSemivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS (Selective IonMonitoring)Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid ExtractionSTL SEASW846 8270CGasoline Range OrganicsPurge-and-TrapSTL SEASTL SEAADEC AK101Nonhalogenated Organics by FID (Diesel Range Organics &Residual Range OrganicsSeparatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid ExtractionSTL SEAADEC AK102 & 103Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass SpectrometryAcid Digestion of Waters for Total Recoverable orSTL SEASTL SEAMatrix:Preparation MethodWaterSW846 5030BSTL SEASW846 3510CSW846 5030BSTL SEASW846 3510CSW846 6020SW846 3005ALAB REFERENCES:STL SEA = STL SeattleMETHOD REFERENCES:SW846 - "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986And Its Updates.STL SeattlePage 4 of 383SAMPLE SUMMARYClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationJob Number: 580-3377-1Lab Sample IDClient Sample IDClient Matrix580-3377-1580-3377-206GAM05GS2006GAM05GSTB5WaterWaterSTL SeattlePage 5 of 383Date/TimeSampledDate/TimeReceived08/16/2006 133008/16/2006 133008/23/2006 090008/23/2006 0900Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GS20Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-1WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 09008260B Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSMethod:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:8260B5030B1.008/31/2006 225308/31/2006 2253Analysis Batch: 580-10651Instrument ID:SEA003Lab File ID:MS166920.DInitial Weight/Volume:5 mLFinal Weight/Volume:5 mLAnalyteResult (ug/L)QualifierMDLRLBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzenem-Xylene & p-Xyleneo-XyleneND0.10NDNDNDHJHBHHH0.100.0660.0850.170.0681.01.01.02.01.0SurrogateFluorobenzene (Surr)Toluene-d8 (Surr)Ethylbenzene-d104-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)Trifluorotoluene (Surr)%Rec104105105103122STL SeattlePage 6 of 383XAcceptance Limits80 - 12080 - 12080 - 12080 - 12080 - 120Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GSTB5Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-2WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 09008260B Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MSMethod:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:8260B5030B1.008/31/2006 223108/31/2006 2231Analysis Batch: 580-10651Instrument ID:SEA003Lab File ID:MS166919.DInitial Weight/Volume:5 mLFinal Weight/Volume:5 mLAnalyteResult (ug/L)QualifierMDLRLBenzeneTolueneEthylbenzenem-Xylene & p-Xyleneo-XyleneND0.089NDNDNDHJHBHHH0.100.0660.0850.170.0681.01.01.02.01.0SurrogateFluorobenzene (Surr)Toluene-d8 (Surr)Ethylbenzene-d104-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)Trifluorotoluene (Surr)%Rec104104104102117STL SeattlePage 7 of 383Acceptance Limits80 - 12080 - 12080 - 12080 - 12080 - 120Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GS20Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-1WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 09008270C Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS (Selective Ion Monitoring)Method:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:8270C3510C1.008/25/2006 132108/25/2006 0814Analysis Batch: 580-10237Prep Batch: 580-10210Instrument ID:SEA023Lab File ID:HP02201.DInitial Weight/Volume:975 mLFinal Weight/Volume:10 mLInjection Volume:AnalyteResult (ug/L)QualifierMDLRLNaphthalene2-Methylnaphthalene1-MethylnaphthaleneAcenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo[a]anthraceneChryseneBenzofluorantheneBenzo[a]pyreneIndeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneBenzo[g,h,i]perylene0.0070NDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDNDJ**0.00620.00920.0330.00410.00310.00820.00310.00820.00920.0130.00920.00920.0320.0620.0150.0120.0180.100.130.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.100.210.210.100.100.10SurrogateNitrobenzene-d52-FluorobiphenylTerphenyl-d14%Rec1089497STL SeattlePage 8 of 383*******Acceptance Limits34 - 14635 - 14335 - 166Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GS20Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-1WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 0900AK101 Gasoline Range OrganicsMethod:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:AK1015030B1.008/31/2006 225308/31/2006 2253Analysis Batch: 580-10655Instrument ID:SEA003Lab File ID:CS166920.DInitial Weight/Volume:5 mLFinal Weight/Volume:5 mLInjection Volume:Column ID:PRIMARYAnalyteResult (mg/L)QualifierMDLRLGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C6-C10NDH0.0100.050SurrogateTrifluorotoluene (Surr)4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)Ethylbenzene-d10Fluorobenzene (Surr)Toluene-d8 (Surr)%Rec103101109101111STL SeattlePage 9 of 383Acceptance Limits60 - 12060 - 12060 - 12060 - 12060 - 120Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GSTB5Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-2WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 0900AK101 Gasoline Range OrganicsMethod:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:AK1015030B1.008/31/2006 223108/31/2006 2231Analysis Batch: 580-10655Instrument ID:SEA003Lab File ID:CS166919.DInitial Weight/Volume:5 mLFinal Weight/Volume:5 mLInjection Volume:Column ID:PRIMARYAnalyteResult (mg/L)QualifierMDLRLGasoline Range Organics (GRO)-C6-C10NDH0.0100.050SurrogateTrifluorotoluene (Surr)4-Bromofluorobenzene (Surr)Ethylbenzene-d10Fluorobenzene (Surr)Toluene-d8 (Surr)%Rec100101109101111STL SeattlePage 10 of 383Acceptance Limits60 - 12060 - 12060 - 12060 - 12060 - 120Analytical DataClient: Bristol Env & Eng Services CorporationClient Sample ID:06GAM05GS20Lab Sample ID:Client Matrix:580-3377-1WaterJob Number: 580-3377-1Date Sampled:Date Received:08/16/2006 133008/23/2006 0900AK102 & 103 Nonhalogenated Organics by FID (Diesel Range Organics & Residual Range OrganicsMethod:Preparation:Dilution:Date Analyzed:Date Prepared:AK102 & 1033510C1.008/25/2006 125308/25/2006 0807Analysis Batch: 580-10239Prep Batch: 580-10208AnalyteResult (mg/L)DRO (nC10- -
ACAT FOIA Repository 36
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 36, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2007
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by ADEC on Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Comments by Jeff Brownlee on the Site 5 Decision Document. Comments are largely related to specific wording and typos.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 36, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2007
Pages: 2
Document Title: Comments by ADEC on Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska); Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Summary:
Comments by Jeff Brownlee on the Site 5 Decision Document. Comments are largely related to specific wording and typos.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat36SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 36" ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
US Army Corpsof EngineersDecision DocumentGAMBELL FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITEF10AK0696St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaJune 2005Prepared by:U.S. Army Corps of EngineersAlaska DistrictP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898F10AK069601_05.09_0500_a200-1eF10AK069601_05.09_0001_aF10AK069603_05.09_0500_aF10AK069603_05.09_0001_a200-1eDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska[Page Intentionally Blank]Declaration StatementforDecision DocumentGambell Site F10AK0696St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSite Name and LocationThe Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), project numbers F10AK069601 andF10AK069603, is located on St. Lawrence Island in the western portion of the Bering Sea,approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska. The Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) contaminated sites record key (reckey) number for theoverall Gambell site is 198532X917919, individual areas of concern are also tracked withseparate reckeys (198532X917920-32 and 198532X117901-13). One area of concern, Site 5Tramway (reckey #198532X917923) will be addressed under a future decision document. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number is AKD981765894. TheGambell site is not listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).Statement of Basis and PurposeThis decision document presents the selected remedy for the Gambell site on St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, 42 United States Code §9601 et seq.,and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300 et seq. The State of Alaska, through theDepartment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) concurs with the selected remedy.This decision is based on the results of a phased remedial investigation and subsequent removalaction activities which were conducted from 1994 to 2003. The accompanying decisiondocument summarizes these activities. Detailed information supporting the selected remedialaction is also contained in the Administrative Record for this site, located at the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) Alaska District Office on Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK, and theInformation Repositories located at the Alaska Resource Library and Information Services(ARLIS) in Anchorage, the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRA Building inSavoonga, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library in Nome.Assessment of SiteThe Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late 1950’s. Various facilitieswere constructed near the village of Gambell to provide housing and operations, aircraft radar,communications, and other functions. Two discrete areas of contaminated soil are present atSites 7 and 12. The identified contaminants of concern (COCs) are arsenic, chromium and lead.The response action selected in this Decision Document is necessary to protect the public healthor welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances,pollutants or contaminants, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment. Theresponse action will also address the physical hazards posed by one area containing inherentlyhazardous military debris, which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death or serious injury toPage 3 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskapersons exercising ordinary and reasonable care. These unsafe conditions include exposed metalMarston matting debris adjacent to the local airstrip at Site 8A.The Marston matting was abandoned in place when the military demobilized from the area in thelate 1950s. The exposed Marston matting debris is located in an area heavily traveled by localresidents using all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The debris poses a clear danger to localresidents due to the sharp and jagged edges which protrude above the ground surface and largepiles which create a navigation hazard during the winter when partially covered by snow.Description of Selected RemedyThe selected remedy was chosen from many alternatives as the best method of addressing thearsenic contaminated soil at Site 7 and the lead and chromium-contaminated soil at Site 12. Itaddresses the risks to health and the environment caused by the current or future exposure of aresident to contaminated soils. The selected remedy addresses this risk by reducing soilcontamination to below risk-based cleanup levels established for these sites. The selectedremedy at Site 7 is excavation and off-Island disposal of an estimated 4 tons of soil containinggreater than the cleanup level of 11 mg/kg arsenic. The selected remedy at Site 12 is excavationand off-Island disposal of an estimated 4 tons of soil containing greater than the cleanup levels of400 mg/kg lead and 26 mg/kg chromium. Inherently hazardous debris will also be removed fromSite 8A. The specific components of the selected remedy consist of the following:Approximately 4 tons of soil at Site 7 with arsenic concentrations in excess of 11 ppm will beexcavated and shipped off-Island to a permitted disposal facility;Approximately 4 tons of soil at Site 12 with lead concentrations in excess of 400 ppm andchromium concentrations greater than 26 mg/kg will be excavated and shipped off-Island to apermitted disposal facility;Confirmation soil sampling will be conducted to ensure cleanup goals are met;Approximately 50 tons of exposed metallic debris (i.e., Marston matting) at Site 8A will begathered and shipped off-Island to a permitted disposal or recycling facility;Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, and 28 were investigated and previous responseactions removed debris and/or contaminated soils. Under the FUDS Program, no furtheraction is planned.Statutory DeterminationsThe selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federaland state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial actions,and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatmenttechnologies to the maximum extent practicable. However, because treatment of thecontaminants at the site was not found to be practicable, alternative treatment technologies werenot selected. Because the selected remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, orcontaminants remaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestrictedexposure, a five-year review will not be required.In accordance with CERCLA and the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for FormerlyUsed Defense Sites (DERP-FUDS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, hasPage 4 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTABLE OF CONTENTSDeclaration Statement..................................................................................................................... 3Site Name and Location.............................................................................................................. 3Statement of Basis and Purpose.................................................................................................. 3Assessment of Site ...................................................................................................................... 3Description of Selected Remedy................................................................................................. 4Statutory Determinations ............................................................................................................ 4Authorizing Signatures ............................................................................................................... 5Glossary of Terms and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 81. Decision Summary................................................................................................................ 101.1Site Name, Location, and Brief Description................................................................. 101.2Site History ................................................................................................................... 131.3Community Participation .............................................................................................. 151.4Scope and Role of Response Action............................................................................. 171.5Site Characteristics........................................................................................................ 181.5.1Geographical and topographic information .......................................................... 181.5.2Hydrology and Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 181.5.3Ecological and Biological Resources.................................................................... 191.5.4Current and Potential Future Land Uses............................................................... 191.6Summary of Site Contamination................................................................................... 201.6.1Site 1A – North Beach, Army Landing Area........................................................ 201.6.2Site 1B – North Beach, Air Force Landing Area.................................................. 211.6.3Site 1C – North Beach .......................................................................................... 221.6.4Site 2 – Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site .................................... 221.6.5Site 3 – Former Communications Facility Burial Area ........................................ 251.6.6Site 4A – Former Quonset Huts near USAF Radar Station.................................. 261.6.7Site 4B – Former USAF Radar Station................................................................. 271.6.8Site 4C – Sevuokuk Mountain .............................................................................. 291.6.9Site 4D – Sevuokuk Mountain.............................................................................. 291.6.10Site 4E – Western Face of Sevuokuk Mountain ................................................... 291.6.11 Site 6 – Military Landfill ...................................................................................... 301.6.12Site 7 – Former Military Power Facility ............................................................... 311.6.13 Sites 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D – West Beach Area............................................................. 351.6.14 Site 9 – Asphalt Barrel Cache............................................................................... 361.6.15 Site 10 – Sevuokuk Mountain Trail ...................................................................... 371.6.16 Site 11 – Communications Cable Route ............................................................... 371.6.17 Site 12 – North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site................................................... 371.6.18Site 13 – Former Radar Power Station ................................................................. 391.6.19 Site 14 – Navy Plane Crash Site ........................................................................... 401.6.20Site 15 – Troutman Lake Disposal Site ................................................................ 401.6.21Site 16 – Gambell Municipal Building Site.......................................................... 411.6.22 Site 17 – Army Landfills....................................................................................... 411.6.23 Site 18 – Former Main Camp................................................................................ 421.6.24Site 19 – Diatomaceous Earth............................................................................... 431.6.25Site 20 – Schoolyard ............................................................................................. 431.6.26 Site 21 – Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain ................................................................... 43Page 6 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6.27Site 22 – Former CAA Housing............................................................................ 431.6.28Site 23 – Debris from High School Construction ................................................. 441.6.29Site 24 – South of Municipal Building ................................................................. 441.6.30Site 25A – Village of Gambell South Housing Units ........................................... 441.6.31Site 25B – Low Drainage Area Southwest of Armory ......................................... 451.6.32Site 26 – Possible Debris Burial Site .................................................................... 451.6.33Site 27 – Drum Storage Area ................................................................................ 451.6.34Site 28 – Disturbed Ground .................................................................................. 461.7Summary of Site Risks.................................................................................................. 471.8Remedial Action Objectives ......................................................................................... 491.9Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 521.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................... 531.10.1Threshold Criteria ................................................................................................. 531.10.2Balancing Criteria ................................................................................................. 531.10.3Modifying Criteria ................................................................................................ 571.11 Principal Threat Waste.................................................................................................. 591.12 Selected Remedy........................................................................................................... 601.13 Statutory Determinations .............................................................................................. 631.13.1Protective of Human Health and the Environment ............................................... 631.13.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ....................................... 631.13.3Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................. 641.13.4Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to theMaximum Extent Practicable................................................................................................ 641.13.5Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ................................................. 641.13.6Five-Year Review Requirement ........................................................................... 641.14 Documentation of Significant Changes ........................................................................ 652. Responsiveness Summary..................................................................................................... 66Appendix A – Responsiveness SummaryPage 7 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGlossary of Terms and AcronymsAACAlaska Administrative CodeADECAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationARARsApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsBNAsBase, neutral, and acid compounds (includes PAHs)BTEXBenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xyleneBGSBelow ground surfaceCERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCFRCode of Federal RegulationsCOCContaminant of concernDODDepartment of DefenseDRODiesel-range organicsEPAUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyFSFeasibility StudyFUDSFormerly Used Defense SiteGROGasoline-range organicsICInstitutional Controlsmg/kgmilligram per kilogrammg/Lmilligram per literMWHMontgomery Watson HarzaNALEMPNative American Land Environmental Mitigation ProgramNCPNational Contingency PlanNFANo Further ActionOSCIOil Spill Consultants, Inc.pg/gpicogram per gramPOLPetroleum, oil, and lubricantsppmParts per millionPAHsPolyaromatic (or Polycyclic) HydrocarbonsPCBsPolychlorinated biphenylsPriorityPollutantMetalsAntimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.RCRAResource, Conservation and Recovery ActRCRA metalsarsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silverRROResidual Range OrganicsRABRestoration Advisory BoardPage 8 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaRIRemedial InvestigationRARemoval/Remedial ActionsSVOCsSemi volatile organic compoundsTAL metalsTarget Analyte List metals, includes aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, nickel,potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.TCLPToxicity characteristic leaching procedureTRPHTotal recoverable petroleum hydrocarbonsUSACEUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUCLUpper Confidence LevelVOCsVolatile organic compoundsPage 9 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1. Decision SummaryThis Decision Summary provides an overview of the contaminants at the Gambell Site. Itidentifies the areas evaluated for remedial response, describes the remedial alternativesconsidered, and analyzes those alternatives compared to the criteria set forth in the NationalContingency Plan (NCP). The Decision Summary explains the rationale for selecting theremedy, and how the remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).1.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief DescriptionThe Gambell Site, FUDS project #s F10AK069601 and F10AK069603, is located on St.Lawrence Island, Alaska, about 200 air miles southwest of Nome in the Bering Sea (see Figure1). The State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) tracks the entiresite with reckey # 198532X917919, and also lists individual areas of concern by separate reckeys(198532X917920-32 and 198532X117901-13). One area of concern, Site 5 Tramway (reckey#198532X917923) will be addressed under a future decision document. The EPA identificationnumber for Gambell is AKD981765894. The site is situated on a gravel spit at the northwestpoint of the island. Gambell is located at latitude 63° 46’ 49” North and longitude 171° 43’ 46”West. The military leased approximately 2,500 acres in Gambell. Thirty-eight (38) separatesites of concern were identified during the remedial investigation process (see Figure 2). Theselected remedy for each site, except Site 5, is listed in Table 1.Figure 1 – Site Vicinity MapPage 10 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 1 – Remedial Responses by Site LocationSite1A North Beach1B Army Landing Area1C Air Force Landing Area2 Military Burial Site3 Communications Facility4A Air Force Radar Site4B Former Quonset Huts4C Discarded Drums4D Former Transformers4E Western Face of Sevuokuk Mtn6 Military Landfill7 Military Power Facility8A Marston Matting8B Buried Debris8C Navy Landfill8D Beach Ammunition9 Asphalt Drums10 Army/Air Force Trails11 Communication Cable Route12 Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site13 Radar Power Station14 Navy Plane Crash Site15 Troutman Lake Disposal Site16 Municipal Building Site17 Army Landfills18 Main Camp19 Diatomaceous Earth20 Schoolyard21 Toe of Sevuokuk Mountain22 Former CAA Housing23 Debris from High School24 South of Municipal Building25A Gambell South Housing Units25B Low Drainage Area26 Possible Debris Burial Site27 Drum Storage Area28 Disturbed GroundSelected Remedial ResponseNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of arsenic-contaminated soilRemoval and off-site recycling/disposal of exposed metal debrisNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further Action under FUDS *No Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soilNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further Action* Site 8D is planned for future debris removal under NALEMP, pending the availability of funding.Page 11 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 2 – Site Location Map238C1C22Sevuokuk Mountain1A1762772625B 25A 16 202624 188B19 2115Troutman Lake324E4A54D118AAirs trip4B1B910Bering Sea4C288D12±N13to14100001000Page 12 of 662000 FeetDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.2 Site HistoryThe military established the Gambell site in the 1950’s as part of a surveillance and intelligencegathering network. Various units of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force utilized the area. The AirForce built a base camp in 1950 at the foot of Sevuokuk Mountain and a radar site directly aboveon the mountain top (both abandoned in 1956). The Army occupied several sites during the late1950s, with a main base camp located just north of Troutman Lake. The Navy also laidcommunications cables from the village of Gambell, up Sevuokuk Mountain, and south toBrunnell Cape.Environmental investigations and cleanup activities at Gambell began in the mid 1980’s. Thegoals of the investigations were to locate and identify areas of contamination and to gatherenough information to develop a cleanup plan. The first major environmental study, theremedial investigation, was performed at Gambell in 1994. The study divided the concernsamong 18 separate sites. The results of the remedial investigation showed that contaminantswere present at some but not all sites. Some sites were subdivided into sub sites and new siteswere also added in subsequent investigations.In 1996, the second phase of remedial investigation was performed. In this study, additional soiland groundwater samples were collected from Sites 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4B, 4D, and 5. The studyobjectives were to further delineate the extent of contamination, estimate amounts of debris, andconduct a geophysical survey.In 1997, a USACE contractor, Montgomery Watson, removed visible surface debris fromvarious sites around Gambell. During the 1999 field season, Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI)performed further cleanup activities in Gambell, including the removal of additional debrisexposed by frost jacking after the 1997 cleanup activity. OSCI removed a total of 26.8 tons ofhazardous and non-hazardous containerized wastes such as asphalt drums, paint, generators,batteries, empty drums, and transformer carcasses. OSCI also removed 71 tons of exposed metaldebris such as runway Martson matting, cable, fuel tanks and equipment parts; and excavated 72tons of contaminated soil. However, OSCI was unable to complete the removal of Martsonmatting adjacent to the runway due to safety concerns over its proximity to airstrip utilities.In 2000 and 2001, the Army Engineering and Support Center (Huntsville, AL) conductedextensive research and investigations to locate possible ordnance and explosives materials leftbehind by the military. During the field surveys, small amounts of ordnance waste were found,consisting primarily of highly weathered 30-caliber small arms ammunition at a beach burial pitsouthwest of Troutman Lake. An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EECA) datedNovember 2002 recommended institutional controls as the appropriate response action formilitary munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) at the Gambell Site. An ActionMemorandum, dated June 2003, documented the selected response action of institutionalcontrols.The institutional controls were implemented during the summer of 2004 and consisted ofdistributing informational pamphlets and posters about ordnance risks to local residents andbusinesses and holding a community meeting. An initial review to evaluate the continuedeffectiveness and reliability of the ordnance response action will be conducted in 3 years. AfterPage 13 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathe initial review has been conducted, recurring reviews will be performed at 5-year intervals.The need for recurring reviews will be coordinated with regulators and stakeholders and justifiedin each recurring review report.A supplemental remedial investigation was conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza during the2001 field season, to verify previously collected confirmation data and investigate the nature andextent of contamination at four newly identified sites. These sites were identified as potentialareas of concern based on community concerns and a review of a historical photographicanalysis completed by the USACE Topographic Engineering Center in September 2000. Thesummary report recommended no further action for most sites. Further action was recommendedat Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 12 based on a comparison to screening levels. The ADEC Ingestionpathway cleanup levels were later determined to be the applicable cleanup levels for Sites 4A,4B and 6. Since Sites 4A, 4B and 6 meet the specified regulatory cleanup levels, only Sites 7and 12 require further action.The Corps of Engineers completed a Feasibility Study (FS) in February 2004. A Proposed Planwas distributed to the public in July 2004 which summarized site conditions, investigationresults, and described the remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS. A public meeting to discussthe plan was held in Gambell on July 21, 2004. The supporting documents can be found in theAdministrative Record located at the USACE Office on Elmendorf Air Force Base or at theInformation Repositories located in Gambell, Savoonga, Nome, and Anchorage.Remedial investigation and removal work at Gambell was carried out under the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program (DERP) FUDS program. There have been no enforcementactivities or notices of violation pertaining to the Department of Defense activities at theGambell site.Page 14 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.3 Community ParticipationPublic participation has been an important component of the CERCLA process at the GambellSite. A Community Relations Plan was developed for the project in March 1996 and updated inApril 2002. The Community Relations Plan describes the measures used to meet the communityrelations goal of keeping Gambell residents and other interested people informed about projectactivities. It provided a means for local residents to share their knowledge about the Gambellarea and its history with the project team. It further allowed the residents and other interestedpersons to provide their feedback and comments on project activities, and gave everyone anopportunity to become involved in the project. Activities aimed at informing and solicitingpublic input regarding the Gambell Site include:Restoration Advisory Board (RAB): A RAB comprised of community members andother interested parties was established in January 2000. RAB meetings are heldapproximately 3 times per year to keep the public informed of ongoing project activities.Many Gambell residents identified areas of concern on maps or photographs and relayedinformation on past activities or stories about certain areas from village elders.TAPP Advisor/Community Liaison: The RAB is served by a technical advisor, under theTechnical Assistance for Public Participation (TAPP) program, to provide technicalguidance on workplans, reports, proposed remedies, and potential environmental andhuman health impacts. In addition, a local resident was employed as a community liaisonduring the remedial investigation phase, to help community members access technicalinformation, distribute meeting notices, and assist with agency communication.Meeting Notices: Meeting notices were published in the Nome Nugget newspaper andposted in prominent locations around town such as the Sivuqaq Lodge, City Hall, PostOffice, and Washeteria. Radio announcements were broadcast on KNOM of Nome, AK.Informal Meetings and Site Visits: Informal meetings occurred whenever project staffvisited with Gambell residents and other interested or knowledgeable parties. The projectteam gathered information on potential hazardous waste or debris locations, and gatheredavailable documentation through interviews with village residents, Native Village ofGambell IRA Council members and staff, Sivuqaq Incorporated board members, andother interested parties. These persons contributed information regarding historical andcurrent conditions at the Gambell site.Fact Sheets: Information about the project was published periodically through FactSheets distributed to RAB members and placed at the Information Repositories.Information Repositories: Project documentation, reports, and other materials areavailable at 4 locations including the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRABuilding in Savoonga, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library inNome (formerly at the National Park Service) , and the Alaska Resource Library andInformation Services in Anchorage.Mailing List: A mailing list was compiled and updated throughout the project.Proposed Plan: The Gambell Proposed Plan was distributed to the public in July 2004; apublic meeting was held July 21, 2004; and the public review period was from July 21 toAugust 30, 2004. Comments from the public are contained in the ResponsivenessSummary found in the Appendix of this document.Page 15 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPublic Notices: Public notices have been issued prior to all significant decision pointsincluding RAB meetings. A public notice for the Proposed Plan and Public Meeting waspublished in the Nome Nugget newspaper on July 14, 2004.Responsiveness Summary: Public comments were received on the Gambell ProposedPlan. The USACE maintains a record of all comments and has published responses to thecomments in this Decision Document. A Responsiveness Summary binder was alsodeveloped for the project to document implementation of the Community Relations Plan.It contains responses to all comments/concerns raised by the public during the project andwill continue to be updated until the project is completed.Page 16 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.4 Scope and Role of Response ActionThe CERCLA process is intended to identify solutions to contamination issues where they exist.The remedial action described in this Decision Document addresses threats to human health andthe environment posed by contamination at the Gambell Site. The RI/FS Reports defined thesethreats as soil contaminants. Soil with contaminants that pose a potential threat to the public willbe removed, transported, and disposed in an appropriate facility. In addition, exposed militarydebris which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death or serious injury to persons exercisingordinary and reasonable care will be removed and transported to a permitted landfill or approvedrecycling facility.Page 17 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.5 Site CharacteristicsThis section provides an overview of the Gambell Site, including geographical information,hydrology, ecological resources, and land use. Site locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3.1.5.1 Geographical and topographic informationThe Native Village of Gambell is located on St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of theBering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska (see Figure 1). The villageis situated on a gravel spit that projects north and westward from the island. Gambell isrelatively flat, with an elevation range from sea level to approximately 30 feet above mean sealevel. Sevuokuk Mountain forms the eastern boundary of the gravel spit, and rises steeply to aheight of approximately 619 feet. The dominant soil lithologies underlying the Gambell area areunconsolidated, poorly to well-sorted gravels with sand and poorly to well-sorted sand withgravels. These soils are interpreted as washed beach gravels deposited on a wave cut platform.Sevuokuk Mountain is composed of Cretaceous quartz monzonite, a gray rock rich in quartz andfeldspars.The entire Gambell site encompasses approximately 2,500 acres. The majority of the areas ofconcern are located within or adjacent to the village of Gambell, a community of 649 persons(US Census 2000).1.5.2 Hydrology and Groundwater UseGroundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 2.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) southof Troutman Lake to 16.5 ft bgs along the North Beach area. The largest and most permanentsurface water features in the vicinity of Gambell are Troutman Lake and North NayvaghatLakes. Small ephemeral ponds and bogs are also present on the tundra east of Troutman andNorth Nayvaghat Lakes.Groundwater from the central gravel spit is not suitable as a source of drinking water.Groundwater in the gravels is often saline, difficult to recover in useable quantities, and locatedin an active lens over permafrost. A drinking water well in the old Village area was abandonedin the past because of poor water quality (salt water intrusion) or quantity. Groundwaterencountered at the site has been limited in quantity, and only intermittently detected. Permafrostin Gambell is commonly encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 15 feet below the groundsurface. The groundwater aquifer (10-14 ft depth) that currently supplies drinking water to thecommunity is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 1,500-2,000 feet east ofthe village on the far eastern edge of the gravel spit. The predominant surface water feature,Troutman Lake, is considered slightly brackish due to influences from the Bering Sea.Continuous permafrost acts as a barrier for soil contaminant migration to a groundwater zone.However, migration of contaminants may occur with groundwater movement in the active lensabove the permafrost layer (suprapermafrost groundwater). Suprapermafrost groundwater occurssporadically within the village of Gambell (i.e., in the vicinity of Sites 6, 7, 16, 17, 18). Thedocumented groundwater flow direction in this area is to the north, towards the Bering Sea, adistance of about 1,200 feet.Page 18 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaAccording to a State of Alaska hydrogeological investigation report (Ireland, 1994), the Gambellaquifer is canoe-shaped, originating along the front of the steep bluff of Sevuokuk Mountain, andcontinuing down the hydrological gradient across a highly permeable gravel bar towards theocean. The aquifer appears to be a thaw bulb in the permafrost, and as the permafrost expands orrecedes, the aquifer dimensions vary. Warm recharge water originating on Sevuokuk Mountaineffectively melts the permafrost where the mountain front joins the gravel spit. Most of thewater entering the aquifer comes from two springs that flow from the steep bluffs of themountain into the gravel. Shallow groundwater across the gravel spit does not appear to becontinuous because of the presence of shallow permafrost (Munter and Williams, 1992).1.5.3 Ecological and Biological ResourcesSt. Lawrence Island supports habitats for the following endangered or threatened species: thespectacled eider (endangered), Steller’s eider (threatened), and Steller sea ion. Walrus and polarare protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The investigation areas of concern donot support sensitive habitats, and are predominantly comprised of gravel and sand within thecity of Gambell, adjacent roads or the airport.1.5.4 Current and Potential Future Land UsesSt. Lawrence Island is owned jointly by the two village native corporations: Sivuqaq, Inc., inGambell, Alaska, and the Savoonga Native Corporation in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-Native landon St. Lawrence Island is limited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambelland Savoonga. A federally recognized tribe is located in the community -- the Native Village ofGambell. Gambell is inhabited primarily by Native St. Lawrence Island Yupik people, who leada subsistence-based lifestyle. The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds,waterfowl, and mammals that either breed in or visit the area. The area surrounding the top ofSevuokuk Mountain, above the Village of Gambell, supports a large bird rookery. The birds andbird eggs are a subsistence food source for local inhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambellarea is used extensively for subsistence hunting of whales, walrus, seals, sea birds, and fish.Future land use is expected to remain residential with the surrounding area used for recreationand subsistence hunting or gathering.Page 19 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6 Summary of Site ContaminationThis section summarizes the sampling strategy for 37 of the 38 sites in Gambell, identifiescontaminants of concern, and affected media. Two areas, Sites 7 and 12, were identified for aresponse action based on the presence of contaminants at levels which may pose a risk to humanhealth and the environment. The basis of this analysis is the data collected during the RemedialInvestigation (RI), which identified the nature and extent of contamination in Gambell. Oneadditional area, Site 8A, was identified for a response action based on the presence of physicalhazards consisting of exposed metal debris.During the remedial investigation process, soil, sediment, and shallow-aquifer groundwater weresampled and analyzed for a wide range of organic and inorganic constituents. Contaminantsdetected in the soil and shallow-aquifer groundwater were primarily fuels and metals.1.6.1 Site 1A – North Beach, Army Landing AreaSite 1A is located in the central portion of the North Beach, where two well-established allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails intersect. The Army landing area was located east of an area that iscurrently used by local residents to land or launch whaling boats. The site consisted of exposedsurface debris including engine pieces, Marston matting, weasel tracks, steel cables, a partiallyburied 100-foot crane, and other buried metallic debris which are periodically exposed andreclaimed by shifting gravels along the beach area.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris from Site 1A (5,545 pounds)and the surrounding beach area (3,630 pounds), including corrugated roofing material, piping,Marston matting, weasel tracks, protruding parts of a buried crane, engines, cables, and othermiscellaneous debris. No dangerous surface debris remains at this site. Buried debris is noteligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected in 1994. One surface soil sample wascollected and analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), BNAs, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper,lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc). Subsurface soil samples were collectedfrom 5 borings and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs,and priority pollutant metals. Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 1 to 9 mg/kg. Thecalculated 95% upper confidence level (95%UCL) of the mean concentration for arsenic at Site1A is 5.0 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5mg/kg. No other contaminants were detected in soil above screening levels based on the ADECTable B migration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341.GroundwaterFive monitoring wells were installed during the 1994 Phase I remedial investigation.Groundwater samples from all 5 wells were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO,TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No contaminants were detected ingroundwater above screening levels based on the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels in18 AAC 75.345.Page 20 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 3 – Site Location Map, Northern AreaNorth Beach1CArmy Landing AreaBERING SEA23 Debris fromHigh School8C Navy LandfillWestBeach8BBuriedDebrisArmy LandfillsCAAHousing25BLowDrainageArea171BFormer MilitaryBurial Site26MilitaryLandfillDrum StorageArea27 Former7 PowerFacility2625A 16S. Housing20VillageWaterSupply5FormerBuried TramwayFormerDiatomaceous DebrisMain4D FormerEarthCampTransformersHighSchool181521CityHall Washeterians Cable Rout e11tiocaTroutman Lakeni9 AsphaltDrums10CommuAirstripFormer4A Quonset Huts2024198AMarstonMatting4B34ECableDebrisFormerAir ForceRadar SiteAir For ce TrailOld VillageAreaFormerCommunicationsFacility1AArmy Trai l22Air ForceLanding AreaN50005001000 Feet1.6.2 Site 1B – North Beach, Air Force Landing AreaSite 1B is located west of Sevuokuk Mountain, and approximately 1,900 feet east of the ArmyLanding Area on North Beach. The site contained exposed surface debris, rust-stained gravel,and a separate patch of tar-stained gravel (degraded asphalt). Additionally, buried debris may beperiodically exposed as the gravel beach deposits shift or frost jacking occurs. This area receivesa large amount of ATV traffic due to its proximity to the bird rookeries on Sevuokuk Mountainvisited by local residents and tourists.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all visible surface debris from Site 1B (105 pounds) andthe surrounding beach area (2,865 pounds), including Marston matting, empty drums, sheetmetal, steel cables, and other miscellaneous debris. All dangerous surface debris has beenremoved. Buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Page 21 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilDuring the 1994 remedial investigation, subsurface soil samples were collected from threeborings and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, andpriority pollutant metals. One surface soil sample was collected from the rust-stained soil andanalyzed for TRPH, BNA, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Petroleum hydrocarbons andlead were detected in soil, but did not exceed screening levels based on ADEC Table Bmigration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341. Arsenic was also detectedin soil at concentrations ranging from 2 to 7 mg/kg. The calculated 95% UCL of the meanconcentration for arsenic at Site 1B is 4.8 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other chemicals were detected in soil above screeninglevels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels in 18 AAC 75.341.GroundwaterIn 1994, three monitoring wells were installed at Site 1B, to a maximum depth of 20.5 feet.Groundwater was encountered between 10 and 14.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwatersamples were collected from the three wells and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO,DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No contaminants were detected ingroundwater above screening levels based on the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels in18 AAC 75.345.1.6.3 Site 1C – North BeachSite 1C covers the entire length of North Beach and consists of underwater metallic debrislocated just offshore. The majority of the debris is thought to be Marston matting used toconstruct the two military landing areas. North Beach is the primary area used by local residentsfor launching and landing boats.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed all exposed surface debris (10,105 pounds) from theentire length of the North Beach, including corrugated roofing material, piping, Marston matting,empty drums, heavy machinery parts, metal cables, and other miscellaneous debris. Theremaining underwater debris does not pose a physical hazard and is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.1.6.4 Site 2 – Former Military Housing/Operations Burial SiteSite 2 is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the former Air Force Landing Area on NorthBeach, and just west of the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. Facilities associated with militaryhousing/operations, and a power plant, were reportedly demolished and buried at this site.Ordnance was potentially buried here as well, but investigations have not confirmed thispossibility. Exposed debris was observed at the site, including remnants of a rock fireplace,partially buried concrete pad, burned wood, scattered metal debris/gear, and discolored gravel.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 100 pounds of miscellaneous debris from Site 2. Theyalso removed a large quantity (total of 1,740 pounds) of cable spools, wheel rims, corrugatedmetal, and Marston matting from the vicinity of Site 2 (between Sites 1A and 3). Oil SpillConsultants, Inc (OSCI) removed the remaining exposed debris in 1999, but attributed allPage 22 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaquantities of debris removed to Site 3. OSCI also removed 24,982 pounds (12.5 cubic yards) ofpetroleum-stained soils from near Site 2. The stained soil was located adjacent to a large rock atthe base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 450 feet south of the Bering Sea/North Beach.This location was identified by Montgomery Watson as between Site 1A and 3. The partiallyburied concrete pad is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Ninesubsurface soil samples were collected from three borings and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, priority pollutant metals, PCBs, and explosives. Two surface soil samples were alsocollected at the areas of discolored gravel and analyzed for TRPH, BNA’s, and priority pollutantmetals. Fuels were detected in the soil below screening levels. Elevated levels of metals werealso detected in one surface soil sample above screening levels. Sampling results aresummarized in Table 2. No asbestos was detected in the fibrous material.With the exception of arsenic, metals were detected above screening levels in only one sampleout of 13. This single sample had anomalous concentrations of both lead (749 mg/kg) andchromium (391 mg/kg); the other samples demonstrated a mostly sympathetic relationshipbetween lead and chromium suggesting where lead is low, chromium will also be low. The 12other soil samples contained low levels of chromium (ND to 21 mg/kg) and lead (1 to 70 mg/kg).Chromium was not considered a contaminant of concern following the 1994 investigationbecause it did not exceed the 1994 screening levels (chromium screening levels have sincechanged). Further investigation was conducted in 1996 to determine the extent of leadcontamination surrounding this particular sample, since the lead results were more highlyanomalous. Eight surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for lead only. The samplingresults indicated the lead concentrations (3.6 to 63 mg/kg) were well below screening levels (400mg/kg). The 95% UCL of the mean lead concentration at the site does not exceed the ADECcleanup levels. Since lead was not elevated during the 1996 investigation, it is logical to assumethat the chromium contamination was similarly below levels of concern. Any remainingchromium is likely isolated and present in de-minimus quantities. The detected arsenicconcentrations (3 to 11 mg/kg) do not exceed site background concentrations. Although thearsenic concentrations exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion pathway cleanup level (5.5 mg/kg),the levels are consistent across many sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated with pastmilitary activity.Page 23 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 2. Sampling Results at Site 2ChemicalCleanupScreeningLevel aLevel(1994)Soil (mg/kg)DRO10,250100 bTRPHNA2,000 biArsenic116.7 cChromium300390-78,000 dLead400500-1,000 eWater (mg/L)TRPHNAsheen (0.5)Range ofResults(1994)Range ofResults(1996)ND - 28ND - 7103 – 113 – 3911 – 749----3.6-630.2 – 0.5--95% UCL ofthe mean6.5 f82 – 165 g206 hNotes: NA - not available, ND - not detected, mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram (parts per million),mg/L - milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)bADEC Interim Guidance Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)cUSGS Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988)dUS EPA Region 3 Risk-Based Concentration Table (July 11, 1994), Cr III and Cr VIeUS EPA Region 5 Interim Guidance on Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites(September 7, 1989)fbased on the gamma distributiongrange of values based on non-parametric methodshcalculated using all results from 1994 and 1996isite backgroundIn 1999, OSCI collected a pre-excavation sample to characterize the stained soils for disposalpurposes; the sample contained gasoline and diesel range organics at 309 and 6,440 mg/kg,respectively. The concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the removed soils did not exceedADEC Table B Ingestion pathway cleanup levels (1,400 mg/kg GRO and 10,250 mg/kg DRO).PCBs, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticide/ herbicides, and leachable metals were not detected. AfterOCSI removed a large quantity of stained soils, the Corps of Engineers stopped furtherexcavation because the scope of the removal action was limited to stained soils associated withdrums and other debris. The contamination was more extensive than anticipated. Commentsfrom local workers revealed that the petroleum stain at this site probably resulted from oil thatwas drained from ATVs by Gambell residents. No post-excavation samples were collected,because the Corps decided the stained soil was outside the scope of work. The observedpetroleum contamination may be the result of more recent oil spills that are not related to formerDoD activities.GroundwaterThree monitoring wells were installed at the site during the 1994 investigation. Groundwatersamples were collected from the 3 wells and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, prioritypollutant metals, and explosives. Low levels of total hydrocarbons were detected in onegroundwater sample (see Table 2), but did not exceed ADEC Table C cleanup levels in 18 AAC75.345. No other analytes were detected in the groundwater.Military MunitionsEarth Tech, Inc. conducted two geophysical surveys at Site 2 during July and September 2000, todetermine the presence or absence of buried ordnance. First, the field team visually surveyed thearea and removed metallic scrap and debris from the surface. Next, metal detectors were used tomap the location of subsurface metal within three site grids. Mapped metallic anomalies werePage 24 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathen excavated to determine the source of the magnetic signature. No evidence of any ordnancewas found during the investigation.1.6.5 Site 3 – Former Communications Facility Burial AreaSite 3 is located approximately 700 feet south of the North Beach, near the base of SevuokukMountain. The preliminary assessment indicated the possible burial of Jamesway huts, powerplant generators, transformers, oils, batteries, and sulfuric acid. Exposed above-ground debrisincluded weasel tracks, Marston matting, pipe, empty drums, and anchors for guy wire.In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed 1,740 pounds of debris from the vicinity of Site 3,including cable spools, corrugated metal, Marston matting, and cable wires. In 1999, OSCIremoved an additional 3,030 pounds of surface debris, including weasel tracks, 3 empty fuelstorage tanks, Marston matting and drums. All dangerous surface debris has been removed. Theburied debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the Phase I investigation. Ageophysical survey identified two discrete areas with suspected buried material. Subsurface soilsamples were collected from two borings at depths of 2.5 and 5 feet, and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons, VOCs, priority pollutant metals, PCBs, sulfate/sulfur, and pH. No VOCs or PCBswere detected. The only petroleum hydrocarbon detected was DRO, but at concentrations belowcleanup levels. Several metals were detected in the soil, including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,mercury, selenium, and thallium. Beryllium and thallium exceeded initial screening levels, andfurther sampling was conducted during the 1996 Phase II investigation. Four surface soilsamples were collected; the results were all below detection limits. The thallium results from1994 were determined to be spatially limited. Table 3 summarizes the sampling results.GroundwaterTwo monitoring wells, MW09 and MW10, were installed during the 1994 investigation andencountered groundwater at depths of 8 to 9 feet below ground surface. Groundwater samplesfrom the two wells were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, priority pollutantmetals, and sulfates. Lead was detected in the groundwater from MW10 at a concentrationwhich exceeded the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup value. However, a filtered samplefrom this well did not contain any dissolved lead. A second monitoring well, MW09, locatedimmediately downgradient of MW10 did not contain detectable levels of lead in thegroundwater. Both monitoring wells are located downgradient of the village drinking watersupply well, and the groundwater gradient in the vicinity flows north toward the Bering Sea.Lead was not identified as a contaminant of concern, and no further groundwater sampling wasperformed at Site 3 after the Phase I investigation.Page 25 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 3. Sampling Results at Site 3ChemicalCleanup ScreeningLevelLevel(1994)Soil (mg/kg)DRO10,250 a100 ghArsenic116.7 faBeryllium2001.5 faCadmium10039 ebMercury1823 eaSelenium510390 edThallium5.57.0 eWater (mg/L)Lead0.015 c0.015Lead, dissolvedMaximumResult(1994)522667111315MaximumResult(1996)ND (2.52)ND (0.28)0.045ND (0.002)Notes: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)mg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Inhalation (May 26, 2004)c18AAC75, Table C (May 26, 2004)dUS EPA Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (April 4, 2004)eUS EPA Region 3, Risk-Based Concentration Table (July 11, 1994)fUSGS Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988)gADEC Interim Guidance, Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)hsite background1.6.6 Site 4A – Former Quonset Huts near USAF Radar StationSite 4A consisted of collapsed Quonset Huts frames and transformer casings located on the topof Sevuokuk Mountain. In 1997, Montgomery Watson removed three empty transformercarcasses. In 1999, OSCI removed 14,772 pounds (7.4 tons) of unsafe debris, including twocollapsed Quonset hut frames, metal siding, drums, and petroleum-stained soil (1,877 pounds)associated with the drums and debris.SoilDuring the remedial investigation, three surface soil samples were collected adjacent to the fallentransformers and analyzed for PCBs. Asbestos samples were also taken around the fallenQuonset huts. No PCBs or asbestos-containing material (ACM) were detected in the soils.OSCI collected four confirmation soil samples from within and outside of the two Quonset hutfootprints following the 1999 removal action. The samples were analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/GRO), VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, and Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA) metals.The 1999 confirmation samples contained concentrations of diesel range organics and metalswhich exceeded screening levels, including arsenic, chromium, and lead. A supplementalinvestigation was conducted in 2001 at Site 4A to verify the previous confirmation samplingresults. Four samples were collected based on field screening results and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons and RCRA metals. Two of the samples were also analyzed for hexavalentchromium. The 2001 sampling results indicated that all chemicals of concern were below theADEC Table B ingestion pathway cleanup levels (18 AAC 75.341) or site background. InPage 26 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaaddition, hexavalent chromium was not detected in the soil samples. Table 4 summarizes theconfirmation soil sampling results from Site 4A. The chromium detected in 1999 does not posea potential risk to human health or the environment because further investigation demonstratedthat the chromium exists the less toxic form (Cr III), and is not present in a significant quantity.No significant volume of contaminated soil remains at the site. The area consists of largeboulders on top of bedrock with small amounts of soil. Site 4A has been cleaned up to the extentfeasible, as there is minimal soil above bedrock.Table 4. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 4AChemicalCleanup ScreeningMaximumMaximumLevel bLevel aConcentration Concentration(1999)(1999)(2001)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11 c28.33.9Chromium3002642212.1Lead40040031144DRO10,2502501,310970Notes: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite background1.6.7 Site 4B – Former USAF Radar StationSite 4B was a US Air Force (USAF) radar station, located on top of Sevuokuk Mountain. Thesite covered an area approximately 375 feet by 500 feet. The radar station consisted of buildingsthat burned and caused ordnance to explode and scatter debris. In 1999, OSCI excavated 52 tonsof contaminated soil to a depth of 24 inches. The excavation area was approximately 29 by 37feet and was partly covered by boulders. The removal included soil with localized heavystaining and an oily substance. OSCI also removed 1.4 tons of miscellaneous metal debris fromSite 4B.SoilDuring the 1994 Phase I investigation, five surface soil samples were collected and analyzed forpetroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), PCBs, priority pollutant metals, BNAs, and dioxin/furans. Thesampling results identified elevated concentrations of metals and dioxins.During the 1996 Phase II investigation, four additional surface soil samples were collected fromthe edges of the stained soil area to delineate the extent of metals contamination. Samples wereanalyzed for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, and lead. The results were significantly lowerthan those detected during the Phase I. See Table 5 for a comparison of results.One pre-excavation soil sample and six post-excavation confirmation samples were collectedduring the 1999 removal action. The samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, GRO, VOCs,SVOCs, PCBs, pesticides, metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper and lead), anddioxin/furans. Sampling results are shown in Table 5. The concentration of dioxins decreasedsignificantly as a result of removing the soils. The USEPA and ADEC have not establishedcleanup levels for dioxins. The USEPA Region 9 has established a screening level of 3.9 ppt fordioxins in residential soil. The State of Alaska adjusts the EPA screening level by one order ofPage 27 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskamagnitude to derive a preliminary remediation goal for residential soil of 39 ppt dioxin. TheAgency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses a screening level of 50 ppt andan action level of 1,000 ppt for dioxins in soil.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was done at Site 4B to verify the 1999 confirmationsampling results because the latitude and longitude coordinates were not documented. Four soilsamples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO/RRO/ GRO) and RCRAmetals. As shown in Table 5, these confirmation samples contained no analytes which exceededcleanup levels. Antimony and copper were not analyzed in 2001 because they are not part of thestandard set of 8 RCRA metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,silver).Copper exceeded the ADEC Table B cleanup level of 4,060 mg/kg, based on the ingestionpathway, in 1 out of 6 samples collected in 1999. The highest concentration of copper in theremaining samples was 65.7 mg/kg. However, the maximum concentration of copper (6,940mg/kg) does not exceed the ADEC Table B cleanup level of 7,000 mg/kg based on the migrationto groundwater pathway. The 1999 sample with elevated copper also contained lead. Furthersampling in 2001 indicated lead at much lower levels, but copper was not included in theanalytical suite.Table 5. Comparison of Maximum Concentrations of Contaminants of Concern in Soil at Site 4BChemicalUnits199419961999 pre1999 post2001 postmaximummaximumexcavationexcavationexcavationresultsresultsresultmax resultsmax resultsAntimonymg/kg130ND (15)-3.3-Arsenicmg/kg3817-1.64.3Cleanuplevel aCadmiumCoppermg/kgmg/kg5226,60061,900---1.86,9400.4--Leadmg/kg3,24984039696TotalDioxins(TEQ)DRORROTRPHpg/g51.2--11.7 mg/L(TCLP)26241 a5.5 a11 e100 a4,060 b7,000 c400 a29--NA dmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg--690----4692,110--13,900984--10,000200--10,250 a10,000 aNANotes: ND – non detect, TEQ – total dioxin/furan equivalent, TCLP – toxicity characterization leaching procedure, NA – not available, -- notanalyzed for, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million), pg/g – picograms per gram (parts per trillion), mg/L – milligrams per litera18AAC75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, ingestion pathway (May 26, 2004)bAdditional Cleanup Levels, ADEC Technical Memo 01-007 (November 24, 2003), ingestion pathway or c migration to groundwaterdThe ATSDR screening level for dioxin is 50 ppt, the ATSDR action level for dioxins is 1,000 ppt. USEPA Region 9, Preliminary RemediationGoal, residential soil (October 2004) for dioxin is 3.9 ppt. The State of Alaska uses a preliminary remediation goal of 39 ppt.esite backgroundNo contaminants of concern remain above ADEC Table B ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels,with the exception of copper. Site 4B is located at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain. The site isdominantly boulders and bedrock, and very little soil is present. It is unlikely that water fromSite 4B impacts the drinking water supply at Site 5 at the base of the mountain since Site 5 issignificantly south of Site 4B and the mountain slopes due west at Site 4B. Surface runoff wouldPage 28 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskalikely travel west off of the mountain or enter bedrock fractures. The steep open slope likelychannels many fractures to the west. At the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, west of Site 4B,groundwater in the gravel spit migrates slowly to the north, away from the drinking watersupply.The elevated copper at Site 4B is an isolated occurrence, confined to de-minimus quantities ofsoil. The contamination is an unlikely threat to the public drinking water supply locatedsouthwest of the Site at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain. It is impractical to remove additionalquantities of soil.1.6.8 Site 4C – Sevuokuk MountainSite 4C is located at the south end of Sevuokuk Mountain, and contained discarded drums alongan ATV trail. Scattered drums were collected from along ATV trails and the surrounding tundraat the southern end of Sevuokuk Mountain by OSCI during the 1999 field season. OSCIremoved a total of 12,516 pounds of drums and drum parts from the Army Trails (Site 10),which included the drums identified at Site 4C. All unsafe debris was removed during the 1999field season.SoilFive soil/sediment samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs during the Phase I remedialinvestigation. PCBs were not detected.1.6.9 Site 4D – Sevuokuk MountainSite 4D is located near the top of Sevuokuk Mountain. Three empty transformer casings andmiscellaneous debris were observed in the mountainside drainage above the pump house.In 1999, OSCI removed the three empty transformers from Site 4D. Wipe samples collectedfrom inside each transformer carcass did not contain any PCBs. All unsafe debris was removedduring the 1999 field season.Soil/Sediment/WaterDuring the 1994 investigation, one soil and four sediment samples were collected and analyzedfor PCBs. No PCBs were detected in the samples collected adjacent to the empty transformers.A background sample collected upgradient contained 0.194 mg/kg PCBs, which is well belowthe ADEC Table B Ingestion pathway cleanup level of 1 mg/kg. In 1996, groundwater from aformer infiltration gallery just downslope of Site 4D was also sampled and analyzed for BTEXand PCBs. No contaminants were detected in the groundwater.1.6.10 Site 4E – Western Face of Sevuokuk MountainVarious types of cable and wire are present on the ground surface along the sloped western faceof Sevuokuk Mountain. The Native Village of Gambell identified this area as an impacted siteduring preparation of a strategic project implementation plan for the Native American LandsPage 29 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaEnvironmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP). The debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS.1.6.11 Site 6 – Military LandfillSite 6 is located north of the Gambell High School and east of the new housing area. Thislandfill was used to dispose of building materials, vehicles, machinery, drums of latrine waste,and miscellaneous debris. A geophysical survey to delineate the extent of buried debris wascompleted in 1994.In 1999, OSCI removed exposed drums (7,897 pounds) and other metal debris (1,748 pounds).In 2003, NALEMP funded a removal action at Site 6. Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH)excavated and removed buried debris at the site, including empty 55-gallon drums used tocontainerize latrine waste, engine parts, vehicle parts, Marston matting, metal spikes, piping, tincans, miscellaneous household garbage, and used oil filters. MWH removed approximately1,000 drums and other debris, and excavated 2.5 tons of fuel-contaminated soils. There was nonotable evidence of fuel contamination associated with the buried debris.SoilOne soil sample was collected after removing surface debris from the site in 1999. OSCIcollected the confirmation soil sample from beneath the removed drum stockpile. The soilcontained no metals (except arsenic), fuels, solvents, PCBs, or pesticides above ADEC Table Bcleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway in 18 AAC 75.341.In 2001, a supplemental investigation was conducted to verify the OSCI sampling results and tofurther define the nature and extent of soil and groundwater contamination. Two surface soilsamples were collected from the approximate location of the 1999 confirmation sample, andanalyzed for GRO, DRO, RRO, and RCRA metals. As shown in Table 6, no analytes exceededcleanup levels or site background.Five soil borings were also advanced to frozen soil during the 2001 field effort. Groundwaterwas not encountered in any of the soil borings. Soil samples were collected and analyzed forGRO, DRO, RRO, VOCs, and target analyte list (TAL) metals. Sampling results aresummarized in Table 6. The detected arsenic concentrations exceeded the ADEC Table Bingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The calculated 95% UCL of the mean concentration forarsenic at Site 6 is 7.2 mg/kg. The observed arsenic concentrations in soil are consistent withsite background levels, are not associated with a point source of contamination, and do notappear associated with past military activity. No other analytes were detected in the soil samplesat concentrations exceeding the ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on the ingestionpathway.Page 30 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 6. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalCleanup Screening ConfirmationLevel aLevel bSample(1999)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11c25.3Antimony413.6Chromium300261.33Nickel2,00087DRO10,250250ND(9.35)Range of ResultsConfirmation Samples(2001)Range of ResultsSoil Borings(2001)6 – 7.73.7 – 13.2ND(0.2) – 7.31.1 – 591.3 – 120ND(5) – 1,2003 – 6.3ND(5) – 21Notes: ND - non detect, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundGroundwaterGroundwater was evaluated during the initial remedial investigation of 1994. Five borings weredrilled at Site 6. No water was found in three of the borings, but two borings encountered meltedporewater which was sampled through the auger. The groundwater samples were analyzed forpetroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), VOCs, metals, sulfate, biological oxygen demand(BOD), coliform, and total suspended solids/total dissolved solids (TSS/TDS). Low levels ofdiesel range organics and several metals were detected in the samples. Table 7 summarizes thesampling results. Although several metal concentrations did exceed screening levels, the metalswere primarily detected in unfiltered water samples. Exceedances were attributed to soilparticles suspended in the water column. Groundwater has not always been present at Site 6 andthe suprapermafrost groundwater is not considered a likely source of drinking water. The majorsource of potential contamination has been removed from the site and no significant residualcontamination was found in the soil or groundwater.Table 7. Sampling Results at Site 6ChemicalRange of Results(1994)Groundwater (mg/L)DRO0.46 – 0.75Arsenic0.03 – 0.05Beryllium0.007Cadmium0.007 – 0.008Chromium0.107 – 0.364Chromium, dissolved0.006Lead0.12 – 0.172Lead, dissolved0.008Nickel0.08 – 0.153ScreeningLevel a1.50.050.0040.0050.10.0150.1Notes: mg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18 AAC 75, Table C (May 26, 2004)1.6.12 Site 7 – Former Military Power FacilitySite 7 is located north of the Gambell Municipal Building, and west of the Gambell School. Amilitary power facility was reportedly demolished and buried in this location. A military motorpool building was also believed to be located in this vicinity. The site contained a concrete padPage 31 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaand surface debris. A geophysical survey to locate buried debris was completed in 1994. Thesurvey revealed no major anomalies indicative of large amounts of buried metal. MontgomeryWatson removed all exposed surface debris in 1996. In 1999, OCSI verified that no measurablequantities of surface debris remained at the site.During 2003, MWH removed the concrete pad, underlying support timbers, a buried 55-gallondrum, and 1 cubic yard of incidental contaminated soils under NALEMP.SoilDuring the 1994 investigation, five soil borings were drilled to permafrost (6.5 to 15.0 feet belowground surface) and four were completed as monitoring wells. Two surface soil samples and 17subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, and prioritypollutant metals. The subsurface soil samples were also analyzed for PCBs.The investigation results indicated DRO and TRPH were present in surface and subsurface soil.The DRO concentrations did not exceed the ADEC Table B soil cleanup levels based on theIngestion pathway. There are no ADEC cleanup levels for TRPH. Table 8 summarizes theresults. No other analytes were present at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels.Additional soil borings were drilled in 2001 to further investigate the potential for soilcontamination, and to address continuing community concerns regarding Site 7. Three soilborings (SB7-18, SB7-19, SB7-20) were drilled to permafrost (6.2, 7.2 and 10.0 feet bgs). The2001 investigation results showed DRO in one soil sample at a maximum concentration of 710mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,200 mg/kg.Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kg, with a calculated 95%UCL of the mean concentration of 7.8 mg/kg at Site 7. Six of the eleven arsenic results exceededthe ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg arsenic. However, the observed arsenicconcentrations in soil are consistent with site background levels, are not associated with a pointsource of contamination, and do not appear associated with past military activity. PCBs were notdetected in any Site 7 samples. No other analytes were detected in the soil samples atconcentrations exceeding the cleanup levels.After the 2003 removal action, MWH collected five confirmation soil samples from the edges ofthe concrete pad excavation and one sample from beneath the excavated drum (see Figure 4).The soil samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, PCBs, and TAL metals. One sample containedDRO at 570 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,200mg/kg. This detection may correspond to leakage from a community fuel pipeline present at theedge of the pad. The five samples near the concrete pad contained arsenic levels ranging from4.2 to 34.9 mg/kg, which exceeds the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg, andmay correspond to leached preservative from the treated timbers used as a form surrounding theconcrete pad. The arsenic concentrations are also significantly higher than site backgroundconcentrations and may pose a risk to human health and the environment.Page 32 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 8. Sampling Results at Site 7 during 1994 investigationSS40,SB17MW24MW25SoilSS41(mg/kg)Arsenic3.0 – 4.02.0 – 5.42.0 – 4.01.0 – 2.0DRO1,950–ND20–94120–2712,090GRONDNDNDNDTRPH1,800–ND–4713–180400–1,3004,300BenzeneND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.005) ND(0.005)MW26MW272.0 – 5.4NDCleanupLevel11 d10,250 aScreeningLevel2.0 b100 c2.018–1,840ND115–13,000ND(0.005)NDND–1621,400 aNA100 c2,000 cND(0.005)150 a0.5 cScreeningLevel b2.0Notes: NA - not available, ND - not detected. mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)cADEC Interim Guidance, Level A soil cleanup targets (July 17, 1991)dsite backgroundTable 9. Sampling Results at Site 7 (2001 and 2003)SB118SB119SB120 SL001 SL002Soil(mg/kg)Arsenic6.3 –4.5 – 10.24.9 –34.99.67.39.8DROND45 - 67160 570100710GRONDNDNDNDNDRROND120 - 310ND1,300480BenzeneNDNDNDNDND(0.005)(0.008)(0.005) (0.02)(0.02)SL003SL004SL0054.227.93.2CleanupLevel a11 c1209911 VJ10,250 a250ND370ND(0.02)ND430ND(0.02)ND38 VJND(0.02)1,400 a10,000 a150 a30011,0000.2Notes: ND - not detected, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million), VJ – analyte positively identified, estimated value.a18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion (May 26, 2004)b18 AAC 75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to Groundwater (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundGroundwaterDuring the 1994 investigation, four monitoring wells were installed at Site 7 (see Figure 4).Three monitoring wells (MW24, MW25, MW27) encountered perched groundwater, but theywere essentially dry wells. The monitoring wells were installed by drilling down into the ice tocreate a reservoir which would collect melted groundwater. A fourth well (MW26) wasabandoned without collecting a groundwater sample due to lack of water. Suprapermafrostgroundwater was collected from the three wells, but the lack of water in these wells preventedstandard well development. The groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO,TRPH, priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. A sufficient quantity of water could not bewithdrawn from MW27, and the sample was only submitted for analysis of VOCs, DRO, andpriority pollutant metals. DRO, GRO and TRPH were detected in the groundwater. Benzene wasalso detected in monitoring well MW24. The DRO and benzene results exceed the ADEC TableC groundwater cleanup levels. Water sample turbidity ranged from 9.3 to 82.5 NephelometricTurbidity Units (NTUs). This suggests that the laboratory results included contributions fromsuspended solids. Table 10 summarizes the Site 7 groundwater results.Page 33 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 10. Sampling Results at Site 7 during 1994 investigationChemicalMW24MW25MW26MW27Groundwater (mg/L)DRO18.4GRO0.844TRPH4.2Benzene0.019Turbidity (NTUs)82.519.4--ND (0.0005)50.1------ADECCleanup Level a1.180.1031.1ND (0.0005)9.31.51.3NA0.0055bNotes: NA - not available, ND - not detected, NTU - nephelometric turbidity units, -- not analyzed formg/L – milligrams per liter (parts per million)a18AAC75 Table C cleanup levels (May 26, 2004)bgeneral standard for well samplingAdditional borings were drilled in 2001 to further investigate the potential for suprapermafrostgroundwater contamination, and to address continuing community concerns regarding Site 7.Three borings were drilled to permafrost (6.2, 7.2 and 10.0 feet bgs); but groundwater was notencountered in any of the soil borings.The supplemental investigation demonstrated that the groundwater at Site 7 is ephemeral, andsoil contamination is below cleanup levels. The risk of contaminant migration east towards theaquifer located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain is extremely low.Figure 4 – Sampling Locations at Site 7!<SB27-1HouseSB27-2!<!<SB27-3"Q" BuildingHouse!(SS41MW26!( SS40SB7-18!<A!<SB1707SL00107SL00207SL00307SL00407SL005!({0MW27!<SB7-19100FeetPage 34 of 66Former Concrete Pad(removed 2003)!( A!(!(!(A MW25A50FormerMW24!<Community fuel pipelineSB7-20Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.6.13 Sites 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D – West Beach AreaSite 8 includes the area surrounding the airstrip from west beach (north of the airfield), east tothe western edge of Troutman Lake, and south to the northern shore of North Nayvaghat Lakes.Exposed Marston matting debris (8A) is located along the eastern side of the airstrip. Buriedmiscellaneous metallic debris (8B) has been reported south of the old village area, includingnumerous 55-gallon drums and a Jeep. A Navy Landfill (8C) is located northwest of the formerCivil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) housing area and south of the village landfill. TheNavy reportedly constructed this landfill during their utilization of the former CAA housing area.The Navy landfill may have asbestos-containing materials (ACM). An Army landfill was alsoreportedly located northwest of the Nayvaghat Lakes area. A geophysical survey to determinethe extent of buried debris at the reported Army landfill was conducted in 1994. The surveyresults indicated no significant anomalies, confirming the reported Army landfill was not present.AirstripSmall-arms ammunition debris including intact 0.30 caliber rounds is also located along thebeach (8D) southwest of Troutman Lake. The buried debris is not eligible for further actionunder FUDS. FUDS Program Policy (ER 200-3-1), Chapter 3 (3-2.4.5 Building Demolition andDebris Removal Projects.) states that “Inherently hazardous BD/DR must present a clear danger,likely to cause, or having already caused, death or serious injury to a person exercising ordinaryand reasonable care.” In the OE Response ActionMemorandum for the Gambell Site, signed 16 October2003, it states on page 1 “During the EE/CA fieldinvestigation, ordnance was found at only one of theGambell sites (Area D), comprised solely of small armsammunition. Small arms ammunition does not presenta hazard to human safety, the environment, or publicinterest unless intentionally subjected to intense heat orother energetic activities.” Intentionally subjectingthese small rounds to intense heat is not exercisingSite8Aordinary and reasonable care.The Marston matting at Site 8A was abandoned inplace when the military demobilized from the area inthe late 1950s. The exposed Marston matting debris islocated in an area heavily traveled by local residentsusing all terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. The debrisposes a clear danger to local residents who frequentlytraverse the area on ATVs and snowmachines due tothe sharp and jagged edges which protrude above theground surface and large piles which create anavigation hazard during the winter when partiallycovered by snow.In 1999, OSCI removed surface debris from Site 8A,including scattered metal, small quantities of wood andconcrete, and an exposed layer of Marston mattingTroutmanLakeATVTrailSite 12North AreaSite 8D±0500 1,000FeetNorthNayvaghatLakesFigure 5 – Site 8 vicinity mapPage 35 of 66Site 12South AreaDecision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaapproximately 30 feet wide and 4,500 feet long along the eastern side of the airstrip. OSCI didnot complete the planned removal of the Marston matting because buried electrical linesprevented safe implementation of the field activities. Approximately 1,820 feet of exposed metalMarston landing mat remains at Site 8A.Earth Tech, Inc. recovered approximately 800 small arms ammunition rounds from Site 8D inJuly 2000, and shipped the material off-site to a facility in Colfax, Louisiana for disposal.Soil/GroundwaterA remedial investigation was completed in 1994 and included collection of limited soil andgroundwater samples at the reported Army landfill area located northwest of the NayvaghatLakes area. No samples were collected from other sub-areas of Site 8. The investigation resultsindicated that all detected analytes in soil/groundwater were below ADEC Table B cleanuplevels, based on the migration to groundwater pathway.Military MunitionsIn 2000, Earth Tech, Inc. surveyed Site 8D using metal detectors to locate possible ordnance andexplosive materials. Highly weathered small arms rounds were documented in a beach burial pitsouthwest of Troutman Lake. Approximately 800 small arms ammunition rounds wererecovered from the surface of Site 8D and shipped off-site to a facility in Colfax, Louisiana fordisposal. An OE Response Action Memorandum dated August 2003 documented the selectedordnance and explosives response actions for the Gambell site. Institutional controls wereapproved to manage any existing ordnance-related hazards and residual risks. The institutionalcontrols were implemented during the summer of 2004 and consisted of distributinginformational pamphlets and posters about ordnance risks to local residents and businesses andholding a community meeting. An initial review to evaluate the continued effectiveness andreliability of the ordnance response action will be conducted in 3 years. After the initial reviewhas been conducted, recurring reviews will be performed at 5-year intervals. The need forrecurring reviews will be coordinated with regulators and stakeholders and justified in eachrecurring review report.1.6.14 Site 9 – Asphalt Barrel CacheSite 9 is located on the east side of the local airport runway. Drums of leaking tar were observedin two areas. A debris inventory prepared by Montgomery Watson in 1997 indicated drumscontaining asphalt (6,200 estimated pounds) and empty drums (900 pounds) were located withinSite 8, which includes the area referred to as Site 9.OSCI overpacked and removed nine drums of asphalt (4,458 pounds) and associated stained soils(4,790 pounds) from east of the runway during the 1999 removal action. All empty drums werealso removed. All unsafe debris and contaminated soil have been removed from the site.SoilOSCI collected one confirmation soil sample after removing the asphalt drums and stained soil.The sample was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, SVOCs,Page 36 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaPCBs, pesticides, and metals. The results indicated that all analytes were either not detected orbelow the ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway.In 2001, two additional soil samples were collected to verify the 1999 results. The samples wereanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), and RCRA metals. Arsenic wasdetected at concentrations of 5.3 and 6.8 mg/kg, which exceeds the ADEC Table B ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. However, the levels are consistent with site background levels anddo not appear associated with past military activity. All other analytes were either below thecleanup levels or not detected.1.6.15 Site 10 – Sevuokuk Mountain TrailSite 10 consists of a trail system that originates at the southeast end of Troutman Lake andseparates into individual trails to the north, south, and east. Two trails lead to the top ofSevuokuk Mountain. Empty 55-gallon drums located approximately 250 feet apart marked thetrails. Other debris at the site included Marston matting and weasel tracks. No staining orstressed vegetation was observed during the initial remedial investigation and the drums wereeither empty or contained gravel.In 1999, OSCI removed all the scattered drums (12,516 pounds), miscellaneous metallic debris(1,388 pounds), and a small amount (540 pounds) of stained soils from beneath the drums. Allunsafe debris has been removed from the site.1.6.16 Site 11 – Communications Cable RouteSite 11 contained a sonar cable going up Sevuokuk Mountain, abandoned cable spools, and aremnant of braided metal cable on top of the mountain. The only evidence of sonar cables weresome cable spools observed near Site 4D during the 1994 remedial investigation. OSCI removedthe debris at Site 4D during the 1999 removal action. The remaining debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.1.6.17 Site 12 – North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal SiteSite 12 is located north of Nayvaghat Lakes on the southwest side of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV)trail. The site is divided into a north and a south area. The north area contained approximately120 drums, battery remnants, and miscellaneous metal debris. The south area containedapproximately 50 drums. The area south of Troutman Lake is within the City of Gambellboundary. The area is currently used primarily for recreation, subsistence food gathering, and asa gravel borrow source. However, this site has the potential to be developed for residential usein the future, given the flat topography and close proximity to a new drinking water source.In 1999, OSCI removed contaminated soil and debris from the site including drums, dried paint,and batteries from large vehicles consistent with former military use. OSCI removed 798 poundsof miscellaneous metal debris; 7,104 pounds of drums; 1,598 pounds of RCRA hazardousmaterials (lead contaminated soil, lead acid batteries, and lead paint); and 7,237 pounds ofpetroleum-stained soil associated with the drums.Page 37 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilA remedial investigation was conducted in 1994; soil confirmation samples were collectedfollowing the 1999 removal action. Additional investigation was performed in 2001.Three surface and two subsurface soil samples were collected in 1994. The soil samples wereanalyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Except for arsenic,the concentrations of metals detected in the soil samples were below screening levels. Arsenicconcentrations ranged from 4 to 10 mg/kg, consistent with site background levels. No otheranalytes were detected in the soil samples. Three confirmation surface soil samples were alsocollected after completing the 1999 removal action. Arsenic, cadmium, lead, and DRO weredetected in soil at concentrations exceeding screening levels based on the ADEC Table Bcleanup levels, migration to groundwater pathway.In 2001, supplemental RI fieldwork was completed at Site 12 to verify the previous confirmationsampling results. Five surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, RRO), and RCRA metals. Chromium and lead exceeded the ADECcleanup levels. DRO and cadmium were not detected at concentrations exceeding the cleanuplevels. The arsenic levels at Site 12 are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity. The sampling results are summarized in Table 11. Noother analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC cleanup levels.Table 11. Confirmation Sampling Results at Site 12ChemicalCleanupRange ofRange of ResultsLevelResults(2001)(1999)Soil (mg/kg)Arsenic11 c3–66 – 9.4Cadmium5a0.18 - 142ND(0.2) – 1.6Chromium26 a2.6 - 205.7 – 162Lead400 b12.4 - 5627 – 1,530DRO250 a463ND(5) – 46Notes: ND - non detect, mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram (parts per million)a18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, migration to groundwater pathway(May 26, 2004)b18AAC75 Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, ingestion pathway (May 26, 2004)csite backgroundWaterDuring the 1994 remedial investigation, one surface water sample was collected from NorthNayvaghat Lake, and two groundwater monitoring wells were installed. The three water sampleswere analyzed for VOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. DRO andmetals were detected at low levels in surface water and groundwater, but did not exceed theADEC Table C cleanup levels.Page 38 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaFigure 6 – Site 12 vicinity mapSerstripTrailtn.MW18ASS47kM10ATV10AikuvuoSepticareaSS46MW17((!!"$)+99GAM009SLA01GAM012SS150SW165#*01GAM0123SS151$"+)Lakes99GAM919SLvaghatSS48Nay{01GAM012SS152!(+$)"99GAM011SL050100Feet1.6.18 Site 13 – Former Radar Power StationSite 13 is located east of the pond between Troutman and North Nayvaghat Lakes. The radarpower station consisted of two wooden Quonset huts, one long wooden building, and several 150foot towers that were reportedly demolished and buried on-site. Stained soils and miscellaneoussurface debris such as steel wire, pipes, and Marston matting were observed at the site.A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994 to determine the extent of buried debris. Thesurvey revealed strong anomalies around two mounds and scattered surface debris which areprobably related to significant amounts of buried material. In 1999, OSCI removed 343 poundsof miscellaneous metal debris from surface areas at Site 13. The buried debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.Page 39 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilTwo surface and five subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedialinvestigation. The subsurface soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons(GRO, DRO, TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. Surface soil samples were analyzedfor TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. No analytes, except arsenic, were detected atconcentrations exceeding ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwaterpathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2 to 6 mg/kg, with a calculated 95% UCL of themean concentration at Site 13 of 4.5 mg/kg, compared to the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanuplevel of 5.5 mg/kg.WaterThree monitoring wells were installed during the 1994 remedial investigation. Groundwater wasencountered from 2 to 4 feet bgs and samples from all 3 wells were analyzed for VOCs, GRO,DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. DRO (0.053 to 0.159 mg/L) and TRPH (0.2to 0.4 mg/L) were detected at low levels, but did not exceed ADEC Table C cleanup levels.1.6.19 Site 14 – Navy Plane Crash SiteSite 14 is located approximately 7 miles south of the Village of Gambell. A Navy P2V-5Neptune reconnaissance plane crash landed at this location in June 1955 after being attacked byRussian aircraft. The aircraft’s gasoline tank exploded and most of the fuels burned leaving noapparent stains or any stressed vegetation at the site. Debris remains on the tundra, in the areaimmediately surrounding the crash site.The plane crash location is outside the military property boundary identified for the Gambell site,and is therefore not eligible for action under the FUDS program. There is no reason to believehazardous materials are/were present.1.6.20 Site 15 – Troutman Lake Disposal SiteSite 15 was reported to contain submerged ordnance and other debris at the north end ofTroutman Lake. The underwater debris (miscellaneous metal debris) is not eligible for furtheraction under FUDS.Military MunitionsDuring 2000 and 2001, Troutman Lake was investigated using geophysical surveyingtechniques. The entire lake bottom was mapped along a series of transect lines, to detectunderwater anomalies representative of piles of steel ammunition boxes. Metallic anomaliesdetected by the equipment were then further investigated using ice augers, depth soundingequipment, poles, and an underwater video camera to determine the source of the metal signal.An open water investigation was also conducted to verify the anomaly source using dredginganchors, depth-sounding leads, and an underwater camera. Anomaly locations within 20 feet ofthe lakeshore were verified by visual inspection. The source of the magnetic anomalies rangedfrom runway matting and 55-gallon drums, to geologic features such as iron and fault features.No evidence of ordnance or large piles of ammunition boxes was discovered in Troutman Lake.Page 40 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaAdditional details regarding the ordnance investigation can be found in the report FinalEngineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (Earth Tech Inc., 2002).1.6.21 Site 16 – Gambell Municipal Building SiteSite 16 consisted of a 35 by 55-foot area of stained gravel, located immediately west of theMunicipal Building. The origin of the stain is unknown, and staining is most visible after arainfall event. A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994. The survey results revealed foursmall anomalies which may be related to buried materials. The buried debris is not eligible forfurther action under FUDS.SoilSurface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Foursurface soil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), andpriority pollutant metals. Three subsurface soil samples from one soil boring were analyzed forVOCs, GRO, DRO, TRPH, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Groundwater was notencountered in the soil boring. Arsenic results ranged from 2 to 7 mg/kg, with a calculated 95%UCL of the mean concentration at Site 16 of 5.4 mg/kg. Only 1 out of 7 samples exceeded theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. No other contaminants were identified atSite 16 above the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater pathway soil cleanup levels.In 2001, four additional soil borings were drilled at the site based on community concerns. Thesoil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs or BTEX,and TAL metals. No analytes (except arsenic) were detected in any sample above ADEC TableB cleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations rangedfrom 3.6 to 9.8 mg/kg. Only 1 sample exceeded the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity.1.6.22 Site 17 – Army LandfillsThe Army Landfills are located between the North Beach and Site 6 Military Landfill, which isnorth of the Gambell School and Municipal Building. The two landfills reportedly containedburied debris and/or trash, as well as exposed surface debris such as drums, Marston matting, andscrap metal. A geophysical survey of the area was conducted in 1994. The survey resultsindicated the potential for buried debris associated with the reported landfills. The remainingburied debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.Exposed miscellaneous surface debris, including nodwell tracks, Marston matting, steel cableand scrap metal, was removed by OSCI during the 1999 removal action. The actual tonnage ofdebris removed was combined with Site 6 for a total of 1,748 pounds.SoilSoil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. Five soil borings werecompleted to permafrost (7.5 to 10.5 feet). Samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(GRO, DRO, TRPH), VOCs, PCBs, and priority pollutant metals. Arsenic ranged from 2 to 6Page 41 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskamg/kg in soil, compared to the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Only 1sample out of 13 exceeded the ADEC cleanup level. The arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected in soil above ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels.WaterMonitoring wells were not installed at the site because well completion was impractical. Meltedporewater samples were collected through the auger and submitted for analysis of VOCs, PCBs,petroleum hydrocarbons (GRO, DRO, TRPH), and priority pollutant metals. No groundwatercontaminants exceeded the ADEC Table C cleanup levels.1.6.23 Site 18 – Former Main CampSite 18 is located at the northeast end of Troutman Lake, between the current Municipal Buildingand the Gambell School. A geophysical survey was conducted in 1994 to determine the presenceof buried debris. The survey showed a linear anomaly in the center of the survey grid, betweenthe high school and the washeteria. This feature was thought to represent water delivery lines forthe existing Power Plant. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilSoil samples were collected during the 1994 remedial investigation. One soil boring was drilledsouth of the anomaly due to the reported burial of discarded underground storage tanks in thevicinity. Subsurface soil samples and melted porewater were collected and analyzed for VOCs,petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, TRPH), priority pollutant metals, and PCBs. No analyteswere detected above screening levels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwaterpathway cleanup levels. Arsenic concentrations in soil ranged from 2 to 5 mg/kg, and did notexceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level.During the 2001 investigation, further sampling was conducted at Site 18 based on communityconcerns. One soil boring was placed adjacent to the north fence of the Municipal WaterTreatment/Washeteria Complex. The soil boring, 18A-1, was advanced to 17.5 feet belowground surface, and two soil samples were collected near the bottom of the boring at 12 and 14 ftbgs. The samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, andTAL metals. DRO was detected at concentrations ranging from 54 to 640 mg/kg in subsurfacesoil, which does not exceed the ADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg.Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 5.6 to 5.9 mg/kg, which slightly exceeds theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. Arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected above screening levels based on the ADEC Table B migration to groundwatercleanup levels.GroundwaterIn 2001, one well point was also installed at the location of soil boring 18A-1 and free productwas observed. The free product recovered from the well point appeared clear and clean, and hadthe strong odor of fresh fuel, features not typical of degraded fuels from previous militaryactivities. The free product was not sampled because the origin of the fuel was believed to bePage 42 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskanon-military. In 1997, the City of Gambell lost a reported 10,000 gallons of fuel while pumpingfuel from the north beach (via pipelines) to Site 18, the missing fuel was never located.Further investigation of the reported free product was conducted in July 2004. A well point wasinstalled in the same location as the previous well point. A groundwater sample was collectedand analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel. A complete fuel characterizationanalysis (fingerprint) was not possible because enough free product could not be extracted fromthe water sample. The water sample had a sheen, but no obvious free product layer. The samplecontained 22 mg/L TPH, and the peak distribution was characteristic of a light diesel such asarctic diesel. The laboratory narrative report indicated the sample from Site 18 wascharacteristic of other fresh fuels dispensed in the United States and had experienced, at most,mild degradation from environmental exposure, based on interpretation of the chromatogram.1.6.24 Site 19 – Diatomaceous EarthSite 19 was identified as a separate area of concern by the Native Village of Gambell under theNALEMP program. This area coincides with the description of Site 18 presented above. Awhite powdery material was observed in a berm which borders Troutman Lake, and wasdetermined to be inert, diatomaceous earth previously used for water filtration by the military.Diatomaceous earth is an inert material which does not pose a chemical hazard, and thus cannotbe addressed further under the FUDS program.1.6.25 Site 20 – SchoolyardSite 20 is located north of the former Main Camp (Site 18) near the current Gambell School.The schoolyard contained two rubble piles that consisted primarily of concrete and rebar, plus apartially exposed concrete slab. The piles presented a physical hazard to local residents such aschildren attending school, ATV and snowmachine traffic. The rubble piles and concrete padwere removed in August 2003 under the NALEMP program.1.6.26 Site 21 – Toe of Sevuokuk MountainSite 21 is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and southwest of Site 5, and is thought tocontain buried miscellaneous wire and metallic debris from military activities. The buried debrisis not eligible for further action under FUDS.1.6.27 Site 22 – Former CAA HousingFormer Civil Aeronautical Administration (CAA) Housing units are located near the northeastedge of the Old Gambell section of the village. The CAA housing area consists of six homes andone lodge originally built as a weather data collection facility to help guide Russian pilots duringWorld War II. The Navy and Army also reportedly used the housing area in the Cold War eraduring their efforts to lay submarine detection cables off the coast of St. Lawrence Island. Thissite was identified as a concern under the NALEMP program due to the possibility that asbestoscontaining materials may be present in the structures.Page 43 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaThe buildings are presently occupied and/or owned by local residents, thus they do not qualifyfor further action under FUDS due to beneficial reuse.1.6.28 Site 23 – Debris from High School ConstructionSite 23 was identified by local residents as a concern in the Strategic Project ImplementationPlan (SPIP) produced for the NALEMP program. The area is located due east of the Gambelllandfill and consists of metallic debris that was originally unearthed during the construction ofthe Gambell High School. The City of Gambell moved the excavated debris to the local landfillfor reburial.Removal actions undertaken by current landowners are not eligible for reimbursement or furtheraction under FUDS. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.1.6.29 Site 24 – South of Municipal BuildingSite 24 is located south of the Municipal Building along the northern shore of Troutman Lake. Ageophysical survey of the site was conducted in 2000, and subsurface anomalies consistent withmetallic debris were found. The buried debris is not eligible for further action under FUDS.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, one soil boring was drilled to frozen soil.Two soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO),VOCs, and TAL metals. The soil samples contained arsenic at concentrations of 5.7 and 6.3mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appearassociated with past military activity. Fuels were not detected in the soil samples. No otheranalytes were detected at concentrations exceeding the ADEC Table B migration to groundwatercleanup levels.1.6.30 Site 25A – Village of Gambell South Housing UnitsLocal residents identified the south housing units, Site 25A, during the 2001 investigation as anarea that may be contaminated by fuel-related products of military origin. During constructionwork performed in 1997 by Alaska Village Safe Water, oily soils were encountered at thepermafrost interface. Residents are concerned that the military may have dumped barrels of oildirectly on the ground in this area.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental investigation, six soil borings were drilled to permafrost. Soilborings were selected based on the location of depressions and trenches identified on historicalaerial photographs, and disturbed ground identified by local residents. The field crew carefullyavoided buried utility corridors.Eighteen subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO, GRO, RRO), and BTEX. A subset of five samples was also analyzed for VOCs and TALmetals. The results were compared to the ADEC Table B cleanup levels based on the migrationPage 44 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskato groundwater pathway. Fuels, BTEX and VOCs were not detected above ADEC Table Bmigration to groundwater cleanup levels in any sample. Arsenic was detected at concentrationsfrom 2.2 to 19.2 mg/kg. Three of the five samples exceeded the ADEC Table B ingestioncleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with site background levels, are notassociated with a point source of contamination, and do not appear associated with past militaryactivity.1.6.31 Site 25B – Low Drainage Area Southwest of ArmoryLocal residents identified Site 25B during the 2001 supplemental investigation as an area wherecontaminants may migrate and accumulate. The site is located west of the Sivuqaq Lodge,southeast of the Gambell store and fuel storage tanks, and near a local church and Army Guardbuilding.SoilTwo soil borings were drilled to frozen soil (depth of 11 and 12 feet) to identify potentialcontamination. Six subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleumhydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO) and BTEX. One sample was also analyzed for PCBs. Thesoil sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. No analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding theTable B cleanup levels.1.6.32 Site 26 – Possible Debris Burial SiteSite 26 was identified from a 1953 aerial photograph as a possible debris burial feature. The siteis located east of the Gambell School near the Former Main Camp (Site 18). Local residentsreported finding metal debris, machinery, oily debris, and transformers in this vicinity.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, two soil borings were drilled to frozensoil. Four subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons(DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metals. Arsenic was detected at concentrations rangingfrom 3.6 to 7.7 mg/kg in surface and subsurface soils. One out of four samples exceeded theADEC Table B ingestion cleanup level of 5.5 mg/kg. The arsenic levels are consistent with sitebackground levels and do not appear associated with past military activity. No other analyteswere detected above the ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels.1.6.33 Site 27 – Drum Storage AreaAnalysis of an aerial photograph from 1955 indicated this location was a historical drum storagearea. The community was also concerned about an area of rust-stained soil at this site. The siteis located north of the former military power facility (Site 7), within the new housing area. Thedrums stored at this site have been removed.Page 45 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSoilDuring the 2001 supplemental remedial investigation, four soil borings were drilled to frozen soilto determine if contamination was present. Eight subsurface soil samples were collected andanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, PCBs, and TAL metals. Thesoil sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.4 to 16.9 mg/kg. Theobserved arsenic concentrations are consistent with site background levels, are not associatedwith a point source of contamination, and do not appear associated with past military activity.No other analytes were detected in the soil samples at concentrations above the ADEC Table Bcleanup levels based on the migration to groundwater pathway.1.6.34 Site 28 – Disturbed GroundSite 28 was identified from a 1972 aerial photograph as a disturbed area. This site is locatedsouth of Troutman Lake and west of an unnamed pond. The U.S. Army leased this area fromJanuary 1955 to May 1958 and utilized the area for communications.SoilDuring the 2001 supplemental investigation, two soil borings were advanced to frozen soil todetermine if contamination was present. Six subsurface soil samples were collected andanalyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, GRO, RRO), VOCs, and TAL metalsThe sampling results were compared with the ADEC Table B cleanup levels, based on themigration to groundwater pathway. Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 10 mg/kg. Thearsenic levels are consistent with site background levels and do not appear associated with pastmilitary activity. No other analytes in the soil samples exceeded the ADEC Table B migration togroundwater pathway levels.Page 46 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.7 Summary of Site RisksContaminants of concern were identified during the Remedial Investigation by comparison torisk-based screening levels and cleanup criteria. Screening levels were based on the moststringent Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) soil and groundwatercleanup levels promulgated in 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75.341 and 345. TheADEC regulates cleanup of contaminated sites in Alaska. The cleanup levels established by theADEC are based on an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occur undercurrent and future site conditions and are designed to be protective of human health and theenvironment. The cleanup level from Table B1 or B2 that applies at a site depends on theapplicable exposure pathway based on ingestion, inhalation, or the migration to groundwaterpathway.The soil cleanup standards regulations in Tables B1 and B2 of 18 AAC 75.341 set out threedifferent sets of soil cleanup standards based on climate variations ("zones") throughout the state.These zones were developed based on a sensitivity analysis of the factors affecting the migrationof contaminants through the soil into groundwater. The resulting three climate zones were:"Arctic" (continuous permafrost), "Under 40 Inch Zone" (that area of the state receiving less than40 inches of annual precipitation), and "Over 40 Inch Zone" (that area of the state receiving morethan 40 inches of annual precipitation). The Gambell Site is located in area which receives lessthan 40 inches of rainfall per year.Each zone was also assigned a conservative estimate of the reasonable exposure frequency tocontaminated soil for an individual within that geographic area. This analysis looked attemperature, snowfall, and ADEC's past risk assessment data within each zone. This analysisshowed that average temperature and snowfall uniquely affect potential exposure in Alaska. Theresulting exposure frequency values used to develop the soil cleanup standards for the Under 40Inch Zone was 270 days (90 days non-exposure time). Standardized default exposure parametersdeveloped by the United States Environmental Protection Agency were used except for exposurefrequency as outlined above. The target hazard quotient for non-carcinogenic compounds wasset a 1, and the target cancer risk was set at 1 x 10-5 for carcinogens. Cleanup levels werecalculated based on a 30-year exposure duration consisting of 6-years as a child and 24-years asan adult.The ADEC regulations consider three scenarios – ingestion (potential pathway of exposure tohazardous substances in soil through direct consumption of the soil), inhalation (potentialpathway of exposure to volatile organic hazardous substances in the soil through volatilization),or migration to groundwater (potential exposure to hazardous substances in soil through directingestion of groundwater contaminated with concentrations of hazardous substances at levelslisted in Table C at 18 AAC 75.345(b)(1) as a result of movement of hazardous substancesthrough soil to the groundwater). In general, the most stringent pathway is selected as thecleanup level, however, if a particular pathway is not applicable to a site, then the selectedcleanup level is based on the remaining exposure pathways contained in Table B.The selected soil cleanup levels for all sites in Gambell, with the exception of Site 12, are basedon the Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion soil cleanup levels. Site 12 is located in closePage 47 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaproximity to the local aquifer, and the Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Migration to GroundwaterPathway soil cleanup levels are applicable at these sites. The groundwater cleanup levelspromulgated by the State of Alaska in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C are based on drinking watercriteria, and utilize standard US EPA exposure assumptions (70 kg body weight, 30 yearsaveraging time – noncarcinogen, 70 years averaging time – carcinogen, 2 liters/day ingestionrate, 350 days/year exposure frequency, 30 years exposure duration, target hazard quotient of 1,and target cancer risk of 1x10-5).A comparison of the concentrations of contaminants of concern was presented in Section 1.6.The only sites with contamination remaining above soil cleanup levels are Site 7 and Site 12.Based upon the relatively small size of the contaminated source areas in comparison to thehabitats of ecological receptors, there is little potential for significant exposure of wildlife to thecontaminants. The potential for significant ecological impacts appears small. No threatened orendangered species commonly occur at the Gambell Sites.Page 48 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.8 Remedial Action ObjectivesSpecific remediation alternatives were developed and evaluated for contaminants of concern(COCs) at the Gambell site. The remedial action objectives are:At Site 7, protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk from potentialexposure to arsenic. Eliminate exposure via incidental ingestion of soils by removingsoils which exceed the site background level of 11 mg/kg arsenic.At Site 12, protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk from potentialexposure to chromium and lead. Eliminate exposure via incidental ingestion of soils ormigration to groundwater by removing soils which exceed the cleanup levels of 400mg/kg lead and 26 mg/kg chromium;Restore contaminated soils for future residential land use; andRemove exposed military debris which poses a clear danger, likely to cause death orserious injury to persons exercising ordinary and reasonable care.As part of the remedial investigation process, contaminants of concern were identified through acomparison of contaminant levels to risk-based screening levels and applicable regulatorycleanup levels. The primary COCs for soil at Gambell are arsenic at Site 7 and lead andchromium at Site 12. Contaminants at the other Gambell sites either do not exceed establishedcleanup levels, or exist in de-minimus quantities. The risks are below the target threshold of 1 x10-5 and result in no further action decisions for the remaining sites. These sites are available forunrestricted use.The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) regulates cleanup ofcontaminated sites, and has established soil and groundwater cleanup levels in 18 AlaskaAdministrative Code (AAC) 75.340 and 345. Cleanup levels established following ADECregulations are based on an estimate of the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occurunder current and future site conditions. The cleanup levels are based on the most relevantexposure pathways at each site. The ADEC regulations consider three scenarios – migration togroundwater, ingestion, and inhalation. In general, the most stringent pathway is selected as thecleanup level, however, if a particular pathway is not applicable to a site, then the selectedcleanup level is based on the remaining cleanup levels contained in Table B. The selected soiland groundwater cleanup levels for all sites are risk-based and designed to be protective ofhuman health and the environment.The soil cleanup goals for Site 7 (Table 12) are based on the ADEC Table B2 ingestion pathwaysoil cleanup levels. The migration to groundwater pathway is not applicable at Site 7 due to thepresence of continuous permafrost which acts as a barrier to contaminant migration, and thesporadic presence of suprapermafrost groundwater at this site. The arsenic cleanup level of 11mg/kg represents the site background concentration.Page 49 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 12Site 7 Soil Cleanup LevelsArsenic a11 mg/kgDRO b10,250 mg/kgRRO b10,000 mg/kgSources:asite backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The soil cleanup goals for Site 12 (Table 13) are based on the ADEC Table B1 and B2 migrationto groundwater and ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels. Site 12 is located due south ofTroutman Lake, and the groundwater table is in close connection to surface waters.Table 13Site 12 Soil Cleanup LevelsArsenic a11 mg/kgCadmium b5 mg/kgChromium b26 mg/kgLead b400 mg/kgDRO b250 mg/kgRRO c10,000 mg/kgSources:asite backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Migration to Groundwater Pathway (May 26, 2004)c18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone,Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The soil cleanup levels for Sites requiring No Further Action (Table 14) are based on the on theADEC Table B ingestion pathway soil cleanup levels. The migration to groundwater pathwaywas determined to be not applicable due to the presence of continuous permafrost which acts as abarrier to contaminant migration, and the sporadic presence of suprapermafrost groundwateracross the Gambell sites.Table 14Soil Cleanup Levels for Sites Requiring NFADRO b10,250 mg/kg Chromium b300bRRO10,000 mg/kg Copper b4,060Antimony b41 mg/kg Lead b400aArsenic11 mg/kg Mercury b18Beryllium b200 mg/kg Nickel b2,000Cadmium b100 mg/kg Selenium b510mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgSources: a site backgroundb18 AAC 75, Table B, Under 40 Inch Zone, Ingestion Pathway (May 26, 2004)The site background concentration for arsenic was determined based on an analysis of area-widearsenic concentrations, established background levels at other sites on St. Lawrence Island, andstate-wide arsenic background levels. Of all the samples collected in Gambell with detections ofarsenic, 96.6% of the results were below 11 mg/kg, the established background concentration ofarsenic at Northeast Cape on St. Lawrence Island for gravel soils is 11 mg/kg, and the averagearsenic concentration in Alaska ranges from 6.7 to 9.6 mg/kg (USGS 1988). At Site 12,Page 50 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskapreviously detected arsenic concentrations ranged from 3 to 10 mg/kg. At Site 7, previouslydetected arsenic concentrations ranged from 1 to 10.2 mg/kg, with the exception of the 2 datapoints identified as highly anomalous in the 2003 confirmation sampling results.The soil cleanup levels for all other sites in Gambell are based on the ADEC Table B cleanuplevels, under 40 inch zone, ingestion pathway, as promulgated in 18 AAC 75.341. These sitesrequire no further remedial action, based on an evaluation of current site conditions and samplingdata results, as presented in Section 2.7. In general, continuous permafrost acts as a barrier forsoil contaminant migration. However, migration of contaminants can occur as groundwatertravels in the active lens above the permafrost layer (suprapermafrost groundwater).Suprapermafrost groundwater occurs sporadically within the village of Gambell (i.e. in thevicinity of Sites 6, 7, 16, 17, 18). The groundwater flow direction from these areas is to thenorth, towards the Bering Sea. The groundwater aquifer that supplies drinking water to thecommunity is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, approximately 1,500-2,000 feet east ofthe village.Sites 4A and 4B, located at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, are beyond the likely recharge areafor the village water supply. These sites are situated on bedrock. Very little soil is found at thetop of Sevuokuk Mountain and groundwater is expected to run off the side of the mountain orenter bedrock fractures. It is unlikely that groundwater from Sites 4A and 4B could impact thedrinking water aquifer at the base of the mountain.Page 51 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.9 Description of AlternativesThe Corps of Engineers considered the following remedial alternatives for each site:No Further Action. No further action (NFA) is a response action selected when no additionalremedial actions are necessary to protect human health and the environment, based onestablished cleanup levels and regulatory standards. NFA is also used as a baseline to compareother responses.Institutional Controls. Institutional controls make use of restrictions to minimize exposure tocontaminants at a site. The restrictions can be physical, such as erecting a fence, or take the formof land management practices, such as requiring special building permits or not allowinginstallation of new wells in a particular area.Site-specific Actions. A feasibility study (FS) evaluated alternatives for Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, 8,and 12. These sites were recommended for potential remedial action based on the remedialinvestigation completed in 2002 which identified areas with petroleum and/or metalscontaminated soils. An evaluation of the site-specific exposure pathways indicated that ingestionof soils was the most relevant exposure pathway for Sites 4A, 4B, 6, 7, and 8. The level ofpetroleum contamination in soils at these sites do not exceed ADEC Table B cleanup levelsbased on the ingestion pathway. Therefore, the FS provided a detailed analysis of fouralternatives for the two remaining areas of concern, Sites 8 and 12.In 2003, a concrete pad was removed from Site 7. Confirmation samples collected fromunderneath the removed concrete pad indicated residual levels of arsenic which weresignificantly higher than site background and exceeded the ADEC risk-based cleanup level. TheFS was not updated to evaluate remedial alternatives for the arsenic-contaminated soil at Site 7.The No Further Action alternative was rejected for Site 7 because the chemical risk posed tohuman health and the environment would not be addressed since no actions would be taken toreduce the volume of arsenic contaminated soil. The alternative that is protective of humanhealth and the environment, complies with ARARs, and is cost effective, is excavation and offsite disposal in a permitted landfill, based on the small estimated quantity of contaminated soils.Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 2 - Debris Removal at Site 8Alternative 3 - Debris Removal at Site 8 and Soil Removal at Sites 7 and 12Alternative 4 - Debris Removal at Site 8, Soil Removal at Site 7, and In-situ Treatment ofContaminated Soil at Site 12Page 52 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.10 Comparative Analysis of AlternativesThe Corps of Engineers evaluated the remedial alternatives based on the nine evaluation criteriaestablished under CERCLA. The comparative analysis describes how each of the alternativesmeets the CERCLA evaluation criteria relative to each other.1.10.1 Threshold CriteriaThe remedial alternatives were first evaluated by comparison with the threshold criteria: overallprotection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The thresholdcriteria must be fully satisfied by candidate alternatives before the alternatives can be givenfurther consideration in the remedy selection process.Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentAlternative 1 is protective of human health and the environment and complies with ARARs forSites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, and 28.Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the chemical risk posed to human health and theenvironment since no actions would be taken to address the lead and chromium contaminatedsoil at Site 12 or the arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7. Alternative 3 would be protectivebecause the lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and the arsenic contaminated soil atSite 7 would be permanently removed and disposed off-site. Alternative 4 would be protective,because the lead contamination would be chemically bound with a reagent to reduce theleachability of the lead.Compliance With ARARsThis criterion addresses whether each alternative will meet all of the applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes or provides a basisfor invoking a waiver. All alternatives, except the no action alternative, had common ARARsassociated with the excavation of contaminated soil. The applicable requirements include thosecleanup standards promulgated by the State of Alaska in 18 Alaska Administrative Code 75.341and 345.Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce or remove lead and chromium in soil at Site 12, would notreduce or remove arsenic in soil at Site 7, would not meet state cleanup levels, and wouldtherefore not meet ARARs. Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs since the lead andchromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and the arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7 would beremoved and disposed off-island. Alternative 4 would also comply with ARARs, but additionaltests would have to be performed on the solidified soil following treatment to document thereduced leachability of the lead. Institutional controls would also be needed to verify theintegrity of the solidified material over time, and to control future landuse in the immediatevicinity.1.10.2 Balancing CriteriaFor those alternatives satisfying the threshold criteria, five primary balancing criteria are used toevaluate other aspects of the potential remedies. No single alternative will necessarily receivePage 53 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathe highest evaluation for every balancing criterion. This phase of the comparative analysis isuseful in refining the relative merits of candidate alternatives for site clean up. The five primarybalancing criteria are: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility,or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost.Long-Term EffectivenessThis criterion addressed the results of each alternative with respect to the risk remaining at thesite after the conclusion of the remedial action. Evaluation of this criterion includes anassessment of the magnitude of the residual risk from untreated waste or treatment residuals. Italso includes an assessment of the adequacy, reliability, and useful life of any controls that are tobe used to manage hazardous substances that remain on site after the remediation.Alternative 3 has the greatest long-term effectiveness because this alternative has the highestpotential to permanently remove the lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12 and thearsenic contaminated soil at Site 7. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide the least long-termeffectiveness since neither includes action to reduce the amount of lead and chromiumcontaminated soil or the arsenic contaminated soil. Alternative 4 is less effective thanAlternative 3 over the long-term because it leaves the treated soil on-site. The solidified materialhas the potential to degrade over time in the harsh arctic climate due to continuous freeze thawcycles. Alternative 4 has a long-term effectiveness that is greater than Alternatives 1 and 2,because Alternative 4 treats the lead contaminated soil in-situ and reduces its leachability.Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through TreatmentEvaluation of this criterion included: an assessment of the treatment processes to be employed byeach remedial action and the types of wastes they would treat; the amount of waste that would bedestroyed or treated; and the projected amount of reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume.Also considered in this assessment is whether the alternative would satisfy the expressedpreference of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 121, forremedial actions that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous waste.Alternatives 1 and 2 do not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the lead and chromiumcontaminated soil or the arsenic contaminated soil. Alternative 3 reduces the volume ofcontaminants left on site through removal. Alternative 4 reduces the mobility and toxicity of thelead through chemical treatment.Short-Term EffectivenessThe potential health effects and environmental impacts of each alternative action duringconstruction and implementation were evaluated by this criterion. The factors assessed in thisevaluation include the protection of the community and site workers during implementation andconstruction, environmental impacts during implementation, and the estimated time required tomeet cleanup standards. None of the alternatives represent an unacceptable risk to thecommunity, workers or the environment during implementation and can be effectively managedby following a health and safety plan and using appropriate personal protective equipment tominimize exposure of site workers to contaminants. Additional measures such as use of safetyfencing/flagging would be taken to prevent residents from entering the areas duringimplementation of the alternative. Excavation of the contaminated soil at Sites 7 and 12 underAlternative 3 would involve about 4 days of field work. Under Alternative 4, treatment of thePage 54 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskacontaminated soils at Site 12 would require about 5 days of field work, plus 2 days to excavatesoil at Site 7.ImplementabilityAll of the alternatives can be implemented using commercially available services. Alternative 1and 2 could be easily implemented and few technical challenges would be expected. Alternative3 is more challenging. This alternative includes excavation and off-Island disposal of the metalscontaminated soil, and coordinating remote site logistics. Alternative 4 would be the mostchallenging to implement. Alternative 4 would require the application and mixing of a reagentwith the lead contaminated soil, utilization of additional equipment, additional laboratory testing,and increased time in the field. Alternative 4 would also require long term monitoring to ensurethe solidified material remains intact into the future and institutional controls which limit futuredevelopment at the site.Disposal sites are not available within Alaska but are available outside of Alaska in the lower 48United States. However, alternatives involving off-Island disposal could be implemented in onefield season. The in-situ treatment alternative cannot be effectively implemented at this site.CostsAlternative 1 has the lowest cost ($46,400) and Alternative 2 has the second lowest cost($460,900). Alternative 4 has the highest costs ($555,600) and Alternative 3 has the secondhighest cost ($538,200). Overall, the additional cost to remove and dispose of the lead andchromium contaminated soil is not significantly higher than Alternative 2 (Remove of ExposedDebris Only) and is less than Alternative 4 (Treat Contaminated Soil In-situ).The costs shown in Table 15 are based on the best available information regarding theanticipated scope of the remedial alternatives. The cost estimates were prepared to guide projectevaluation and implementation. Changes in the cost elements are likely to occur as a result ofnew information and data collected during the engineering design of the remedial alternative.This is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is expected to be within +50 to –30percent of the actual project costs.Page 55 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaCriteriaOverallProtectivenessCompliance withARARsShort-termeffectivenessTable 15. Comparative Analysis of AlternativesAlternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Remove Exposed Debris(Site 8A), RemoveRemove Exposed Debris Arsenic-ContaminatedNo ActionOnlySoil (Site 7), Remove(Site 8A)Lead and ChromiumContaminated Soil(Site 12)No risk reduction.Reduces human healthNo risk reduction Reduces physical hazardrisk posed byposed by debris.contaminated soil.NoNot applicableLong-termeffectivenessNoneReduction ofToxicity,Mobility, orVolumeNoneImplementabilityNo technical oradministrativeissuesCost$46,400NoYesYesManageable with healthand safety workplan.Reduces leachability oflead and eliminates humanDoes not eliminateEliminates human health health risks due to arsenic.human health risk posedrisks posed byIncreased potential forby contaminated soil.contaminated soil.degradation of thesolidified material giventhe harsh arctic climate.No treatment ofcontaminated soils, butReduces mobility of leadNone.volume left on-site isin contaminated soil area.reduced by landfilldisposal.More complex toimplement soil treatment ata remote site with noreadily available servicesNo technical issues,No technical issues, someor equipment. Treatmentsome coordination with coordination with Dept.technique requiresDept. of Transportationof Transportationmonitoring, institutionalrequired for debrisrequired for debriscontrols, and additionalremoval near runway.removal near runway.trips to the site, thusincreasing cost and risk ofalternative not meeting riskreduction objectives.$460,900$538,200$555,600No short-term risks.Page 56 of 66Manageable with healthand safety workplan.Alternative 4Remove Exposed Debris(Site 8A), Remove ArsenicContaminated Soil (Site 7),and In-Situ Treatment ofLead and ChromiumContaminated Soil (Site12)Reduces human health riskposed by contaminatedsoil.Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.10.3 Modifying CriteriaState AcceptanceThe State of Alaska, through the Department of Environmental Conservation, concurs with theselected remedial responses of soil excavation at Sites 7 and 12, debris removal at Site 8A, and adetermination of no further action at the remaining sites. However, the ADEC has requested theremaining small arms ammunition debris at Site 8D be removed. The decision may be reviewedand modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence ofpreviously undiscovered contamination or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to humanhealth or the environment.Community AcceptanceBased on written and oral comments received from RAB members, local residents, local Nativecorporation representatives, nonprofit environmental groups, and the RAB’s technical advisorduring the public comment period on the Proposed Plan, there appears to be support from the localcommunity for the Preferred Alternative at Sites 7, 8A, and 12. However, there is somedisagreement with the selected alternative of no further action for all remaining sites, due toconcerns that inadequate site characterization was conducted at the Gambell site, inadequate sitespecific background metal concentrations were defined, and a desire for additional assurances thatsites won’t pose a threat in the future due to changing climate conditions, melting of permafrost,undetected contaminants, and contaminant migration. The community also requested additionalyearly groundwater monitoring events into the future at Site 5 and throughout the Gambell area,for a broader list of analytes. The Corps of Engineers will conduct additional investigation of thegroundwater quality at Site 5, to demonstrate compliance with ADEC groundwater cleanup criteriain 18 AAC 75.345 Table C or establish a concentration trend for petroleum hydrocarbons. A finaldecision on any appropriate remedial action at Site 5 will be made in the future. The community isalso concerned that buried military debris may become exposed in the future through erosion, frostheaving, or changing permafrost conditions and impact construction activities or resident’s safety.The FUDS program cannot address these concerns directly, since the buried debris has not beenassociated with soil contamination or migration. The debris impacts are documented in the NativeAmerican Environmental Tracking System (NAETS) database and will be addressed by the NativeAmerican Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP), subject to eligibility and fundingconstraints. The Gambell NALEMP project is scoped to address surface/subsurface debrisremoval at the following sites: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24.In addition, USACE will develop a map for use by the community during construction activitieswhich depicts the general location of known buried military debris based on historic geophysicalsurveys and soil sampling results which exceed the Table B migration to groundwater pathwaycleanup levels.Detailed responses to each comment submitted on the Proposed Plan are contained in theResponsiveness Summary in the Appendix. The remedial alternatives were presented to thepublic at a Public Meeting held on July 21, 2004. The preferred alternatives presented at thepublic meeting were:Page 57 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaexcavation and removal of arsenic contaminated soil at Site 7,excavation and removal of lead and chromium contaminated soil at Site 12,one groundwater monitoring event at Site 5,removal of exposed debris at Sites 8A and 8D, andno further action for the remaining sites.Page 58 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.11 Principal Threat WastePrincipal threat wastes are those sources materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobilewhich generally cannot be contained in a reliable manner or would present a significant risk tohuman health or the environment should exposure occur. The primary contaminant source areasat the Gambell site (e.g., military debris, contaminated soil) have already been removed throughprevious removal actions. The remaining wastes do not constitute principal threat wastes basedon the relatively low toxicity and mobility of the contaminants in the surface soils.Page 59 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.12 Selected RemedyThe selected remedy is the final remedial action for 37 areas of concern at the Gambell FUDSsite. One area of concern will be considered under a future decision document. The remedyconsists of: no further action at 34 locations, removal of inherently hazardous military debris atone location, and excavation of contaminated soils at two locations. All debris and contaminatedsoils will be shipped off-Island for recycling or disposal at a permitted landfill. The selectedremedial alternatives for the 37 sites are:No Further Action at Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9, 10,11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28Excavate and off-Island disposal of approximately 4 tons of arsenic-contaminated soilwhich exceeds 11 mg/kg at Site 7Removal and off-Island disposal of approximately 50 tons of exposed Marston matting atSite 8AExcavate and off-Island disposal of approximately 4 tons of lead and chromiumcontaminated soil which exceeds 400 mg/kg and 26 mg/kg, respectively at Site 12No Further Action SitesThe selected remedy of no further action for Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 6, 8B,8C, 8D, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 26, 27, 28 is protectiveof human health and the environment and satisfies all applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements.Site 7Excavate approximately 4 tons of arsenic-contaminated soil, which exceeds the cleanup level of11 mg/kg, from around the edges of the former concrete pad location. Dispose of soil at an offsite landfill. Collect confirmation samples and analyze for arsenic. This alternative is protectiveof human health and the environment because it permanently reduces the risk posed by the soilcontaining elevated arsenic. The no further action alternative was rejected because it would notmeet established regulatory criteria, or reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminatedsoil. Implementation of institutional controls or access restrictions is infeasible for the sitebecause it is located in a high-traffic, residential area of town.Site 8ARemove approximately 50 tons of exposed Marston matting along the east side of the runway.Transport the debris to an off-site landfill or recycling facility. This alternative will involvepicking up and consolidating the Marston matting. The Alaska District will coordinate with theAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and/or the Federal AviationAdministration during removal of the exposed debris to ensure airport operations are notdisrupted. This alternative effectively reduces the long-term physical hazard posed by the debris.Other alternatives were considered and rejected during the feasibility study phase. The exposeddebris would continue to pose a physical hazard to local residents if no further action is taken.Site controls such as installation of fencing near the runway at Site 8A would requirecoordination with and approval from the landowner, the Alaska Department of TransportationPage 60 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaand Public Facilities and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. Construction of fencing mayadversely affect maintenance of airport lighting/navigation aids or snow removal activities.Access restrictions were not retained for further evaluation.Site 12Excavate approximately 4 tons of lead and chromium contaminated soil, which exceeds thecleanup level of 400 mg/kg for lead and 26 mg/kg for chromium, and transport it off-site fordisposal at a permitted landfill. Collect confirmation samples and analyze for arsenic, lead,cadmium, chromium, DRO, and RRO. Excavation and off-site disposal of soil will permanentlyreduce the potential risk posed by contaminated soils at Site 12.The no further action alternative was rejected because it would not reduce the risk associatedwith the lead-contaminated soil. There would be no reduction in the toxicity, mobility, orvolume of contaminated soil. This alternative would not meet established regulatory criteria.Implementation of institutional controls or access restrictions was determined to be infeasible forthe site. In-situ treatment of the contaminated soils was also considered, but ultimately rejecteddue to challenges in implementation at a remote site and additional testing requirements.Cost Estimate for the Selected RemedyThe information in the cost estimate summary table is based on the best available informationregarding the anticipated scope of the remedial alternative. Changes in the cost elements arelikely to occur as a result of new information and data collected during the engineering design ofthe remedial alternative. Major changes may be documented in the form of a memorandum inthe Administrative Record. This is an order-of magnitude engineering cost estimate that isexpected to be within +50 to –30 percent of the actual project cost. The costs shown in thissummary table have been updated to include supervision and administration costs.Page 61 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaTable 16. Cost Estimate Summary for the Selected RemedyRemedial ActionDescriptionWorkplansMobilizationField WorkDemobilizationLaboratory SamplesProject ReportingProject ManagementSUB TOTALSupervision and Administration (13%)TOTALCost$38,200$127,100$98,400$220,300$10,700$27,700$15,800$538,200$70,000$608,200Page 62 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.13 Statutory DeterminationsThe selected remedy satisfies the requirements under Section 121 of CERCLA and the NCP.The following section discusses how the selected remedy meets these requirements.The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies withapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.1.13.1 Protective of Human Health and the EnvironmentThe selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The current and futureexposure pathways are incidental ingestion of contaminated soil by local residents. The selectedremedy, by excavation and off-site disposal of soil, will eliminate the risk posed by thecontaminants of concern and achieve the risk-based cleanup levels promulgated by the State ofAlaska. Based on previous sampling results, the groundwater pathway does not pose a currentrisk to human health or the environment.1.13.2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsThe action-specific, chemical-specific, and location-specific applicable or relevant andappropriate requirements (ARARs) for the selected remedies are regulations promulgated by theState of Alaska in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 75, Sections 340 and341, as updated through May 26, 2004.The chemical-specific requirements for Site 7 are cleanup of contaminated soils to:10,250 mg/kg Diesel Range Organics10,000 mg/kg Residual Range Organicso Source: 18 AAC 75.341, Table B211 mg/kg Arsenico Source: 18AAC 75.340 (h)(1), site backgroundThe chemical-specific requirements for Site 12 are cleanup of contaminated soils to:5 mg/kg Cadmium26 mg/kg Chromium400 mg/kg Lead250 mg/kg Diesel Range Organics10,000 mg/kg Residual Range Organicso Source: 18 AAC 75.341, Tables B1 and B211 mg/kg Arsenico Source: 18AAC 75.340 (h)(1), site backgroundPage 63 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.13.3 Cost EffectivenessThe selected remedy represents the most cost-effective of the alternatives in comparison to theiroverall effectiveness proportional to their costs. The selected remedy provides the best longterm permanence and risk protection by removing contaminated soil which poses a risk to localresidents.Disposal sites are not available in Alaska but are available outside of Alaska in the lower 48Unites States. Debris removal activities could be completed in one field season, reducing theneed for additional site visits and mobilization costs. The in-situ treatment alternative cannot beeffectively implemented at this site given the complex remote site logistics.1.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to theMaximum Extent PracticableThe USACE and the State of Alaska have determined that the selected remedy represents themaximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a costeffective manner at the Gambell site. The on-site treatment alternative would be the mostchallenging to execute given the remote site conditions and requires additional testing,landowners’ consent, and implementation of institutional controls.1.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal ElementAlthough the selected alternative for the contaminated soil relies upon off-site disposal instead ofon-site treatment; the USACE and the State of Alaska have determined that this remedyrepresents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can beused in a cost effective manner at the Gambell site.1.13.6 Five-Year Review RequirementThe selected remedy will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminantsremaining on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.Therefore, a five-year review is not required.Page 64 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska1.14 Documentation of Significant ChangesThere were no significant changes between the Preferred Alternative that was submitted forpublic comment in the Proposed Plan and the Selected Remedy. The Corps of Engineers willconduct additional investigation of the groundwater quality at Site 5, to demonstrate compliancewith ADEC groundwater cleanup criteria in 18 AAC 75.345 Table C or establish a concentrationtrend for petroleum hydrocarbons. A final decision on any appropriate remedial actions at Site 5will be made after evaluating the investigation results.The proposed removal of small arms ammunition at Site 8D has been determined ineligible forthe FUDS program under the BDDR category, because the material does not meet the definitionof inherently hazardous debris, which presents a clear danger, likely to cause or having alreadycaused, death or serious injury to a person exercising ordinary and reasonable care. An ordnanceand explosives response decision, approved in August 2003, documented the appropriateresponse to be institutional controls focusing on providing community awareness and education,including ordnance information pamphlets and posters. The Corps of Engineers will recommendthat the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP) provide fundingto remove the remaining small arms ammunition at Site 8D to fully address the remainingcommunity and state concerns regarding the beach burial pit. The impacts at Site 8D areidentified in the Native Village of Gambell’s Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP),updated February 2005.Page 65 of 66Decision DocumentGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska2. Responsiveness SummaryThe primary avenues of public input have been through the Proposed Plan and public commentperiod. The Proposed Plan for Gambell was issued to the pubic on July 21, 2004. The publiccomment period was from July 21 through August 30, 2004. To encourage public comment, theUSACE inserted a pre-addressed form in distributed copies of the Proposed Plan. The commentforms were also distributed at the public meeting, held at City Hall in Gambell. The publicmeeting was attended by 14 people, including representatives from the Restoration AdvisoryBoard (RAB), the ADEC, and local residents. Oral comments were received at the meeting.Prior to the conclusion of the public comment period, 4 individuals submitted written comments.All comments received are documented in the administrative record file for the site. Detailedmeeting minutes from the public meeting are available to the public at the 4 informationrepositories. The repositories are located at the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, the Savoonga IRABuilding in Savoonga, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Northwest Campus Library in Nome,and the Alaska Resource Library and Information Services (ARLIS) in Anchorage. A completeresponse to public comments is contained in Appendix A.Page 66 of 66Appendix AResponsiveness SummaryAppendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaProposed Plan for Remedial Action, Gambell FUDS, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaJuly 2004Responses to Public Comments1) Comment (P. Miller):I remain concerned that residents of St. Lawrence Island (SLI) have not had sufficientopportunity or time to review and formally comment on this document. It is especiallycritical that people of SLI be given ample opportunity to comment, as this is a criticalphase of the CERCLA process. I suggest that the Corps of Engineers provide time at theSeptember 9 RAB meeting for additional public comments from RAB members and otherresidents on the proposed plan.Response:The comment period was initially extended from August 23, 2004 to August 30, 2004.During a Restoration Advisory Board meeting in Savoonga, AK on September 9, 2004,the Corps Project Manager stated that additional comments were always welcome, andmay be included in the Responsiveness Summary if received by the week of September20, 2004.2) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan for remedial action does not sufficiently respond to communityconcerns and some suggested courses of action. Particularly, the proposed plan does notprovide measures to ensure proper monitoring and protection of the community drinkingwater source. At least once yearly, water from monitoring wells in and around thevicinity of the community drinking water source should be sampled and analyzed forheavy metals, VOCs, pesticides, and PCBs.Response:The Corps will conduct additional investigation of the groundwater quality at Site 5. Aminimum of two monitoring events should provide the necessary information to assurethat the village water supply is not being affected by contaminants left by the military. Ifsignificant fuel contamination is found, further action may be warranted. A final decisionon Site 5 will not be made until after the additional groundwater monitoring is completed.The State of Alaska typically requires three or four sampling events to establish aconcentration trend. The FUDS program is not authorized to conduct prospectivegroundwater monitoring into the indefinite future. Long-term monitoring is typicallyconducted as part of a natural attenuation scenario whereby known contaminants are leftin place to degrade over time.3) Comment (P. Miller):During the public meeting, a Gambell resident raised a significant point about thevulnerability of the drinking water source because of the permeability of the gravelsubstrate and susceptibility to contamination from storm surges and flooding.Contamination can readily migrate in this environment. The sites cannot be viewed asAppendix APage 2 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaisolated from one another because the potential for cross contamination is high given thepermeability of the substrate.Response:We agree that the gravel substrate in Gambell is highly porous and the groundwatergradient is low. The predominant flow direction, however, is north towards the BeringSea. Salt-water intrusion is another likely impact from storm surge events, when flowdirections are periodically reversed. However, these events are rare and occur over shortperiods of time. There is no evidence of cross-contamination impacting the villagedrinking water supply.4) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan does not include adequate data to justify no further actiondeterminations for all but 4 of the 38 sites. Many of the sites warrant further investigationand cleanup.Response:The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) providedregulatory oversight during the remedial investigation and all subsequent phases of thecleanup activities. The ADEC concurs that additional investigation is not warranted atthese sites. Also, the Department of Defense’s NALEMP Program has included 25 ofthese sites for buried debris removal.5) Comment (P. Miller):The document must identify sources of contamination, including thallium, beryllium,arsenic, lead, chromium, VOCs, benzene, fuels, and PCBs. Pesticides should be includedamong the potential contaminants of concern (including DDT metabolites, mirex,endosulfan, lindane, and other pesticides known to be used during the time of the militaryoccupation) especially since we have reason to assume that DDT and possibly otherpesticides were used at the site.Response:The contamination identified in the Proposed Plan is primarily fuels and metals. Fuelswould have been used throughout the military installation, as a source of power forgenerators, heating, and vehicles. Metals such as lead and chromium are commonconstituents of batteries. Other metals are common components of alloys used inbuilding materials or equipment parts. PCBs are a known component of some oldlubricating and transformer oils but have not been documented at significantconcentrations in Gambell. Metals are also natural elements found in the earth’s crustand rock formations. Through the remedial investigation process, pesticides have notbeen identified as a potential contaminant of concern and would not be reasonablyexpected at the Gambell site.6) Comment (P. Miller):Analysis of historical records and interviews with former military personnel should bethoroughly conducted to determine other possible sources of contamination andcontaminants of concern.Appendix APage 3 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:The initial site inventory and planning phase of the project consisted of backgroundresearch, site reconnaissance, and interviews with local residents. In addition, aHistorical Time Sequence Aerial Photograph Analysis was conducted by the TopographicEngineering Center, this study included archival search of military records. As part ofthe ordnance investigation, an Archive Records Search was also conducted.7) Comment (P. Miller):The perception of most community members is that the Corps of Engineers has notadequately investigated reports of buried hazardous materials, including reports ofmunitions (including grenades and larger caliber UXO). Contamination may pose ahazard to health and safety, yet the concerns of the community have been too easilydismissed.Response: The Corps of Engineers has strived to be responsive to community concernsregarding buried hazardous materials or munitions. We have performed geophysicalsurveys and used heavy equipment to find such buried items, even re-checking areas.The Corps has also assigned QARs (Quality Assurance Representatives) to be on handduring removal actions to assure that a thorough debris removal job was accomplished.The Corps is greatly concerned about the public’s perception of our cleanup activities.We disagree that community members’ claims have been unreasonably dismissed, andwe continuously request input and feedback on site activities. We also have hired ageologist as a TAPP (Technical Assistance for Public Participation) advisor who canprovide additional technical assistance and interpretations to the community. We haveoffered suggestions on how to bring items to our attention, and we remain open to newevidence of buried debris or ordnance. We understand the community frustration that themilitary abandoned or buried its waste instead of removing it, and we diligently workthrough the FUDS program to evaluate the many leads we receive related to site cleanup.This includes investigating potential threats to human health and safety and theenvironment. In some areas, such as Troutman Lake, the potential for health or safetyhazards resulting from “undiscovered” ordnance remains so small that furtherinvestigations are just not warranted.8) Comment (P. Miller):In addition, although the Corps states that buried debris is not subject to remedial actionunder the FUDS program, the proposed plan must make provisions to remediate debrisand other hazardous material should it surface through erosion or frost heaving.Response:Program policy guidance for the FUDS program (ER 200-3-1) states that for eligibleBDDR projects, the conditions must have been hazardous as a result of prior DoD useand must have been inherently hazardous when the property was transferred or disposedof by GSA before 17 October 1986. The Proposed Plan cannot contain provisions for“what if” scenarios. In the future, if new evidence of military debris or hazardousmaterials becomes available, the data will be reviewed by the FUDS program todetermine if additional actions are necessary.Appendix APage 4 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska9) Comment (P. Miller):The proposed plan for remedial action must include provisions for sampling of indoor airfor volatile organics in the Gambell High School, other community buildings, and homesin the vicinity of the landfill and power facility sites (including sites 6, 7, and 17).Response:Volatile organic compounds have not been detected above cleanup levels in groundwateror soil samples collected at Sites 6, 7, and 17. There is no evidence to support indoor airsampling. The detected concentrations of volatile compounds in Gambell could notresult in significant indoor air pollution.10) Comment (P. Miller):Throughout the document, arsenic levels are considered “attributable to background” andnot of military source. In some cases, arsenic levels are averaged and no further action isjustified based on an average concentration. This is inappropriate and unjustified. Truebackground levels are not provided. Often arsenic levels exceed ADEC cleanupstandards. These sites should be remediated so that arsenic levels are below ADECcleanup standards.Response:It is appropriate to use average concentrations of arsenic on a site-specific basis. TheU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recommends calculating a reasonablemaximum exposure (RME) for residential scenarios. Thus, the RME for chronicexposure on a site-specific basis is estimated using an average concentration of achemical of concern. Average concentrations are typically derived by statistical methodsby calculating the 95% Upper Confidence Level on the arithmetic mean of a dataset.U.S. EPA’s Soil Screening Guidance Fact Sheet (July 1996) states that “For data sets oflesser quality, the 95% upper confidence level on the arithmetic mean of contaminant soilconcentrations can be compared directly to the SSLs [soil screening levels]. The TBD[Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (U.S. EPA 1996)] discussesstrengths and weaknesses of different calculations of the mean and when they areappropriate for making screening decisions.”Furthermore, according to Risk Assessment Handbook, Volume 1 Human HealthEvaluation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual EM 200-1-4 (January1999), background values should be expressed as the 95% upper confidence level on themean.Arsenic has been documented at levels above ADEC cleanup standards throughout thestate of Alaska. The ADEC recognizes that in some areas, naturally occurring levels ofarsenic are higher than the most stringent ADEC cleanup levels. The ADEC hasconcurred that arsenic below 10-15 ppm is not a concern. According to the USGS Report“Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surficial Materials of Alaska (1988), theaverage arsenic concentrations in the state ranged from 6.7 to 9.6 mg/kg (geometric andarithmetic mean). The calculated ambient concentration of arsenic at Northeast Cape onSt. Lawrence Island is 7.8 to 11 mg/kg (tundra and gravel soil).Appendix APage 5 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaA statistical evaluation of the entire dataset (232 data points) of arsenic concentrations(excluding all non-detects) in Gambell demonstrates that 96.6% of the data falls below10.6 ppm and 97.4% of the data fall below 13.1 ppm. This dataset includes locationswhich have been subsequently removed during remedial actions at the site (e.g., thesample result of 38 ppm at Site 4B from 1994), or are planned for removal (e.g.,confirmation sampling results from Site 7 in 2003 of 27.9 and 34.9 ppm). A histogram ofthe data distribution is shown below, with the number of samples in each evenly spaced“bin” (i.e., an equally spaced interval) shown. The average arsenic concentration is 5.0mg/kg, with a standard deviation of 4.2, and a 95% upper confidence level of 6.2 mg/kg(Chebyshev, non-parametric method).Histogram of Arsenic Concentrations9080 8180Frequency70605150Frequency403020100111211100100110.6 3.1 5.6 8.1 10.6 13.1 15.6 18.1 20.5 23.0 25.5 28.0 30.5 33.0 35.5 >36Results (mg/kg)11) Comment (P. Miller):The document should cite screening levels for all contaminants of concern. Further, it isincorrect to make the assumption that certain data points are simply outliers. Forexample, the Site 2 sampling in 1994 indicated that levels for lead and chromiumexceeded screening levels. 1996 samples were tested for lead only and do not provide abasis for assuming that levels for other contaminants are below the ADEC cleanupthreshold. Site 2 requires further investigation and cleanup. The NFA determination isunjustified.Response:Screening levels are provided throughout the document. In some cases, sampling resultsare compared to proposed cleanup levels only and the screening step is not shown.Environmental data is inherently variable and an assessment of data distribution is areasonable rationale for identifying certain constituents as anomalous (i.e., outliers). AtSite 2 in 1994, only one sample out of 13 contained metals, besides arsenic, aboveAppendix APage 6 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskascreening levels. This single sample had anomalous concentrations of both lead andchromium; other samples demonstrated a mostly sympathetic relationship between leadand chromium suggesting that where lead is low, chromium will be low. Furtherinvestigation was conducted to determine the extent of lead contamination surroundingthis particular sample, since lead was more highly anomalous. The sampling resultsindicated lead was well below screening levels. Since lead was not elevated during the1996 investigation, it is logical to assume that the chromium contamination was similarlybelow levels of concern. Any remaining chromium is likely isolated and present in deminimus quantities. A surface debris cleanup was also completed at this location in1999. No further sampling is recommended for Site 2, and the ADEC concurs with theNFA determination.12) Comment (P. Miller):Site 3, p 12. Thallium and beryllium exceeded screening levels and other metals(including mercury and others) have been detected. Results cannot be dismissed asanomalies. This site warrants further investigation and cleanup.Response:The additional investigation performed in 1996 confirmed that thallium and berylliumwere not present above method detection limits. The ADEC concurs with the NFAdetermination for Site 3.13) Comment (P. Miller):Site 4 A, p 14. Although the document states that no significant volume of contaminatedsoil remains at the site, elevated levels of contaminants are present. Remedial actionshould include complete removal of all contaminated soil and coverage/reclamation ofthe area with clean soils and re-vegetation.Response:This area is a rocky outcropping of bedrock at the top of Sevuokuk Mountain.Vegetation is not present and reclamation with clean soils and re-vegetation is neitherpractical nor in harmony with the natural landscape.14) Comment (P. Miller):Site 4 B, p 14. The document states that “The concentration of dioxins decreasedsignificantly as a result of removing the soils.” However, dioxins and additionalcontaminants remain at levels of concern. Further removal actions are warranted herebecause of the potential for downgradient contamination. Dioxin contamination warrantsspecial remedial actions due to the extreme health hazards posed by even lowconcentrations.Response:The USEPA and ADEC have not established cleanup levels for dioxins. The USEPARegion 9 has established a screening level of 3.9 pg/g (parts per trillion, ppt) for dioxinsin residential soil. The State of Alaska adjusts the EPA screening level by one order ofmagnitude to derive a preliminary remediation goal for residential soil of 39 ppt dioxin.Appendix APage 7 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaThe Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses a screening levelof 50 ppt and an action level of 1,000 ppt for dioxins in soil. The residual dioxincontamination of 29 pg/g does not exceed the ADEC’s preliminary remediation goal of39 ppt. Furthermore, the dioxin contaminated soil has been removed to the maximumextent practicable. Dioxins are generally not very mobile except through the air;downgradient movement is unlikely given the setting. The ADEC concurs with the NFAdetermination for Site 4B.15) Comment (P. Miller):Site 5, p 18. Further action to identify and remove the source of DRO contamination mustbe taken. Monitoring of water for PAHs, DRO, solvents/VOCs, and PCBs from a closeseries of monitoring wells in the vicinity of the drinking water source is mandatory.Response:Further actions were completed in 1996, 1997, and 1998. The ADEC does not requireadditional groundwater monitoring. However, since several years have elapsed since theinitial groundwater sampling was conducted, additional groundwater monitoring will beconducted to determine the groundwater quality in the vicinity of Site 5. There is noreason to suspect PCBs, PAHs, solvents, or VOCs are present. Earlier sampling eventstested for DRO/RRO/GRO, BTEX, PAHs, PCBs, and/or VOCs. The only detectedcontaminant was fuel. The additional round of groundwater sampling will includesampling for DRO/RRO/GRO only.Should significant fuel contamination bediscovered, additional actions will be considered. A final decision on any necessaryremedial actions at Site 5 will be made after evaluating the additional groundwater datacollected.16) Comment (P. Miller):Site 7, p 21. Benzene sources and other contamination must be remediated at this site,and not just arsenic.Response:Debris removals have already occurred at this site. The detected benzene concentration isnot representative of groundwater across the site, and the groundwater is not considered adrinking water source. Benzene was not detected (DL 0.005 mg/kg) in the soil samplescollected from Site 7 during the initial phase of remedial investigation (1994). During asubsequent phase of investigation (2001), three soil borings were advanced to permafrostand soil samples were analyzed for BTEX, DRO/RRO/GRO, VOCs, PCBs, and metals.Benzene was not detected (DL 0.003 – 0.007 mg/kg). The only analytes detected abovethe ADEC Table B migration to groundwater cleanup levels were arsenic and DRO.Arsenic concentrations ranged from 4.5 to 10.2 mg/kg. DRO concentrations ranged fromND(5) to 710 mg/kg. The DRO concentrations do not exceed the ingestion pathwayADEC cleanup level of 10,250 mg/kg.Appendix APage 8 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaska17) Comment (P. Miller):Site 12, p 26. I support the proposed alternative to remove sources of heavy metalcontamination. Additional sampling should be done to delineate the full extent ofcontamination.Response:Confirmation samples will be collected after the soil is excavated, to verify thecontamination was adequately removed.18) Comment (P. Miller):Site 14, p 28. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether the plane wascarrying hazardous and/or radioactive material.Response:According to E&E (1992), a Navy reconnaissance plane crash landed south of Gambell,the belly gasoline tank exploded and most of the fuels burned leaving no apparent stainsor any stressed vegetation surrounding the crash site.According to Navy documentation, on June 22, 1955, a P2V-5 Neptune of VP-9, whileon patrol, was attacked by two MiG-15s, which set fire to the starboard engine and forcedthe Neptune to crash on St. Lawrence Island, near Gambell. There were no fatalities.The plane burned almost completely.The plane crash location is outside the military property boundary identified for theGambell site. This is not a FUDS site, and is not eligible for action under the FUDSprogram. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe hazardous and/or radioactivematerials are/were present.19) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 5, Table 1. Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Levels for All Sites and Sites 5 & 12: Whyare the Cleanup Levels different for DRO, RRO, Arsenic, Cadmium and Chromiumdifferent as noted in Table 1 for All Sites and Sites 5 & 12?Response:According to ADEC regulations (18 AAC 75), cleanup levels are based upon an estimateof the reasonable maximum exposure expected to occur under current and future siteconditions. The cleanup levels are based on the most relevant exposure pathways at eachsite. The regulations promulgated by the State of Alaska consider three scenarios –migration to groundwater, ingestion, and inhalation. In general, the most stringentpathway is selected as the cleanup level, however if a particular pathway is not applicableto a site, then the selected cleanup level is based on the remaining cleanup levelscontained in Table B of 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75.345. The migration togroundwater pathway is not relevant for sites on the main gravel spit because continuouspermafrost acts as a barrier for soil contaminant migration to a groundwater zone. Theflow direction of the groundwater above the permafrost is typically north, towards theBering Sea, whereas the groundwater aquifer that supplies drinking water is locatedAppendix APage 9 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaapproximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet east of the village. South of Troutman Lake near Site12, the groundwater may be in close connection with surface waters, and the moreconservative migration to groundwater pathway cleanup levels were selected.20) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 9, Site 1A-North Beach, Army Land Area, Investigation Summary: It does notdisclose how many soil and groundwater samples were collected in 1994. The onesurface soil sample does not seem enough, the geophysical survey boundaries for thelandfill are not noted, does this one surface soil sample denotes that is sufficient for theArmy landfill?Response:Site 1A refers to a beach area where Air Force landing activities occurred, i.e., theloading and unloading of barges bringing supplies to the installation. The geophysicalsurvey was conducted to determine the extent of possible buried debris and covered agrid measuring 400 by 200 feet. A cluster of anomalous areas was present in the easternhalf of the surveyed area. Two significant anomalous locations represented both surfacematerials and ferrous material at shallow depths. The predominant debris visible at thesurface included Marston matting, metal, and asphalt. The one surface soil samplecollected was sufficient to characterize the nature of the stained soils. The survey did notindicate a large landfill was present. The single surface soil sample was collected at arust-stained soil patch approximately four feet south of degraded asphalt along an ATVtrail. Three monitoring wells (MW6, MW7, and MW8) were also installed at Site 1B in1994. Three subsurface soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from the 2.5,5.0, and 10.0-foot depths in all three borings (a total of 9 samples). The only detection ofpetroleum hydrocarbons at Site 1B was 3.3 mg/kg of DRO at MW7 and 20 mg/kg ofTRPH in MW7 at 5 foot depth. Lead was detected at concentrations of 35 mg/kg in thesurface soil sample and at 117 mg/kg in MW8 at 15 feet depth. These concentrations aresignificantly below cleanup levels.21) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 9, Site 1B-North Beach, Air Force Landing Area: Do empty drums/barrels have to betested to see what they contained?Response:No. Empty drums are considered debris and are typically crushed for metal recycling orlandfill disposal.22) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 10, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: The discolored gravel, was itsampled?Response:Yes. According to the site description, exposed debris observed during the 1994investigation included remnants of an apparent fireplace, concrete pad, pieces of burnedwood, scattered metal debris and two locations of discolored gravel. Two surface soilAppendix APage 10 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskasamples were collected from these gravel areas, at 50 feet west and 30 feet east of theconcrete slab at Site 2. The physical description of the samples (SS27 and SS28) states“fine gravel, coarse sand, silt/stained red”. The samples were analyzed for fuels (TRPH),BNA (base/neutral/acid compound), and priority pollutant metals. The figure showingthe sample locations also labels nearby debris as “red brick and concrete buildingremains”. Laboratory results showed high concentrations of metals in one of the twosurface soil samples for chromium (391 mg/kg), and lead (749 mg/kg). The detectedmetals were most likely caused by the debris contained in the area. The debris wasremoved during the 1999 removal action. See also the discussion under Response toComment #11.23) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 11, Former Military Housing/Operations Burial Site: Investigation Summary: 2ndparagraph, the sample from 1994 that exceeded the screening levels for chromium andlead. Which form of chromium is it? Form VI is a dangerous form of chromium and isvery mobile in groundwater and is almost always the result of human releases.Response:The sample was analyzed for total chromium. Speciation of chromium is not typicallyconducted during initial rounds of environmental sampling. However, during the 2001supplemental remediation investigation at Gambell, in a different site location (Site 4A),due to concerns over previously detected high levels of total chromium, two soil sampleswere collected and analyzed for both total chromium and hexavalent chromium (Cr+6/CrVI). Hexavalent chromium was not detected. Chromium is a very reactive element, andtypically gets reduced to the Cr+3 (III) form when it reacts with soil. In general,chromium is rarely found in the +6 (VI) form in soil.24) Comment (V. Waghiyi):The arsenic levels that exceed the ADEC cleanup level, and that are determined“consistent across sites in Gambell, and do not appear associated w/past military activity”The many sites that are referred to, the “consistent across sites in Gambell”, are theymilitary sites in question? And has samples of arsenic ever been taken for backgroundlevels outside of the boundaries of the military bases in Gambell?Response:The sites referred to include all areas sampled under the various investigations. Since ourinvestigations are confined to the FUDS property, all sampling could be consideredmilitary sites. Only a few “outside” or “background” samples have been collected.Nonetheless, the statistical evaluation of arsenic, as described in the Response toComment #10 above, has been considered appropriate in Gambell.25) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: Chromium VI is dangerous, the single chromiumexceedance that is considered an outlier, what form is it and have background levels ofchromium been sampled outside of military boundaries to determine if the singlechromium exceedance is an outlier indeed?Appendix APage 11 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:The sample was analyzed for total chromium, therefore, the valence state of thechromium is not known. However, as discussed in the Response to Comment 23 above,hexavalent chromium is rare in soils, and has not been detected in Gambell.26) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Preferred Alternative: NFA, The village drinking water source is down gradientof site 2 & 3, warrants further sampling and monitoring.Response:According to groundwater level measurements taken at different times of the year, thevillage drinking water supply well is up gradient of Sites 2 and 3. Local residents didraise the issue of storm surges that might temporarily overwhelm the predominant waterflow directions during high water events. The short duration of these events would not beexpected to impact the drinking water aquifer.27) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 12, Investigation Summary, 3rd paragraph: Are beryllium and thallium (site 3 levels)dangerous?Response:The level of beryllium documented at Site 3 (6 mg/kg) is significantly less than the mostconservative ADEC cleanup level, which is 42 mg/kg, based on the migration togroundwater pathway, as well as the ingestion cleanup level of 200 mg/kg. Theberyllium concentration is also well below the risk-based screening levels of 150 and 160mg/kg for residential soil calculated by two U.S. EPA regional offices (Region 3’s riskbased concentrations and Region 9’s preliminary remediation goals). The U.S. EPA doesnot publish national soil cleanup levels, and other EPA regional offices have notcalculated screening levels. The level of thallium initially detected at Site 3 during the1994 investigation (15 mg/kg) did exceed screening levels published by U.S. EPARegions 3 and 9 (5.5 mg/kg). However, screening levels are meant to be conservativenumbers and are not equivalent to cleanup levels. Further investigation was conducted todetermine the full extent of potential contamination. The more detailed investigation in1996 documented that thallium was at non-detectable levels (less than 0.28 mg/kg) at Site3, which is well below the EPA screening levels of 5.2 and 5.5 mg/kg. It is thus veryunlikely that thallium poses a risk to local residents. The ADEC has not promulgated acleanup level for thallium.28) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 15 Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Investigation Summary: 2nd Paragraph, DoEPA regions have different “risk-based concentrations”? Since we are in Region 10,does this US EPA, Region 3 risk-based concentration apply?Appendix APage 12 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:Only two U.S. EPA regional offices have calculated risk-based concentrations, based onnational guidance documents. U.S. EPA Region 3 and Region 9 both have tables ofscreening values for use in site investigations. The values are typically quite similar.Region 10 does not publish its own list of risk-based concentrations, thus either tablewould apply.29) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 16, Site 4B-Former USAF Radar Station, Preferred Alternative: Were off militaryboundary background samples taken to see if the elevated copper is an isolatedoccurrence?Response:Two background surface soil samples were collected from north of the Radar Station(Site 4B), at the edge of the cliffs on the northern point of Sevuokuk Mountain. Copperwas analyzed for but not detected (detection limit of 2 mg/kg) in the two samples.Very little copper-impacted soil remains, and it is not practical to attempt removal.30) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 18, Site 5-Former Tramway Site, Investigation Summary: Since the only evidentactivity is from the military, and this site is by the Village water supply, the exceededlevel of DRO needs to be monitored and addressed.Response:The concentration of DRO detected in 1994 at MW16 was further investigated during asecond phase of study (1998) and could not be duplicated, therefore, the contaminationdiscovered at depth while drilling MW16 appears isolated (no large area of contaminationwas present). The 1998 replacement soil boring/monitoring well (MW32) was installedimmediately adjacent to the initial location of MW16 and the soil sampling resultsverified that the DRO contamination was not widespread. Four soil borings were alsocompleted at Site 5 during the 1998 investigation (SB33, SB34, SB35, and SB36) and nocontaminants of concern were detected. The DRO detected in groundwater frommonitoring well MW31 in 1998 remains a curiosity. Additional groundwater samplingwill be conducted to evaluate current site conditions. A final decision on any necessaryremedial actions at Site 5 will be made after evaluating the additional groundwater data.31) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 20, Site 6-Military Landfill, Investigation Summary: Have off military boundarybackground samples of metals been taken to determine that the levels of metals arenaturally occurring?Response:Two background samples were collected from a remote area in Gambell. Acomprehensive background study, with a statistically robust number of samples, has notbeen scoped because, with the exception of arsenic, elemental concentrations haveAppendix APage 13 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskalargely been below cleanup levels. Arsenic background levels have been computedstatistically as described above in Response to Comment #10.32) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 21, Site 7-Former Military Power Facility, Investigation Summary, 4th paragraph:Since this site is by the Gambell School and the DRO and benzene results exceed theADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels, this site needs to be addressed. Benzene is along term contaminant in groundwater, it cannot readily evaporate underground and sincelittle microbial activity occurs in underground water, it is not degraded.Response:Groundwater has not been consistently detected at Site 7 and is not considered a likelysource of drinking water for the community. The monitoring wells were installed bydrilling down into the ice to create a reservoir that would collect groundwater.Furthermore, the samples from the monitoring wells were poor groundwater samples –the lack of water in these wells prevented standard well development, thus “dirty” watersamples were submitted. Water sample turbidity ranged from 82.5 NephelometricTurbidity Units (NTUs) at MW24, to 50.1 NTUs at MW25, to 9.3 NTUs at MW27.Ideally, turbidity should be less than 5 NTUs for well samples. This suggests that thelaboratory results included contributions from suspended solids (soil). Additionalinvestigation conducted in 2001 demonstrated that the suprapermafrost groundwater atSite 7 was not present. Soil sampling results from 2001 indicated that the maximumconcentration of DRO was 710 mg/kg, which does not exceed the ADEC ingestioncleanup levels of 10,200 mg/kg. Benzene was not detected in the soil samples (detectionlimit of 0.005 mg/kg). These contaminant levels do not pose a tangible threat to theschool (which is not in the immediate area) or the community.33) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 27, Site 12, North Nayvaghat Lakes Disposal Site, Investigation Summary, 2ndparagraph: The background levels for groundwater and surface water taken from MW-14located at the base of Sevoukuk Mt. are from Site 5, so therefore NOT BACKGROUND.Response:At the time of the Phase I Remedial Investigation in 1994, MW14 was designated abackground monitoring well. This site was selected because it was adjacent to the freshwater recharge area at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain and presumed to be upgradientfrom any potential contaminant sources, such as the Former Military Housing/OperationsSite (Site 2) and Former Communications Site (Site 3). No metals were detected in thegroundwater at this location; the comparison levels designated as background wereactually the method detection limits for this sample from the 1994 investigation.The only detectable analytes found in groundwater from 2 monitoring wells (MW17 andMW18) installed at Site 12 were the metals barium, lead and zinc. The concentrations ofthese elements were significantly below the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels.Barium ranged from ND to 0.03 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 2.0 mg/L. LeadAppendix APage 14 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaranged from ND to 0.004 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 0.015 mg/L. Zinc rangedfrom ND to 0.018 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 11.0 mg/L.One surface water sample (SW165) was also collected at a small pond situated in thenortheast corner of North Nayvaghat Lake. DRO was detected at a concentration of 0.06mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 1.5 mg/L. Chromium and zinc were also detected,but at concentrations well below the ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels.Chromium ranged from ND to 0.007 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 0.1 mg/L.Zinc ranged from 0.048 to 0.049 mg/L, compared to a cleanup level of 11.0 mg/L.34) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 32, Site 22-Former CAA Housing, Preferred Alternative: Since the housing has thepossibility that asbestos-containing materials may be present in the structures, this siteneeds to be addressed to determine if the buildings do indeed pose a risk to the occupantsor local resident owners, they have a right to know!!Response:The FUDS program is not authorized to conduct remedial actions for structures that havebeen occupied and beneficially used since military use. Furthermore, FUDS programpolicy (ER 200-3-1) specifically states that the abatement of asbestos-containingmaterials (ACM) is an ineligible project, unless the abatement is incidental to completingan approved building demolition project.35) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 34, Site 26-Possible Debris Burial Site: Since this site is by the Gambell School, itwarrants cleanup since Local residents reported finding metal debris, machinery, oilydebris, and TRANSFORMERS in the vicinity, NFA is not an option due to the riskassociated with the site.Response:The 2001 remedial investigation demonstrated that soil contamination is not present atthis location. Therefore there is no risk from contaminants associated with this site. TheFUDS program is not authorized to excavate buried debris, unless hazardous constituentsare present and demonstrated to be migrating off-site.36) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Pg. 35, Site 28-Disturbed Ground, Site Description: The Army’s use of the land leasedJanuary 1955 to May 1958 needs to be determined, the community has a right to know ifit poses a risk!Response:According to the Findings and Determination of Eligibility (1985), 16.07 acres locatedimmediately south of Troutman Lake were obtained by Special Land Use Permit from theBureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Army in January 1955 and called “GambellArmy Site No. 2”, a defense site. This area was relinquished to BLM in February 1958.A small portion of this area, 0.23 acres, was obtained by notation of land records for theAppendix APage 15 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaGambell National Guard in March 1962 and relinquished to BLM in February 1973.According to the Archives Search Report prepared by USACE (March 1998), the areasouth of Troutman Lake was used by the Army for communications.37) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Until credible samples of background arsenic levels are collected outside of the militaryboundaries in Gambell, Sites 1A, 1B, 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 25A, 26 and 28 needto be taken off of “Preferred remedial alternatives NFA” proposed plans until if indeedthe arsenic levels are not associated w/past military activity.Response:A comprehensive study of background metals values has not been conducted in thevicinity of Gambell. Such study has not been scoped because, with the exception ofarsenic, elemental concentrations have largely been below cleanup levels. Arsenicbackground levels have been computed statistically as described above in Response toComment #10. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that has been well documentedthroughout the state of Alaska at concentrations higher than the default ADEC cleanuplevels. Site 7 is the only site with a clear indication of elevated levels of arsenic. Thegravel soil at this site is proposed for excavation and removal in the Proposed Plan.38) Comment (V. Waghiyi):Are the following sites with buried debris scoped under NALEMP and will be removed?Sites 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 & 24.Response:The Native Village of Gambell (NVG) successfully removed debris at Site 18 during the2004 field season under a Fiscal Year (FY) 03 Cooperative Agreement with theDepartment of Defense. The NVG also planned to remove debris at Sites 17 and 19during the 2004 field season, but encountered more debris than anticipated at Site 18 andmay not have completed those sites. These sites would then be addressed during the2004 field season. The NVG was awarded a FY04 NALEMP Cooperative Agreement foradditional work to be performed during the 2005 field season. The FY04 CA anticipatescleanup at Sites 3A, 5, 1A, 6, 1B, 2, 8C, 8B, 4E, 13, 23, 15, and 1C. Sites 21 and 24 areincluded in the Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) prepared by the NativeVillage of Gambell, but have not yet been funded for cleanup by NALEMP. Sites 11 and14 are not identified as impacts by the Native Village of Gambell in their SPIP.39) Comment (V.Waghiyi):Sites 3, 4A, 4B, 5, and any other site that had samples that initially had elevated levelsand are a risk to human health and the environment, and after additional samples weretaken a year or years later, the results showed decreased levels, goes to show that thecommunities knowledge that the groundwater migrates and as a result the differences inthe contaminant levels needs to addressed and long term monitoring are warranted andmust remediate and cleanup the contaminants when concentration levels are above risk tohuman health and the environmentAppendix APage 16 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaResponse:Sampling events are conducted over time and space to delineate the extent ofcontamination at a particular site. Sampling results that show a decrease incontamination can indicate several things. Natural attenuation for contaminants occursover time, or perhaps the samples just reflect inherent variation in contaminantconcentrations. Perhaps the subsequent sampling reached beyond the extent ofcontamination. In each of the areas mentioned, cleanup activities have already takenplace, and decreased levels of contamination can logically be attributed to these cleanupefforts. The latest sampling results suggest that neither further cleanup actions nor longterm monitoring is appropriate for these sites.40) Comment (R. Scrudato):One factor is clear from the data collected on the effects of the military occupancy is thatit is very difficult to effectively characterize and assess the environmental impacts withinthe Gambell area due to the complex hydrology and geology of the area. The highlypermeable and coarse grained nature of the cobble deposits are difficult to sample. Thepresence of permafrost, as well as the proximity of the impacted sites to the Bering Seaand the relative hydrologic influences of Troutman Lake, makes it difficult to effectivelycharacterize impacts to the various sites known to have been impacted by the release ofcontaminants during the time the military occupied the area.Response:We agree that site characterization has been challenging at the Gambell site.Nonetheless, investigations have been thorough enough to demonstrate that gross, largescale contamination is not a legacy of the Gambell FUDS. Whereas buried debris is acommonplace occurrence, contamination associated with that debris appears limited. TheADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate to proceed with a remedialdecision.41) Comment (R. Scrudato):Additional complications are imposed by the difficulties in gaining an understanding ofthe relationships of the Gambell cobble deposits (the spit) to the bedrock especially thetransition at the base of the elevated mountainous area, including the interrelationship ofthe fractured bedrock, the talus and the on-lapping cobble deposits. This transition zoneis particularly important to the source of the Gambell water supply since the infiltrationgallery is charged by the groundwater deriving from this complex interrelationship. Thisinterrelationship is also subject to seasonal changes and further complicated by thepresence of contaminated cobble soils within the recharge gallery area. As I havementioned in earlier correspondence, the hydrology of the infiltration gallery andrelations to the contaminants identified in the sites located in proximity to the infiltrationgallery are less than well defined.Response:We acknowledge that the complex hydrologic relationships between the aquifer and itsrecharge area in the vicinity of Gambell are not fully understood. To date, we do notrecognize an imminent threat to the water supply and we remain cautiously optimisticAppendix APage 17 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskathat the status quo will be maintained. The cobble soils within the recharge gallery areahave been investigated during several phases of remedial investigation. A large source ofcontamination has not been identified which could impact the drinking water source. Inthe absence of water sampling results that indicate a definite problem, it is not an issuefor the FUDS Program.42) Comment (R. Scrudato):As I mentioned in my comments on the Gambell Feasability Report, it is important toprovide the Gambell residents with assurances that the environmental impacts derivingfrom the former military occupancy and release of contaminants at the various definedsites will not continue to affect their natural resources. The most effective way to providethis assurance is to establish a broad based monitoring program that will take intoconsideration the uncertainties inherent in effective site characterization due to thecomplex nature of the Gambell geology, hydrology, and relationship to permafrost,climatic changes and future land use to ensure that potential impacts will be identifiedand defined.Response:The purpose of site cleanups undertaken under FUDS is to remediate known sources ofmilitary contamination that pose a threat to human health or the environment. The Corpsused the most stringent level of protection under state guidelines (residential) whenconsidering the future land use in Gambell. It is not within the scope of the FUDScleanup to set up monitoring programs to safeguard against potential futureenvironmental concerns.Monitoring programs are established if recognizedcontaminants, above regulatory cleanup levels, are left in the ground and subject tonatural or induced remediation, or if institutional controls such as fencing or deedrestrictions are imposed. This does not appear to be the case in Gambell.43) Comment (R. Scrudato):I recommend a more comprehensive series of monitoring wells be established andmonitored throughout the Gambell area to ensure detection of contaminants will not goundetected. The Gambell residents should be provide a measure of confidence that futurepotential impacts will be detected and once detected effectively eliminated.Response:Monitoring for potential contaminants, indefinitely into the future, is not within the scopeof the FUDS Program. FUDS is a cleanup program, for known contamination.. If newinformation becomes available in the future regarding potential military impacts, theFUDS program will evaluate the data to determine the appropriate course of action.44) Comment (M. Apatiki):The overall concept of the Introduction and Description stated in this Documentregarding the Geophysical Surveys, Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies(RI/FS) that were conducted and the proposed Work Plans to perform the RemedialAction (Cleanup) by the Independent Contractor were excessively unexplicit for severalreasons stated in the following sections: The environmental impact on each of the SitesAppendix APage 18 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskado not seem to have a thorough examination and description regarding the analyticalsampling and previous cleanup actions. Specifically, the sites that were proposed for the“No Further Action”.Response:Please refer to the more detailed Remedial Investigation reports that are provided forpublic viewing at the Information Repository located at the Sivuqaq Lodge. The ADEChas provided regulatory oversight during the investigation and cleanup process for theGambell Site. The ADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate to proceedwith a remedial decision.45) Comment (M. Apatiki):The analytical DATA Collections conducted by the Independent Contractor, that werestarted since the year of 1985 do not correspond with the other analytical comparisonresults conducted by the contractor that should have excessively exceeded the ADECCleanup Level Protocol.Response:The analytical data collected over time at the Gambell site has been verified for accuracyand usability. Data regarding analytical sampling should be expected to change overtime, especially if cleanup activities occur between sampling events. Scientific analysisof the data requires an objective interpretation to best understand the meaning of theresults.46) Comment (M. Apatiki):In accordance with the local eye-witness perspectives, regarding the sites that wereproposed for the cleanup removal were recommended as the unfinished projectperformance because of the content of the debris sites were partially been removed andthat still had the remains of the unidentified anomalies and contaminant that were stillintact on sites.Response:The proposed cleanup action includes removal of debris at the airstrip (Site 8A) whichwas originally slated for removal during the 1999 debris removal action. The initialremoval action encountered live electrical wires that prevented safe working conditionsnear this debris. A health and safety plan, and coordination with local airport officialswill be conducted to ensure the remaining surface debris is completely removed.47) Comment (M. Apatiki):The overall condition of the 28 Sites indicated in this document were positively stillremains on sites and some still needs to be addressed thoroughly on behalf of thecommunities of the St. Lawrence Island that were affected by the FUDS/HTRW.Response:Between the FUDS and NALEMP Programs, substantial cleanup activities are planned inthe Gambell area. It is certain that these activities will result in a cleaner community, andAppendix APage 19 of 20Appendix A - Responsiveness SummaryGambell SiteSt. Lawrence Island, Alaskaprovide opportunities for the local citizens to be involved, and for employment. TheADEC has provided regulatory oversight during the investigation and cleanup process atthe Gambell Site. The ADEC has concurred that site characterization is adequate toproceed with a remedial decision.Appendix APage 20 of 20Alaska District Corps of EngineersStaff I Action Sheet~ ""~IiiDivisionConcur1PM-C2j'M,CW~OC£$_311 VB~:JM 1/ KJ45/AU::?'ll'aIlAA_-j,DE-DIt/') I6DEs:Please intial concur or non & dateNonDateDate:Decision Document for HTRW and BD/DR Response theNative Village of Gambell, AK(F10AK 0696)12'1 J",-l'5" -
ACAT FOIA Repository 37
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 37, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2007
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB about Site 5 testing
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Form letter follow-up testing at Gambell Site 5 showing no contamination about ADEC limits; also a list of recipients of the letter.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 37, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2007
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB about Site 5 testing
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Form letter follow-up testing at Gambell Site 5 showing no contamination about ADEC limits; also a list of recipients of the letter.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat37SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 37," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYu.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-6898REPLY TOATTENTION OF:October 3, 2007Programs and Project Management DivisionCivil Works Management Branch«Title» -
ACAT FOIA Repository 38
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 38, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to leaders of RAB about Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
A letter stating the final Site 5 Decision Document had been sentDocument: ACAT FOIA Repository 38, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to leaders of RAB about Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
A letter stating the final Site 5 Decision Document had been sentLINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat38SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 38," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-8898REPLVTOATTENTION OF:April 1g, 2008Programs and Project Management DivisionCivil Works Management Branch - FUDS«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»«JobTitle»«Company»«Addressl»«City», «State» «PostalCode»Dear «Title» «LastName»:Enclosed for your records is a copy of the Site 5 DecisionDocument for the Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), datedSeptember 2007. This document presents the final decision of theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding the groundwater atSite 5.Since this is "Final", we are not asking for comments. Thisdocument has been furnished to the people listed below, as wellas the four information repositories in Gambell, Savoonga, Nomeand Anchorage.Mr. Eddie Ungott, President, Native Village ofGambellMr. Bruce Boolowon, President, Sivuqaq, Inc.Mr. Perry Pungowiyi, President, Kukulget, Inc.Mr. Jeff Brownlee, Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservationMs. Vi Waghiyi, SLI Coordinator, Alaska Community Action onToxicsDr. Ron Scrudato, TAPP GrantIf you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 7532689, or by e-mail at carey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,�EnclosureCarey CossaboomProject ManagerF10AK069603_05.01_0500_a200-1e-2-Fl 0AK069603_05.O1_0503a.pdfGAPM-P\FIJIDS Program\Carey\Gambell\vIP transmittal Site 5 DD doeMerge with G:\PM-P\FIJDS Program\Carey\NE Cape\merge files data sources\ Gambell limiteddata souree_AprO8LastNameBrownleeWaghiyiUngottPungowiyiScrudatoBoolowonJobTitleCompanyAddresslAlaska555Department of CordovaEnvironmental St., 2”~ConservationfloorSLIAlaska505 W.Coordinator CommunityNorthernAction onLightsToxicsBlvd.,Ste. 205PresidentNative Village P.O. Boxof Gambell90PresidentKukulget, Jnc. P.O. Box150R&M54 SunsetTechnologies, BluffInc.PresidentSivuqaq, Inc.P.O. Box101CityAnchorageStateAKPostalCode99501FirstNameJeffTitleMr.AnchorageAK99503ViMs.GambellAK99742EddieMr.SavoongaAK99769PerryMr.OswegoNY13126RonaldDr.GambellAK99742Mi.Merge tile: G:\PM-P\FUDS Program\Carey\NE Cape\merge files data sources\Gambell Limiteddata source Apr 08.doc -
ACAT FOIA Repository 39
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 39, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB members about Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Letter stating the final Site 5 Decision Document had been sentDocument: ACAT FOIA Repository 39, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB members about Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Letter stating the final Site 5 Decision Document had been sentLINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat39SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 39," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898AEPLYTOATTENTlOP4 OF:.April 18, 2008Programs and Project Management DivisionSpecial Projects Management Branch«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»«Company))«Address I»«City», «State» -
ACAT FOIA Repository 40
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 40, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 5
Document Title: Form letters to RAB leaders and members about the Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Combination of letters in ACAT FOIA Repository 26 and 27Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 40, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 5
Document Title: Form letters to RAB leaders and members about the Site 5 Decision Document
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Combination of letters in ACAT FOIA Repository 26 and 27LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat40SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 40," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYu.s. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898REPLY TOATTENTION OF:April 18, 2008Programs and Project Management DivisionSpecial Projects Management Branch«Title» «FirstName» -
ACAT FOIA Repository 41
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 41, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 31
Document Title: Technical Memorandum plan to decommission monitoring wells
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Environmental Remediation Services; US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Technical memorandum from Bristol Environmental Remediation Services (Matthew Faust) to US Army Corps of Engineers (Carey Cossaboom) about decommissioning the 21 monitoring wells at Gambell. BERS will remove the well casing and fill the borehole with bentonite.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 41, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 31
Document Title: Technical Memorandum plan to decommission monitoring wells
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Environmental Remediation Services; US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Technical memorandum from Bristol Environmental Remediation Services (Matthew Faust) to US Army Corps of Engineers (Carey Cossaboom) about decommissioning the 21 monitoring wells at Gambell. BERS will remove the well casing and fill the borehole with bentonite.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat41SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 41," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
111 W. 16th Avenue, Third FloorAnchorage, AK 99501-5109907-563-0013 Phone907-563-6713 FaxTECHNICAL MEMORANDUMDATE:June 20, 2008TO:Mr. Carey Cossaboom, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, AlaskaDistrictFROM:Matthew Faust, Project Manager, Bristol EnvironmentalRemediation Services, LLCRE:Contract No. W911KB-08-P-0074Monitoring Well DecommissioningGambell, AlaskaBristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC (Bristol) has prepared this TechnicalMemorandum (Tech Memo) at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). TheTech Memo presents the work plan for a groundwater monitoring well decommissioning projectto be conducted at the Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS).SITE DESCRIPTIONThe Gambell FUDS is located on the northwest tip of Saint Lawrence Island, near the village ofGambell. Gambell is located at latitude 63 degrees (°), 46 minutes ('), 49 seconds (") North, andlongitude 171° 43' 46" West, approximately 200 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska, and 700miles northwest of Anchorage, Alaska (Figure 1). The site was operated by the military as aradar and communications facility from 1948 until the late 1950s (USACE, 2005).The Gambell FUDS encompasses approximately 2.7 square miles. The site includes areasaround Troutman Lake and extends from the ocean to the top of Sevuokuk Mountain.Environmental investigation efforts have been conducted at the site from the 1980s through thepresent (USACE, 2005). Environmental remediation efforts under the FUDS program have beencompleted at the site, with the exception of final monitoring well abandonment anddecommissioning.F10AK069603_07.04_0500_a200-1fA subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native CorporationTechnical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 2SCOPE OF WORKThe scope of work for this project is to properly abandon and decommission all remaininggroundwater monitoring wells currently located at the Gambell FUDS in accordance withapplicable Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) guidance (ADEC, 1992).Approximately 21 monitoring wells are currently located at the site. Approximate monitoringwell locations are listed on Table 1 and are shown on Figure 2.PROJECT WORK ACTIVITIESAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation guidance specifies three acceptable methodsfor decommissioning monitoring wells (ADEC, 1992). One of the acceptable methods is towithdraw the casing and fill the bore hole with grout or bentonite. This is the method that Bristolwill use to decommission the monitoring wells at the Gambell FUDS.The monitoring wells at the site were constructed using 2-inch diameter schedule 40 polyvinylchloride (PVC) casing within a steel protective casing. The protective casings of the wells rangein diameter from four to 24 inches, and in depth from one to two feet below ground surface(bgs). Two of the wells were completed flush with the ground surface, while the other 19 werecompleted 1.25 to 3.5 feet above the ground surface. Total well depths range from 6.5 to 22.5feet bgs. All screens are 0.01-inch slot size and are either five or ten feet in length. Filter packsconsist of 20-40 sand. All wells were constructed with bentonite seals from the top of the filterpack to the surface.Bristol’s procedure for decommissioning the wells will be to first pull the protective steel casingfrom the ground using a chain attached to a loader bucket. Once the protective casing has beenremoved, the PVC will be removed using the same method. Given the shallow depth of themonitoring wells, Bristol does not foresee difficulties removing the casing in this manner. Oncethe PVC has been removed, the bore hole will be backfilled with bentonite chips, taking care tominimize void spaces. The bentonite will then be hydrated.Technical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 3PROJECT SCHEDULEFieldwork for the Gambell FUDS monitoring well decommissioning project is anticipated tobegin in mid-August 2008, and is expected to last no more than one week. The draft report,documenting the well commissioning, will be submitted within two weeks of the completion offieldwork.Schedule SummaryActivityMonitoring Well DecommissioningSubmit Draft ReportMonth/YearTentative Date(s)August 2008August 18 – 24September 2008September 7PROJECT ORGANIZATIONMr. Matthew Faust will be the Project Manager and will be responsible for ensuring project tasksare completed on schedule and within budget.Mr. Llewellyn MacDonald will be the Site Superintendent and will be responsible for executionof Bristol on-site activities in accordance with contract specifications.Mr. Carey Cossaboom is the Project Manager for USACE and is the point of contact (POC) forthe Corps. Ms. Lisa Geist shall serve as the alternate POC.Bristol will subcontract certain tasks to the Native Village of Gambell (NVG), who will providea trained field crew and necessary heavy equipment. The field crew and heavy equipmentcurrently serve the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP), butthis work is separate from NALEMP. The NVG crew will provide labor and heavy equipmentoperation, as well as disposal of well materials accumulated during the decommissioningactivities.SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLANPotential hazards associated with conducting field activities include physical hazards, such asexposure to heavy equipment, noise, slips/trips/falls, and hand tool usage, and potentiallyhazardous weather.Technical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 4PHYSICAL HAZARDSFallsWorkers may encounter fall conditions (slipping and tripping) during field activities. Thepotential hazards related to slipping, tripping, or falling associated with this site include thefollowing:•Uneven terrain,•Buried objects, and•Slippery surface conditions caused by standing water.These hazards will be mitigated by using caution at all times.Exposure to Heavy EquipmentHeavy equipment will be used on this project to pull casing from the bore holes. There is apotential for workers to be struck by these vehicles, or to be injured by contact with exposedmechanical parts. In addition, there is a risk of vehicle accidents and of fire during refueling. Tocontrol these hazards, safe distances will be maintained between workers and mechanicalequipment.NoiseHigh noise levels may occur during heavy equipment operation. Personnel exposed to noiseassociated with heavy equipment operation will be provided with appropriate hearing protection.A physical agent data sheet (PADS) for noise is included in Attachment 1 and will be availableon site during field activities.Hand ToolsPersonnel may be utilizing hand tools during field activities. The potential hazards related tohand tools are pinch points and tools dropped onto body extremities.These hazards will be mitigated by using tools in a manner proscribed by the tool’smanufacturer.Technical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 5Adverse WeatherIn case of adverse weather, Bristol will determine if work can continue without sacrificing thehealth and safety of field workers. Some of the conditions to be considered prior to determiningif work should continue are listed below:•Extreme cold, and/or wind conditions,•Heavy precipitation,•Limited visibility, and•Electrical storms.PADS for heat and cold stress are included in Attachment 1 and will be available on site duringfield activities.Personal Protection Equipment (PPE)All site work will initially be conducted in Modified Level D PPE, which includes the following:•Feet protection – occupational safety boots,•Eye protection – safety glasses or goggles, and•Hand protection – latex/neoprene/nitrile gloves.Emergency Medical ServicesIn the event of an accidental injury or sudden onset of illness or injury that is beyond the normalscope of first aid, emergency medical services will be available at the Bessie A. Kaningok HealthClinic in Gambell, Alaska. The telephone number for the health clinic is (907) 985-5346.Technical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 6REFERENCESU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005 (June). Decision Document, Gambell Formerly UsedDefense Site, F10AK0696, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1992 (April). Guidance No. 001 –Recommended Practices for Monitoring Well Design, Installation, andDecommissioning.FIGURESDrawing: O:\JOBS\49003 GAMBELL MONITORING WELL DECOM\ACAD-ENVIRO\FIGURES\DWG\49003_FIG1_SVM_JUNE08.DWG - Layout: 49003_FIG1_SVM_JUNE08User: MGARCIA Jul 16, 2008 - 3:45pm Xrefs: - Images: C62168G5.TIFSiteLocationGambell Site036Scale: 1"= 6 MILESSource: USGS National Atlas Sheet Number 42-43FIGURE 1GAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONINGVICINITY MAPBristolENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATIONSERVICES, LLCPhone (907) 563-0013 Fax (907) 563-6713Project No: 49003DATUM:NAPROJECTION:NADATE06/20/08DWN.MTG1SCALENTSofAPPRVD.SAJ2SHEET1. Mapping taken from Chemical Data Aquisition Plan by Ecology& Environment (1993). Mapping believed to be sketchedfrom aerial photography taken in 1985. Accuracy unknown.2. Contour interval varies 5/100 ft.WESTBEACH8RUNWAY1BERING SEA8CITY LANDFILLOLD GAMBELL8OLD VILLAGE WELLARCHAEOLOGICAL SITEVILLAGE OFGAMBELLMUNICIPAL BUILDINGTROUTMAN LAKE816PUMP HOUSE1LANDFILL NO. 17HIGH SCHOOLARMYLANDFILLFORMER MAIN CAMP17WATER TRANSMISSION LINENAYVAGHAQLAKEAREA 1AARMYLANDINGAREA6UNNAMEDPONDARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESSOUTH AREA13NORTH AREA12PROPOSED WASTEACCUMULATION POINTLANDFILL NO. 2NEW VILLAGEWATER SUPPLYFORMER CABLE BURIAL AREA10PROPOSED BEESCLANDING AREA5BURIED FORMER TRAM ANCHORBERING SEAFORMER INFILTRATION GALLERY(CURRENTLY USED)2CATIONS10BLCAEROUTESUSPECTEDORDNANCE BURIALSITEFORMER MILITARY HOUSING/ OPERATIONS BURIAL SITEAREA 1B3FORMER TRANSFORMER AREAAREA 4DCOMMUNIDrawing: O:\JOBS\49003 GAMBELL MONITORING WELL DECOM\ACAD-ENVIRO\FIGURES\DWG\49003_FIG2_MWL_JUNE08.DWG - Layout: 49003_FIG2_MWL_JUNE08User: MGARCIA Jul 18, 2008 - 12:51pm Xrefs: - Images:1994 SUMMER LAKEBOUNDARYNORTHBEACHAIR FORCE LANDING AREA1FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BURIAL AREAQUONSET HUTS10DRUMSAREA 4C10AREA 4A4ARMY TRAILAREA 4BFORMER AIR FORCE RADAR SITESEVUOKUK MTN.AIR FORCE TRAILFIGURE 2GAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONINGMONITORING WELL LOCATIONSAPPROXIMATE MONITORING WELL LOCATIONSOURCE: U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT, ALASKAST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKFIGURE 1-3, GAMBELL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION(SITE 5)-MWH MONTGOMERY WATSON, INC.12000600APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET1200BristolENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATIONSERVICES, LLCPhone (907) 563-0013 Fax (907) 563-6713Project No: 49003DATUM:NAPROJECTION:NADATE06/20/08DWN.MTG2SCALESHOWNofSAJ2APPRVD.SHEETTABLETable 1 - Approximate Monitoring Well LocationsWell IDNorth LatitudeWest LongitudeConditionMW-163.781356°171.7149255°UnknownMW-263.781983°171.7136754°UnknownMW-363.782303°171.7167222°UnknownMW-463.782614°171.7157427°UnknownMW-563.782632°171.7142623°UnknownMW-663.781235°171.6986545°UnknownMW-763.781432°171.697668°UnknownMW-863.781016°171.6978684°Bent by ATV accidentMW-963.779763°171.6953778°UnknownMW-1063.779493°171.696521°UnknownMW-1163.779979°171.6976435°UnknownMW-1263.780023°171.6995515°UnknownMW-1363.77942°171.6999017°UnknownMW-1763.741088°171.7076646°UnknownMW-1863.741363°171.7085022°UnknownMW-1963.737655°171.7164491°UnknownMW-2063.744871°171.7115767°UnknownMW-2163.745254°171.7108938°UnknownMW-2263.744751°171.7100725°UnknownMW-2563.777664°171.7174244°Flush mount completionMW-2763.777449°171.7185506°Flush mount completionNotes:° = degreesATV = all-terrain vehicleID = identificationATTACHMENT 1Physical Agent Data Sheets (PADS)Heat StressCold StressNoisePhysical Agent Data Sheet (PADS)- Heat StressOther PADS:Cold StressHand-Arm VibrationHeatIonizing Radiation (PDF)LasersNoiseRadio WavesUltraviolet RadiationDescriptionAcclimatizationHealth EffectsHeatDisordersLessening Stressful ConditionsMedical ConditionsAggravated By Exposure toHeatPreventing Heat DisordersThermal Conditions in theWorkplaceRest AreasDrinking WaterDescriptionHeat stress is caused by working in hot environments like laundries, bakeries,or around boilers or incinerators. Four environmental factors affect the amountof heat stress felt by employees in hot work areas: temperature, humidity,radiant heat (such as from the sun or a furnace), and air velocity. How well orhow poorly an individual reacts to heat stress is dependent on personalcharacteristics such as age, weight, fitness, medical condition, andacclimatization.The body has several methods of maintaining the proper internal bodytemperature. When internal body temperature increases, the circulatorysystem reacts by increasing the amount of blood flow to the skin so the extraheat can by given off.Sweating is another means the body uses to maintain stable internaltemperatures. When sweat evaporates, cooling results. However, sweating iseffective only if the humidity level is low enough to permit evaporation and ifthe fluids and salts lost are replaced.^back to the topHealth EffectsHeat DisordersHeat stroke, the most serious health problem for workers in hot environmentsis caused by the failure of the bodys internal mechanism to regulate its coretemperature. Sweating stops and the body can no longer rid itself of excessheat. Signs include: mental confusion, delirium, loss of consciousness,convulsions or coma; a body temperature of 106 degrees Fahrenheit or higher;and hot dry skin which may be red, mottled or bluish. Victims of heat stroke willdie unless treated promptly. While medical help should be called, the victimmust be removed immediately to a cool area and his/her clothing soaked withcool water. He/she should be fanned vigorously to increase cooling. Promptfirst aid can prevent permanent injury to the brain and other vital organs.Heat exhaustion develops as a result of loss of fluid through sweating when aworker has failed to drink enough fluids or take in enough salt, or both. Theworker with heat exhaustion still sweats, but experiences extreme weakness orfatigue, giddiness, nausea, or headache. The skin is clammy and moist, thecomplexion pale or flushed, and the body temperature normal or slightlyhigher. Treatment is usually simple: the victim should rest in a cool place anddrink salted liquids. Salt tablets are not recommended. Severe cases involvingvictims who vomit or lose consciousness may require longer treatment undermedical supervision.Heat cramps, painful spasms of the bone muscles, are caused when workersdrink large quantities of water but fail to replace their bodies salt loss. Tiredmuscles, those used for performing the work, are usually the ones mostsusceptible to cramps. Cramps may occur during or after working hours andmay be relieved by taking salted liqids by mouth or saline solutionsintravenously for quicker relief, if medically determined to be required.Fainting may be a problem for the worker unacclimatized to a hot environmentwho simply stands still in the heat. Victims usually recover quickly after a briefperiod of lying down. Moving around, rather that standing still, will usuallyreduce the possibility of fainting.Heat rash, also known as prickly heat, may occur in hot and humidenvironments where sweat is not easily removed from the surface of the skinby evaporation. When extensive or complicated by infection, heat rash can beso uncomfortable that it inhibits sleep and impairs a workers performance oreven results in temporary total disability. It can be prevented by showering,resting in a cool place, and allowing the skin to dry.^back to the topMedical Conditions Aggravated By Exposure to HeatPersons with heart or circulatory diseases or those who are on "low salt" dietsshould consult with their physicians prior to working in hot environments.Preventing Heat DisordersOne of the best ways to reduce heat stress on workers is to minimize heat inthe workplace. However, there are some work environments where heatproduction is difficult to control, such as when furnaces or sources of steam orwater are present in the work area, or when the workplace itself is outdoorsand exposed to varying warm weather conditions.AcclimatizationHumans are, to a large extent, capable of adjusting to the heat. Thisadjustment to heat, under normal circumstances, usually takes about 5 to 7days, during which time the body will undergo a series of changes that willmake continued exposure to heat more endurable.On the first day of work in a hot environment, the body temperature, pulse rate,and general discomfort will be higher. With each succeeding daily exposure, allof these responses will gradually decrease, while the sweat rate will increase.When the body becomes acclimated to the heat, the worker will find it possibleto perform work with less strain and distress.Gradual exposure to heat gives the body time to become accustomed to higherenvironmental temperatures. Heat disorders in general are more likely to occuramong workers who have not been given time to adjust to working in the heator among workers who have been away from hot environments and who havegotten accustomed to lower temperatures. Hot weather conditions of thesummer are likely to affect the worker who is not acclimatized to heat.Likewise, workers who return to work after a leisurely vacation or extendedillness may be affected by the heat in the work environment. Whenever suchcircumstances occur, the worker should be gradually reacclimatized to the hotenvironment.^back to the topLessening Stressful ConditionsMany industries have attempted to reduce the hazards of heat stress byintroducing engineering controls, training workers in the recognition andprevention of heat stress, and implementing work-rest cycles. Heat stressdepends, in part, on the amount of heat the workers body produces while ajob is being performed. The amount of heat produced during hard, steady workis much higher than that produced during intermittent or light work. Therefore,one way of reducing the potential for heat stress is to make the job easier orlessen its duration by providing adequate rest time. Mechanization of workprocedures can often make it possible to isolate workers from the heat source(perhaps in an air-conditioned booth) and increase overall productivity bydecreasing the time needed for rest. Another approach to reducing the level ofheat stress is the use of engineering controls which include ventilation andheat shielding.Number and Duration of ExposuresRather than be exposed to heat for extended periods of time during the courseof a job, workers should, wherever possible, be permitted to distribute theworkload evenly over the day and incorporate work-rest cycles. Work-restcycles give the body an opportunity to get rid of excess heat, slow down theproduction of internal body heat, and provide greater blood flow to the skin.Workers employed outdoors are especially subject to weather changes. A hotspell or a rise in humidity can create overly stressful conditions. The followingpractices can help to reduce heat stress:Postponement of nonessential tasksPermit only those workers acclimatized to heat to perform themore strenuous tasks, orProvide additional workers to perform the task keeping in mindthat all workers should have the physical capacity to perform thetask and that they should be accustomed to the heat.^back to the topThermal Conditions in the WorkplaceA variety of engineering controls can be introduced to minimize exposure toheat. For instance, improving the insulation on a furnace wall can reduce itssurface temperature and the temperature of the area around it. In a laundryroom, exhaust hoods installed over those sources releasing moisture will lowerthe humidity in the work area. In general, the simplest and least expensivemethods of reducing heat and humidity can be accomplished by:Opening windows in hot work areas,Using fans, orUsing other methods of creating airflow such as exhaustventilation or air blowers.Rest AreasProviding cool rest areas in hot work environments considerably reduces thestress of working in those environments. There is no conclusive informationavailable on the ideal temperature for a rest area. However, a rest area with atemperature near 76 degrees Fahrenheit appears to be adequate and mayeven feel chilly to a hot, sweating worker, until acclimated to the coolerenvironment. The rest area should be as close to the workplace as possible.Individual work periods should not be lengthened in favor of prolonged restperiods. Shorter but frequent work-rest cycles are the greatest benefit to theworker.^back to the topDrinking WaterIn the course of a days work in the heat, a worker may produce as much as 2to 3 gallons of sweat. Because so many heat disorders involve excessivedehydration of the body, it is essential that water intake during the workday beabout equal to the amount of sweat produced.Most workers exposed to hot conditions drink less fluids than needed becauseof an insufficient thirst drive. A worker, therefore, should not depend on thirst tosignal when and how much to drink. Instead, the worker should drink 5 to 7ounces of fluids every 15 or 20 minutes to replenish the necessary fluids in thebody. There is no optimum temperature of drinking water, but most peopletend not to drink warm or very cold fluids as readily as they will cool ones.whatever the temperature of the water, it must be palatable and readilyavailable to the worker. Individual drinking cups should be provided, never usea common drinking cup.Heat acclimatized workers lose much less salt in their sweat than do workerswho are not adjusted to the heat. The average American diet containssufficient salt for acclimatized workers even when sweat production is high. If,for some reason, salt replacement is required, the best way to compensate forthe loss is to add a little extra salt to the food. Salt tablets should not be used.CAUTION: PERSONS WITH HEART PROBLEMS OR THOSE ON A "LOWSODIUM" DIET WHO WORK IN HOT ENVIRONMENTS SHOULD CONSULTA PHYSICIAN ABOUT WHAT TO DO UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.^back to the topProtective ClothingClothing inhibits the transfer of heat between the body and the surroundingenvironment. Therefore, in hot jobs where the air temperature is lower thanskin temperature, wearing clothing reduces the bodys ability to lose heat intothe air.When air temperature is higher than skin temperature, clothing helps toprevent the transfer of heat from the air to the body. The advantage of wearingclothing, however, may be nullified if the clothes interfere with the evaporationof sweat.In dry climates, adequate evaporation of sweat is seldom a problem. In a drywork environment with very high air temperatures, the wearing of clothingcould be an advantage to the worker. The proper type of clothing depends onthe specific circumstance. Certain work in hot environments may requireinsulated gloves, insulated suits, reflective clothing, or infrared reflecting faceshields. For extremely hot conditions, thermally-conditioned clothing isavailable. One such garment carries a self-contained air conditioner in abackpack, while another is connected to a compressed air source which feedscool air into the jacket or coveralls through a vortex tube. Another type ofgarment is a plastic jacket which has pockets that can be filled with dry ice orcontainers of ice.^back to the topRecommended Exposure LimitsThese Threshold Limit Values (TLVS) refer to heat stress conditions underwhich it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed withoutadverse health effects. The TLVs shown in Table I are based on theassumption that nearly all acclimatized, fully clothed workers with adequatewater and salt intake should be able to function effectively under the givenworking conditions without exceeding a deep body temperature of 38 degreesCelsius (100.4 degrees Fahrenheit).Since measurement of deep body temperature is impractical for monitoring theworkers heat load, the measurement of environmental factors is requiredwhich most nearly correlate with deep body temperature and otherphysiological responses to heat. At the present time, Wet Bulb GlobeTemperature Index (WBGT) is the simplest and most suitable technique tomeasure the environmental factors. WBGT values are calculated by thefollowing equations:Outdoors with solar load: WBGT = 0.7 NWB + 0.2 GT + 0.1 DBIndoors or Outdoors with no solar load: WBGT = 0.7 NWB + 0.3 GTWhere:WBGT = Wet Bulb Globe Temperature IndexNWB = Natural Wet Bulb TemperatureDB = Dry Bulb TemperatureGT = Globe TemperatureThe determination of WBGT requires the use of a black globe thermometer, anatural (static) wet-bulb thermometer, and a dry bulb thermometer.Higher heat exposures that shown in Table I are permissible if the workershave been undergoing medical surveillance and it has been established thatthey are more tolerant at work in heat than the average worker. Workersshould not be permitted to continue their work when their deep bodytemperature exceeds 38.0 degrees Celsius (100.4 degrees Fahrenheit).^back to the topTable 1Permissible Heat Exposure Threshold Limit Values(Values are given in degrees Centigrade WBGT (Fahrenheit)]Work LoadWork- Rest RegimenLightModerateHeavyContinuous work30.0(86.0)26.7(80.1)25.0(77.0)75% Work, 25%Rest/Hour30.6(87.1)28.0(82.4)25.9(78.6)50% Work, 50%Rest/Hour31.4(88.5)29.4(85.0)27.9(82.2)25% Work, 75%Rest/Hour32.2(90.0)31.1(88.0)30.0(86.0)References1. "Working in Hot Environments," US Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1986.2. "Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1986 1987," American Conference of Governmental Industrial, Hygienists,6500 Glenway Avenue, Building D-7, Cincinnati, OH 45211-4438.^back to the topLabor and Workforce Development || Job Seeker || Employer || WorkerAlaska Department of Labor and Workforce DevelopmentLabor Standards and Safety3301 Eagle Street/PO Box 107022Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7022(907) 269-4955PHYSICAL AGENT DATA SHEETCOLD STRESSHYPOTHERMIAFROSTBITEAlaska Department of Labor and Workforce DevelopmentLabor Standards and Safety3301 Eagle Street/PO Box 107022Anchorage, 99510-7022(907) 269-4955Physical Agent Data SheetHYPOTHERMIAHypothermia is a temperature-related disorder. Therefore it is necessary to understandhuman physiology as it pertains to temperature stress.Man is considered a tropical animal. Normal functioning of the human animal requires abody temperature of 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The body can selfcompensate for small upward or downward variations in temperature through the activationof built-in thermoregulatory system, controlled by temperature sensors in the skin. Theresponse to an upward variation in body temperature is the initiation of perspiration, whichmoves moisture from the body tissues to the body surface. When the moisture reaches thesurface it evaporates, carrying with it a quantity of heat. The response to downwardvariation in body temperature is shivering, which is the body’s attempt to generate heat.Shivering is an involuntary contraction and expansion of muscle tissue occurring on a largescale. This muscle action creates heat through friction.THE DISORDERHypothermia is defined as a core temperature of the body less than 35 degrees Celsius (95degrees Fahrenheit). Hypothermia is also considered the clinical state of sub-normaltemperature when the body is unable to generate sufficient heat to efficiently maintainfunctions.Many variables contribute to the development of hypothermia. Age, health, nutrition, bodysize, exhaustion, exposure, duration of exposure, wind, temperature, and wetness of bodyor clothes, medication and intoxicants (alcohol) may decrease heat production or increaseheat loss.The healthy individual’s compensatory responses to heat loss via conduction, convection,radiation, evaporation and respiration may be overwhelmed by exposure. Medication mayalso interfere with heat generation or regulation. Children will have different symptomsthan adults depending on the severity of the cold.Definitions:Conduction: Direct transfer of heat by contact with a cooler objectConvection: Cool air moving across the surface of the body, heat is transferred tothe cool air warming the air.Radiation: Heat radiated outward from the warm body to the cooler environment.Evaporation: The process of losing heat from the body by vaporization of water fromthe body surface.Respiration: Inspired air raised to body temperature that is then exhaled.Each of these causes of heat loss can play a large or small role in the development ofhypothermia, depending on clothing, head cover, wind, weather, etc.Once hypothermia develops, two body compartments, the shell (skin) and the core (theremainder of the body) share the heat deficit. The skin constitutes about 10% of a 150pound mass.Hypothermia can be recognized as impending, mild, moderate and severe. Below is a briefdescription of the various stages:Impending: Person’s core temperature has decreased to 96.8 degrees Fahrenheit(36 degrees C). Individual will increase exercise in an attempt to warm up. The skinmay become pale, numb and waxy. Muscles can become tense and shivering maybegin. Fatigue and weakness may begin to show.Mild: Core temperature has dropped to 93.2 degrees Fahrenheit (34 degrees C).Intense, uncontrolled shivering has begun. The individual may still be alert and ableto help self; however, movements become less coordinated and the coldness iscausing some pain and discomfort.Moderate: Core temperature has dropped to 87.7 degrees Fahrenheit (31 degreesC). Shivering slows or stops completely, mental confusion and apathy set in.Speech is slow and slurred. Breathing becomes slow and shallow followed by withdrowsiness.Severe: Core temperature is below 87.7 degrees Fahrenheit (31 degrees C). Skinmay have a blue-gray color; iris of the eyes may be dilated, may appear drunk,denies problems and may refuse help. This leads to a gradual loss of consciousness.There may be little or no breathing, lack of response to verbal or painful stimuli andmay appear dead.(Temperatures used in above descriptions are approximate. Symptoms may startat different temperatures depending on the individual and circumstances.)Treatment PrefaceAlways act on the fact that “no one is dead until warm and dead.”Think ABCD – Airway, Breathing, Circulation and Degrees.In sudden exposure to cold water there is a greater chance for resuscitation with suddensubmersion and with prolonged exposure to cold water. Quick onset of hypothermia, easyto reverse. Slow onset, the harder to reverse the process.The sole consensus regarding prehospital treatment is that all patients at some point shouldbe rewarmed. Core first then extremities. The best way to rewarm the core is by warm airand warm IV solutions.Initial management principles emphasize prevention of further heat loss, rewarnimg as soonas is safely possible at a “successful” rate and rewarming the core before the shell, in anattempt to avoid inducing lethal side effects during rewarming. This treatment goal isimportant, since hypothermia itself may not be fatal above 77 degrees Fahrenheit (25degrees C) core temperature.The person must be handled very carefully and gently and not be allowed to exercise, asmuscular action can pump cold blood to the heart.Cold blood going to the heart can cause ventricular fibrillationHypothermia causes several reactions within the body as it tries to protect itself and retainits heat. The most important of these is vasoconstriction, which halts blood flow to theextremities in order to conserve heat in the core of the body.Treatment of HypothermiaBe able to recognize the symptoms of hypothermia in yourself and others. The victim maydeny he/she is in trouble. Even mild symptoms demand attention:Impending: Seek or build a shelter to get the person out of the cold, windy, wetenvironment.Start a fire or get a cookstove going to provide warmth. Provide the person with ahot drink (no alcohol, coffee or tea). Insulate the person with extra clothes.Mild: Remove or insulate the patient from the cold ground, protect from the wind,eliminate evaporative heat loss with a vapor barrier. Keep the head and neckcovered, remove to a warm environment. Consider covering patient’s mouth andnose with a light fabric to reduce heat loss through breathing. Provide the personwith a warm, sweetened drink (no alcohol, coffee or tea) and some high-energyfood. Limited exercise may help to generate some internal heat, but it depletesenergy reserves.Moderate: Remove the person from the cold environment, keeping the head andneck covered. Apply mild heat (comfortable to your elbow) to the head, neck chest,armpits and groin of the patient. Use hot water bottles, wrapped Thermo-pads, orwarm moist towels. Do not place the hot water bottles next to the skin, wrap incloth first. Offer sips of warm, sweetened liquids (no alcohol, coffee or tea) if thepatient is fully conscious, beginning to rewarm and is able to swallow. Patient shouldbe seen by a physician ASAP.Severe: Place person in a prewarmed sleeping bag with one or two other people.Skin to skin contact in the areas of the chest (ribs) and neck is effective. Exhalewarm air near the patient’s nose and mouth, or introduce steam into the area. Keepthe patient awake. Apply mild heat, with the aim of stopping temperature drop, notrewarming. If patient has lost consciousness be very gentle, as the heart isextremely sensitive. Check for pulse at the carotid artery. If there is any breathingor pulse, no matter how faint, do not give CPR but keep a very close watch forchanges in breathing and heart beat (vital signs). If no pulse can be found beginCPR immediately, stopping only when the heart begins to beat or the personapplying CPR cannot carry on any longer without endangering themselves.In all of the above, it is imperative that the victim be removed out of the wet and windy weather,remove all wet clothing, and put the victim into dry clothing and a warm sleeping bag.Recent research has concluded that the safest and most effective method of treating hypothermia isthrough inhalation rewarming. Equipment is available; however, out in the field, alternative methodswhich have been described must be used where equipment is lacking.Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce DevelopmentLabor Standards and Safety301 Eagle Street, PO Box 107022Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7022(907) 269-4955Physical Agent Data SheetFROSTBITEGENERAL INFORMATIONFrostbite is the freezing of some part of the body. Fingers, toes, andeven whole arms and legs can be lost as a result of frostbite. Injuriescan happen at home, in the cities and also in more isolated areas ofthe State.In extreme cold it is important to prevent heat loss from as manyareas of the body as possible. Exposed limbs and head are majorareas of heat loss, but keeping enough blood flowing to the hands andfeet is the key to preventing frostbite. The trunk and the head shouldbe warm enough so that the brain is able to command the bloodvessels in the hands and feet to open up and keep the extremitieswarm.ESSENTIAL CLOTHINGThis includes thermal underwear, insulated footwear or mukluks withliners; double mittens and a parka, preferably down-filled with a goodruff. A parka that can be opened at the neck to allow heat to escapewill prevent overheating and sweating. Quilted or skin pants arenecessary if no warm shelter is immediately available. Tight cloths,especially tight gloves or tight boots should not be worn. Thetightness interferes with good circulation in the hands and feet. Ifthere is a reduction in blood flow to these areas, then the possibility offrostbite increases as the extremity cools down.FACTORS LEADING TO FROSTBITETall thin persons are more likely to get frostbite than those of stockybuild.People in poor physical condition are more susceptible than those ingood health.Certain diseases slow down the blood flow in the hands and feetespecially in elderly people.Heavy smokers often have poor circulation in the vital organs anddecreased circulation in the arms and legs.Children and elderly people who cannot produce large amounts of bodyheat for long periods of time can experience a lowering of deep bodytemperature and frostbite.Alcohol causes the blood vessels to dilate (become larger). This leadsto a false sense of warmth. This also leads to faster loss of heat fromthe body because of dilation of blood vessels. More important, peopleact with poor judgment after drinking.Don’t touch cold metal with bare or wet hands. You will freeze to themetal and tear the skin if pulled away without proper thawing withwarm water, heat or urine.Be careful when handling gasoline, kerosene or liquids other thanwater. Contact with bare skin in cold temperatures can cause instantfrostbite.Frostbite is more likely to occur when you are injured, frightenedor careless.HOW TO RECOGNIZE FROSTBITEExposed parts of the body should be inspected routinely. This is donebest with a partner. Just before freezing, the skin, especially the facewith its many blood vessels, becomes bright red. Then small patchesof white appear, as freezing actually occurs.The loss of the sensations of touch, pressure and pain may occurwithout awareness of any numbness or other sensations. Therefore, itis important to test these sensations often. Wear clothing that is notrestrictive but loose.There may be no pain associated with frostbite if the freezing ortemperature change is slow. Only if there is a rapid change intemperature does the body register pain.The skin becomes less elastic. This is best noted in the finger pads. Iftouched or squeezed the pads will remain pitted. Any further coolingwill result in frostbite.Serious freezing is most common in the feet, followed by the handsand then the head (nose, ears). This is because of the poorercirculation in the feet and hands. Also with the poorer circulation thereis in conjunction less sensation to these areas. Exposed head areasare less likely to freeze because of a better blood supply.EARLY TREATMENT OF FROSTBITEEarly rewarming.Thawing and refreezing should always be avoided.Limbs should be rewarmed in stirred water just above normal bodytemperature (100 – 105 degrees Fahrenheit). Always use athermometer to get accurate temperatures. Never try to thaw in coldwater or snow. Since feeling is lost, fires, stoves, exhaust pipes, etc.,should never be used. Serious damage to the skin could result.Rewarming is an acutely painful experience and medication to alleviatepain should be given if available. After thawing, a deep aching painmay persist for several days, depending upon severity of the injury.Pain is a good sign; this tells us that the nerves are still alive andfunctioning.A dull purple color, swelling and/or blistering of the extremity afterthawing indicate a more serious injury and require medical attention.SUMMARYPoor circulation and poor production of body heat will lower resistanceto frostbite.Most cases of frostbite occur as a result of lack of knowledge, carelesspreparation, unavoidable accident, or the effects of alcohol onjudgment. Forethought can prevent injury.If freezing does occur, proper rewarming in warm water will givemaximum benefit. The injured limb should be handled gently and amedical judgment made of the extent of injury and the need forfurther treatment.Physical Agent Data Sheet (PADS) - NoiseOther PADS:Cold StressHand-Arm VibrationHeatIonizing Radiation (PDF)LasersNoiseRadio WavesUltraviolet RadiationDescriptionHealthEffectsHearingOtherEffectsPermissibleExposureLimitProtectiveMeasuresDescriptionSound is created when a vibrating source (like a bell, motor or astereo speaker) sends sound waves through the air to your ear.Every sound has two aspects: its pitch (frequency) and its loudness(intensity). On a stereo, frequency is determined by the bass/treblecontrol. Intensity is determined by the volume control. Noise(unwanted sound) is usually made up of many frequencies. Thedisturbing and harmful effects of noise depend both on the loudnessand the frequency of the tones making up noise.Loudness is measured in units called decibels (dB). Aconversational voice is about 65 dB. A shout is 90 dB or greater.Frequency is measured in units called Hertz (Hz). The frequency ofa locomotive horn is about 250 Hz. The frequency of a table saw isabout 4,000 Hz.^back to the top.Health EffectsExcessive noise can destroy the ability to hear, and may also putstress of other parts of the body, including the heart.For most effects of noise, there is no cure, so that prevention ofexcessive noise exposure is the only way to avoid health damage.HearingThe damage done by noise depends mainly on how loud it is and onthe length of exposure. The frequency or pitch can also have someeffect, since high-pitched sounds are more damaging than lowpitched sounds.Noise may tire out the inner ear, causing temporary hearing loss.After a period of time away from the noise hearing may be restored.Some workers who suffer temporary hearing loss may find that bythe time their hearing returns to normal, it is time for another workshift so, in that sense, the problem is "permanent."With continual noise exposure, the ear will lose its ability to recoverfrom temporary hearing loss, and the damage will becomepermanent. Permanent hearing loss results from the destruction ofcells in the inner ear, cells which can never be replaced or repaired.Such damage can be caused by long-term exposure to loud noiseor, in some cases" by brief exposures to very loud noises.Normally, workplace noise first affects the ability to hear highfrequency (high-pitched) sounds. This means that even though aperson can still hear some noise, speech or other sounds may beunclear or distorted.Workers suffering from noise-induced hearing loss may alsoexperience continual ringing in their ears, called "tinnitus." At thistime, there is no cure for tinnitus, although some doctors areexperimenting with treatment.^back to the top.Other EffectsAlthough research on the effects of noise is not complete, it appearsthat noise can cause quickened pulse rate, increased bloodpressure and a narrowing of the blood vessels over a long period oftime, these may place an added burden on the heart.Noise may also put stress on other parts of the body by causing theabnormal secretion of hormones and tensing of the muscles.Workers exposed to noise sometimes complain of nervousness,sleeplessness and fatigue. Excessive noise exposure also canreduce job performance and may cause high rates of absenteeism.^back to the top.Permissible Exposure LimitThe Action level for noise is an average noise level of 85 dB for aneight-hour day. When employees are exposed to noise levels, whichexceed the Permissible Exposure Limit, the employer must install oruse engineering or administrative controls to lower the noise levels.While these controls are being designed or installed employeesmust wear hearing protection. If the controls still do not reduce noiseexposures to below 90 dB, hearing protection must continue to beworn.^back to the top.Protective MeasuresSuitable hearing protectors (earplugs or muffs) must be madeavailable at no cost to employees who are exposed to an average of85 dB or greater for an eight-hour day. Employees must be giventhe opportunity to select from three different types of appropriatehearing protectors.Hearing tests (audiometric exams) must be given to employees whoare exposed to an average of 85 dB or greater for an eight-hour day.Hearing tests will show whether employees are experiencing anyhearing losses. Hearing tests are also useful in showing how wellthe earplugs and earmuffs are working. Hearing tests must be givenannually.Employees should also receive training in the effects of noise onhearing, an explanation of the hearing tests, and instruction on theproper fitting and care of earplugs or muffs.Noise away from work can also cause hearing loss. Hearingprotectors should be worn when operating noisy equipment or toolssuch as chain saws, brush cutters, power lawn mowers, or whenusing firearms.Refer to Alaska Administrative Code, Occupational Health andEnvironmental Control 04.0104 for specific regulations on NoiseExposure and Hearing Conservation Programs.^back to the top.Labor and Workforce Development || Job Seeker || Employer || Worker -
ACAT FOIA Repository 42
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 42, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 22
Document Title: Project Closeout Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
The Project Closeout Report for the FUDS Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste project at Gambell, including edits to a paragraph describing the military's use of the site, corrected by Sivuqaq Inc.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 42, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 22
Document Title: Project Closeout Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
The Project Closeout Report for the FUDS Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste project at Gambell, including edits to a paragraph describing the military's use of the site, corrected by Sivuqaq Inc.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat42SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 42," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United States ArmyCorps of EngineersFormerly Used Defense Sites ProgramProject Closeout ReportHazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)Project # F10AK069603Gambell FUDSSt. Lawrence Island, AlaskaSeptember 2008F10AK069603_07.12_0500_a200-1-er:'m~Prepared By:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Alaska DistrictEnvironmental Engineering BranchP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-0898[PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898October 6, 2009Environmental Special ProgramsPrograms and Project Management«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»«Company»«Address1»«City», «State» «PostalCode»Dear «Title» «LastName»:It has come to our attention through Sivuqaq, Inc., based in Gambell, Alaska, that a fewstatements regarding land usage in Gambell that were written in the HTRW Project CloseoutReport (Gambell FUDS) are in error. Errors occur specifically, in Section 2.0 on page 2, withinthe third paragraph. That third paragraph is hereby corrected by amendment as follows:The Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late 1950’s1960’s. Variousfacilities were constructed by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force near the village of Gambellto provide housing and operations, aircraft radar, communications, and other functions. Themilitary leasedArmy/Air Force used approximately 2,543 acres in Gambell under Special UsePermits and Public Land Order, of which the U.S. Air Force leased 1,807 acres and the U.S.Army leased the remaining acreage. The Air Force built a base camp in 1950 at the foot ofSevuokuk Mountain and a radar site directly above on the mountain top (both abandoned in1956). The Army occupied several sites during the late 1950s, with a main base camp locatedjust north of Troutman Lake. The Gambell Annex, Gambell Army Site No 1, Gambell Site No2, and Gambell Army Station were not relinquished to BLM until 1965. The Navy also laidcommunications cables from the village of Gambell, up Sevuokuk Mountain, and south toBrunnell Cape.F10AK069603_07.12_0501_a200-1ePlease add this letter amendment to the Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report datedJune 2009. If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 753-2689, or bye-mail atcarey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,Carey CossaboomProject ManagerFIOAK069603_07.12_0501.pO:\ESP\Private\FUDS\yroperties\Gambell FlOAK0696\ccc Letters\ Gambell HTRW PCOAmendment_Info Rep & Stakeholder. docMerge with O:\ESP\Private\FUDS,-Properties\Gambell Fl OAK0696\Merge Files\ Amendmentdata source. docTABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ IV1.0STATEMENT OF BASIS ...................................................................................................12.0SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................13.0DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY AND IMPLEMENTATION ...............23.1 No DOD Action Indicated (NDAI)................................................................................43.1.1Site 5 ...................................................................................................43.2 Remedial Actions Completed ........................................................................................53.2.1Site 7 ...................................................................................................53.2.2Site 8A ................................................................................................63.2.3Site 12 .................................................................................................64.0HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION......................................................75.0CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................76.0REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................87.0FIGURES...........................................................................................................................10DECLARATION ...........................................................................................................................15Gambell HTRW Project Closeout ReportiiiLIST OF ACRONYMSADECBCSCERCLADERPEPADODFSFUDSHTRWIRAMWMWHNALEMPNCPNDAIOSCIPIDPOLRABUSACEAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationBristol Construction Services, LLCComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActDefense Environmental Restoration ProgramU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyDepartment of DefenseFeasibility StudyFormerly Used Defense SiteHazardous, Toxic, or Radioactive WasteIndian Restoration Actmonitoring wellMontgomery Watson HarzaNative American Lands Environmental Mitigation ProgramNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNo Defense Action IndicatedOil Spill Consultants, Inc.photoionization detectorpetroleum, oil, or lubricantsRestoration Advisory BoardU.S. Army Corps of EngineersGambell HTRW Project Closeout Reportiv1.0STATEMENT OF BASISAuthority for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Defense Sites(DERP-FUDS), Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes (HTRW) projects is derived from theDefense Environmental Restoration Program, 10 USC 2701-2707. The Gambell FUDS propertynumber is F10AK0696. The HTRW project number is F10AK069603.The response was consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPolicy (NCP) and the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). Under the DERP,HTRW projects include environmental response actions at an area of an eligible FUDS propertyas the result of Department of Defense (DoD) activities related to hazardous substances,pollutants, and contaminants as defined in CERCLA, petroleum, oil, or lubricants (POL),hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents. HTRW restoration activities can involve thecleanup of petroleum in soils or groundwater, even though it may not be subject to regulationunder CERCLA, where the Secretary of Defense determines that such activities will result incorrection of environmental damage posing imminent and substantial endangerment to the publichealth or welfare or to the environment.The decision to closeout this HTRW project is based on the results of a Remedial Investigation,Feasibility Study, implementation of remedial actions as selected in two Decision Documents,and other removal action activities conducted between 1994 and 2006.2.0SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONThe Native Village of Gambell is located on St. Lawrence Island, in the western portion of theBering Sea, approximately 200 air miles southwest of Nome, Alaska (see Figure 1). Gambell islocated at latitude 63° 46’ 49” North and longitude 171° 43’ 46” West. The village is situated ona gravel spit characterized by wave terraced beach areas with an elevation of approximately 30feet above mean sea level (MSL). Troutman Lake is located south of the village. SivuqaqMountain borders the gravel spit and Troutman Lake on the east, rising to an elevation of 619feet above MSL. St. Lawrence Island is currently owned jointly by Sivuqaq, Inc., in Gambell,Alaska, and the Kikulget, Inc., in Savoonga, Alaska. Non-Native land on St. Lawrence Island islimited to state land used for airstrips and related facilities in Gambell and Savoonga.The FUDS program has assigned the Gambell site property number # F10AK0696. The HTRWproject number for Gambell is #F10AK069603. The State of Alaska, Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) tracks the entire site with reckey # 198532X917919, andalso lists individual areas of concern by separate reckeys. The United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) identification number for Gambell is AKD981765894.Gambell is inhabited primarily by Native St. Lawrence Island Yupik people, who lead asubsistence-based lifestyle. The population of Gambell has been slowly increasing (2 percentper year growth) since 1990; this trend is expected to continue. U.S. Census data from 2000Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report1reports the total population at 649 residents. Residential development is planned to expand to theeast of the Village of Gambell; supporting infrastructure for the village may expand to the southof Troutman Lake. Land use at the Gambell site is residential, recreational, and open space orundeveloped. The recreational and open space lands are primarily used for subsistence hunting,gathering, and eco-tourism.The Gambell area supports habitat for a variety of seabirds, waterfowl, and mammals that eitherbreed in or visit the area. The area surrounding the top of Sevuokuk Mountain, above theVillage of Gambell, supports a large bird rookery. The birds and bird eggs serve as a subsistencefood source for local inhabitants. The ocean surrounding the Gambell area is used extensivelyfor subsistence hunting of whales, walrus, seals, sea birds, and fish.The Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late 1950’s. Various facilitieswere constructed by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force near the village of Gambell to providehousing and operations, aircraft radar, communications, and other functions. The military leasedapproximately 2,543 acres in Gambell, of which the U.S. Air Force leased 1,807 acres and theU.S. Army leased the remaining acreage. The Air Force built a base camp in 1950 at the foot ofSevuokuk Mountain and a radar site directly above on the mountain top (both abandoned in1956). The Army occupied several sites during the late 1950s, with a main base camp locatedjust north of Troutman Lake. The Navy also laid communications cables from the village ofGambell, up Sevuokuk Mountain, and south to Brunnell Cape.3.0DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY AND IMPLEMENTATIONThis project closure report covers impacts identified as HTRW. A total of 38 sites wereidentified in Gambell. A remedial response was selected for 37 of these sites under a DecisionDocument dated June 2005. A decision on Site 5 was postponed until after additionalmonitoring was conducted in 2005 and 2006. Site 5 was addressed in a Decision Documentdated September 2007. No further action was the selected response for 35 of these sites (Table1). Sites 7 and 12 required excavation of contaminated soil. Site 8A required debris removal.The sites discussed in this document are listed in Table 1 and depicted on Figure 2.Table 1 – Remedial Responses by Site LocationSite1ANorth Beach1BArmy Landing Area1CAir Force Landing Area2Military Burial Site3Communications Facility4AAir Force Radar Site4BFormer Quonset Huts4CDiscarded Drums4DFormer Transformers4EWestern Face of Sevuokuk MtnGambell HTRW Project Closeout ReportSelected Remedial ResponseNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further Action25678A8B8C8D910111213141516171819202122232425A25B262728Tramway/Water SupplyMilitary LandfillMilitary Power FacilityMarston MattingBuried DebrisNavy LandfillBeach AmmunitionAsphalt DrumsArmy/Air Force TrailsCommunication Cable RouteNayvaghat Lakes Disposal SiteRadar Power StationNavy Plane Crash SiteTroutman Lake Disposal SiteMunicipal Building SiteArmy LandfillsMain CampDiatomaceous EarthSchoolyardToe of Sevuokuk MountainFormer CAA HousingDebris from High SchoolSouth of Municipal BuildingGambell South Housing UnitsLow Drainage AreaPossible Debris Burial SiteDrum Storage AreaDisturbed GroundNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of arsenic-contaminated soilRemoval and off-site recycling/disposal of exposed metal debrisNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionExcavation and off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soilNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionNo Further ActionThe Feasibility Study (USACE, 2004a) documented the processes by which environmentalresponse actions were identified and evaluated for the Gambell site. The Feasibility Study wasconducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA), using the standard evaluation criteria. The study provided informationto support an informed risk management decision regarding the most appropriate remedy foreach Gambell site.A series of Remedial Investigations were performed prior to completing the Feasibility Study.During the remedial investigation process, soil, sediment, and shallow-aquifer groundwater weresampled and analyzed for a wide range of organic and inorganic constituents. Contaminantsdetected in the soil and shallow-aquifer groundwater were primarily fuels and metals.The selected remedy for the Gambell site was documented in two separate Decision Documents(USACE, 2005 and 2007) and supported by the Administrative Record for the site. This recordis available at the Information Repository within the Sivuqaq Lodge in Gambell, Alaska. Thedebris and contaminated soil excavated per the June 2005 Decision Document was shipped offIsland for recycling or disposal at a permitted landfill. Additional water sampling at Site 5 wasconducted during 2005-2006. The results of the water sampling demonstrated that no furtheraction was needed.Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report33.1NO DOD ACTION INDICATED (NDAI)No further Department Defense action indicated was selected as the response for 35 out of the 38sites because there was no evidence of any remaining environmental hazards at these sites. Adetailed summary of the remedial investigation results, removal of debris and hazardousmaterials, and other previous activities is found in the Decision Documents dated June 2005 andSeptember 2007. Environmental investigations and cleanup activities at Gambell began in themid 1980’s. The first major environmental study, the remedial investigation, was performed atGambell in 1994. In 1996, the second phase of remedial investigation was performed.In 1997, a USACE contractor, Montgomery Watson, removed visible surface debris fromvarious sites around Gambell (MW, 1997). During the 1999 field season, Oil Spill Consultants,Inc. (OSCI) performed further cleanup activities in Gambell, including the removal of additionaldebris exposed by frost jacking after the 1997 cleanup activity (OSCI, 2001). OSCI removed atotal of 26.8 tons of hazardous and non-hazardous containerized wastes such as asphalt drums,paint, generators, batteries, empty drums, and transformer carcasses. OSCI also removed 71 tonsof exposed metal debris such as runway Martson matting, cable, fuel tanks and equipment parts;and excavated 72 tons of contaminated soil.A supplemental remedial investigation was conducted by Montgomery Watson Harza during the2001 field season, to verify previously collected confirmation data and investigate the nature andextent of contamination at four newly identified sites (MWH, 2002). The Corps of Engineerscompleted a Feasibility Study (FS) in February 2004 (USACE, 2004a). A Proposed Plan wasdistributed to the public in July 2004 which summarized site conditions, investigation results,and described the remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS (USACE, 2004b).Thirty two monitoring wells were installed throughout the Gambell FUDS during the remedialinvestigation. One well (MW26) was removed upon installation in 1994 due to lack of water, asecond well (MW23) was not constructed. One well (MW16) was removed between the Phase Iand Phase II remedial investigation (1996-1998), a second well (MW24) was removed by MWHduring on site removal actions in 2003. Seven wells surrounding Site 5 (MW 14, 15, 28, 29, 30,31, 32) were decommissioned by Village Safe Water in October 2007. Bristol EnvironmentalRemediation Service, Inc. searched for, removed and properly decommissioned all remainingwells according to ADEC procedures during August 2008 (BERS, 2008). According to fieldobservations, MW5 and MW7 had already been reclaimed by the ocean and were notrecoverable. MW25 and MW27 were flush mounted wells in the vicinity of Site 7 and could notbe located with a metal detector.3.1.1Site 5A Site 5 Decision Document was approved in September 2007 (USACE, 2007). The selectedremedy was no further action. Three additional rounds of well sampling around Site 5 wereconducted prior to the selection of the final remedy. There is no unacceptable risk to humanGambell HTRW Project Closeout Report4health and the environment caused by the current or future exposure of a resident tocontaminated soils or groundwater at Site 5.Site 5 is located at the base of Sevuokuk Mountain, northeast of Troutman Lake. Site 5 is theformer tramway corridor that provided access to the radar site on top of the mountain. The sitealso incorporates the current village water supply well at the base of the mountain and anassociated groundwater monitoring well array.Groundwater sampling conducted in 1998 at Site 5 indicated the potential for contamination withpetroleum (diesel) (MW, 1999a). Subsequent sampling of the monitoring wells surrounding thepublic water supply was conducted in 1999 (July, October), 2005 (September), and 2006 (July,August). These groundwater sampling events confirmed the aquifer is not contaminated withpetroleum hydrocarbons above regulatory cleanup levels. There is no evidence of a spill orsource area of contaminated soils. Additional details on the sampling results can be found in theGroundwater Sampling Reports (BCS, 2006a, 2006b, 2007), and the Decision Document(USACE, 2007).The 7 monitoring wells (MW 14, 15, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) surrounding Site 5 (see Figure 3) werepulled and decommissioned in October 2007, by personnel with Alaska Village Safe WaterProgram.3.2REMEDIAL ACTIONS COMPLETEDThe Decision Document (USACE, 2005) selected a response action for two areas, Sites 7 and 12,based on the presence of contaminants at levels which may pose a risk to human health and theenvironment. The selected remedy was excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils.In addition, removal of exposed Marston matting metallic debris was the selected response actionfor Site 8A.3.2.1Site 7Site 7 is located north of the Gambell Municipal Building, and west of the Gambell School. Amilitary power facility was reportedly demolished and buried in this location. A military motorpool building was also believed to be located in this vicinity. Montgomery Watson removed allexposed surface debris in 1996. During 2003, MWH removed the concrete pad, underlyingsupport timbers, a buried 55-gallon drum, and 1 cubic yard of incidental contaminated soils(MWH, 2004). Soil confirmation samples collected from beneath the removed concrete pad andsupport materials indicated arsenic contamination was still present.A Feasibility Study was completed by USACE in 2004 which evaluated a range of remedialalternatives. A Decision Document (USACE, 2005) selected the final remedy as excavation andoff-site disposal of arsenic-contaminated soils at Site 7. During the summer of 2006, BristolConstruction Services (BCS) excavated an area approximately 10 by 20 feet and removed 6.93Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report5tons of arsenic-contaminated soils from Site 7 (see Figure 4). The soil was transported to apermitted disposal facility in Arlington, Oregon. Soil confirmation samples were collected fromthe base of the excavation and all the results were below the site-specific cleanup level.Additional details regarding the removal action are presented in the Soil and Debris RemovalAction Report (BCS 2007b).3.2.2Site 8ASite 8A is located along the eastern edge of the airport runway. The Marston matting at Site 8Awas abandoned in place when the military demobilized from the area in the late 1950s. Thedebris posed a clear danger to local residents who frequently traverse the area on all-terrainvehicles (ATVs) and snowmachines due to the sharp and jagged edges which protrude above theground surface and create a navigation hazard during the winter. In 1999, OSCI removed somesurface debris from Site 8A, including scattered metal, small quantities of wood and concrete,and an exposed layer of Marston matting. However, the planned removal of the Marston mattingwas not completed because buried electrical lines prevented safe implementation of the fieldactivities.BCS completed the removal of Marston matting debris and old partially buried drums during thesummer of 2006. A total of 58.6 tons of metallic debris was removed and shipped offsite forrecycling. Approximately 14 drums were present within a 20 by 20 foot area. The drums werecrushed and initially thought to be empty. However upon arrival at the scrap metal recyclingfacility, it was discovered that some drums had a small amount of residual tar. The drums wereproperly disposed by General Environmental Management, Inc., in November 2006. Fieldscreening of the soil beneath the drums was conducted using a photoionization detector (PID)and did not indicate the presence of contamination. Three soil confirmation samples were alsocollected and analyzed for metals, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and residualrange organics. No contaminants exceeded site cleanup levels. Additional details are presentedin the Soil and Debris Removal Action Report (BCS 2007b).3.2.3Site 12Site 12 is located north of Nayvaghat Lakes on the southwest side of an ATV trail. The site isdivided into a north and a south area. The area south of Troutman Lake is within the City ofGambell boundary. The area is currently used primarily for recreation, subsistence foodgathering, and as a gravel borrow source. However, this site has the potential to be developedfor residential use in the future, given the flat topography and close proximity to a new drinkingwater source.In 1999, OSCI removed contaminated soil and debris from the site including drums, dried paint,and batteries from large vehicles consistent with former military use (OSCI, 2001). OSCIremoved 798 pounds of miscellaneous metal debris; 7,104 pounds of drums; 1,598 pounds ofRCRA hazardous materials (lead contaminated soil, lead acid batteries, and lead paint); andGambell HTRW Project Closeout Report67,237 pounds of petroleum-stained soil associated with the drums.Soil confirmation samples and a supplemental remedial investigation conducted in 2001 (MWH,2002) indicated soils remained with chromium and lead contamination. A Feasibility Study wascompleted by USACE in 2004 which evaluated a range of remedial alternatives. A DecisionDocument (USACE, 2005) selected the final remedy as excavation and off-site disposal ofchromium and lead contaminated soils at Site 12. During the summer of 2006, BristolConstruction Services (BCS) excavated an area approximately 10 by 20 feet and removed 7.0tons of chromium and lead contaminated soils from Site 12 (see Figure 5). The soil wastransported to a permitted disposal facility in Arlington, Oregon. Soil confirmation sampleswere collected from the base of the excavation and all the results were below the site-specificcleanup level. Additional details regarding the removal action are presented in the Soil andDebris Removal Action Report (BCS, 2007b).4.0HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATIONThe USACE, Alaska District coordinated all community relations activities and ensured that thelocal community was informed about project-related activities and status by conducting periodicpublic meetings. A Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) comprised of concerned citizens ofGambell, Savoonga, Nome, and Anchorage was formed in 2000 and continues to meet 2 to 3times per year. Subsequent RAB meetings 1 were held to update the community on ordnanceawareness, hazardous and toxic waste remediation activities in Gambell and Northeast Cape, andother building debris and demolition removal work.5.0CONCLUSIONAll identified hazardous/toxic/radioactive wastes (HTRW) have been removed from the GambellFUDS. Contaminated soils were excavated and removed at various locations across the site. Allmonitoring wells installed during the remedial investigations have been searched for and properlydecommissioned to the extent practicable. There is no evidence of any additional hazardoussubstances based on previous military use of the area. The DoD has completed all necessaryremedial actions at the Gambell FUDS. No further DoD actions are necessary at this site.1RAB meetings were held January 15, 2004 (Savoonga); March 31, 2004 (Gambell); September 9, 2004(Savoonga); February 1, 2005 (Gambell); June 1, 2005 (Savoonga); September 15, 2005 (Gambell); January 25,2006 (Savoonga); July 18, 2006 (Gambell); January 25, 2007 (Gambell), July 24, 2007 (Savoonga); January 8, 2008(Savoonga); June 25, 2008 (Savoonga).Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report76.0REFERENCESBristol Construction Services, LLC (BCS). 2006a. Groundwater Monitoring Report, GambellFUDS Remedial Action, Gambell, Alaska. Revision 1. February.BCS. 2006b. July 2006 Groundwater Sampling Report. Gambell FUDS Remedial Action,Gambell, Alaska. Revision 1. December.BCS. 2007a. August 2006 Groundwater Sampling Report. Gambell FUDS RemedialInvestigation, Gambell, Alaska. Final. May.BCS. 2007b. Gambell FUDS Remedial Action, Soil and Debris Removal Action Report.Revised Final. September.Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, Inc. (BERS). 2008. Technical Memorandum,Monitoring Well Decommissioning Report, Gambell, Alaska. September.Montgomery Watson (MW). 1995. Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. January.MW. 1997. Debris Inventory Update, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. October.MW. 1998. Phase II Remedial Investigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island. Final. December.MW. 1999a. Remedial Investigation, Groundwater Sampling, Site 5, Gambell, St. LawrenceIsland, Alaska. March.MW. 1999b. Phase II Remedial Investigation, Site 5, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.Final. May.MW. 1999c. Remedial Investigation, July 1999 Groundwater Sampling, Site 5, Gambell, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. December.MW. 1999d. Remedial Investigation, October 1999 Groundwater Sampling, Site 5, Gambell,St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. December.Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). 2002. Summary Report, 2001 Supplemental RemedialInvestigation, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Final. May.MWH. 2004. Gambell NALEMP Removal Action Report, Gambell, St. Lawrence Island,Alaska. Final. February.Native Village of Gambell. 2008. Gambell NALEMP Cleanup Summary Report. Gambell, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. In association with Travis/Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. February.Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report8Oil Spill Consultants, Inc. (OSCI). 2001. Remedial Action Report for Debris Removal andContainerized Hazardous Waste and Toxic Waste Removal, Gambell, Alaska. Final.February 15.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Feasibility Study, Gambell, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. February.USACE. 2004b. Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. July.USACE. 2005. Decision Document, Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site F10AK0696, St.Lawrence Island, Alaska. June.Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report97.0FIGURES'0"NORTON//,,/,//SoutheastCape".,>1.::p created withv.ith 1tPOIO©20J4 NationalNatio:::n:l GeograpHcGecgcphcvlap~ @2004173°03'00" W171°53'00" W170°43'00" WNATIONALGEOGRAPHICS.n169°33'00" W25168°23'00" W"25, 50sp'"75167013'00" W757,5100125166°03'00" W164°53'00" WWGS84161031'OO" VrnF100Itp mlesmdes150175 km06/20/0Figure 1 – Site Vicinity MapGambell HTRW Project Closeout Report10Figure 2. Gambell Sites Overview238C1C22Sevuokuk Mountain1A1762772625B 25A 16 202624 188B19 2115Troutman Lake234E4A54D118AAirs trip4B1B910Bering Sea4C288D12±N13to14Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report1000010002000 Feet11Figure 3. Site 5 Monitoring Well locationsLege,,,lLegelld-;j;-+-Monitoring Well()Soil Boring,\\~r£\\'--{~(E~=Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report~ Spring//"//"/;)'( //"/);'12I~House+"Q" BUildint+,I+++:----_"-- --'-----+~-------~- .....................- ----__-- -__-- -__--..,-I.............-_/I\\.\\'tc----Site 7Soil removal areaII......\City Buildi--.,++/I/+\\') r-::'---) \(-+1\\\I{'-_.----~~:--_:---J+/~/:"\j)+o0Washteriawashl~aIL'-~L,,W+,,~1j--fWate- (w",TreatmentL.0-0>---0,0'''."...".......", ,Feel100 FeetI+Figure 4. Site 7 Soil Removal AreaGambell HTRW Project Closeout Report13++++~+~-, -
ACAT FOIA Repository 43
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 43, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 21
Document Title: Technical Memorandum results from decommissioning monitoring wells
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Environmental Remediation Services; US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Technical memorandum from Bristol Environmental Remediation Services (Matthew Faust) to US Army Corps of Engineers (Carey Cossaboom) with results from decommissioning wells. BERS and their sub-contractor Native Village of Gambell, were able to locate and decommission 17 of the reported 21 monitoring wells. The other four were not found.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 43, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 21
Document Title: Technical Memorandum results from decommissioning monitoring wells
Agency/Organization:
Bristol Environmental Remediation Services; US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Document Summary:
Technical memorandum from Bristol Environmental Remediation Services (Matthew Faust) to US Army Corps of Engineers (Carey Cossaboom) with results from decommissioning wells. BERS and their sub-contractor Native Village of Gambell, were able to locate and decommission 17 of the reported 21 monitoring wells. The other four were not found.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat43SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 43," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
111 W. 16th Avenue, Third FloorAnchorage, AK 99501-5109907-563-0013 Phone907-563-6713 FaxTECHNICAL MEMORANDUMDATE:September 5, 2008TO:Mr. Carey Cossaboom, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, AlaskaDistrictFROM:Matthew Faust, Project Manager, Bristol EnvironmentalRemediation Services, LLCRE:Monitoring Well Decommissioning ReportContract No. W911KB-08-P-0074Gambell, AlaskaBristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC (Bristol) has prepared this TechnicalMemorandum (Tech Memo) at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). TheTech Memo presents the results of the groundwater monitoring well decommissioning projectthat was conducted at the Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) by Bristol in August2008.SITE DESCRIPTIONThe Gambell FUDS is located on the northwest tip of Saint Lawrence Island, near the village ofGambell. Gambell is located at latitude 63 degrees (°), 46 minutes ('), 49 seconds (") North, andlongitude 171° 43' 46" West, approximately 200 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska, and 700miles northwest of Anchorage, Alaska (Figure 1). The site was operated by the military as aradar and communications facility from 1948 until the late 1950s (USACE, 2005).The Gambell FUDS encompasses approximately 2.7 square miles. The site includes areasaround Troutman Lake and extends from the ocean to the top of Sevuokuk Mountain.Environmental investigation efforts have been conducted at the site from the 1980s through thepresent (USACE, 2005). Environmental remediation efforts under the FUDS program have beencompleted at the site.A subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native CorporationF10AK069603_07.16_0500_a200-1eTechnical MemorandumSeptember 5, 2008Page 2SCOPE OF WORKThe scope of work for this project was to properly abandon and decommission all remaininggroundwater monitoring wells located at the Gambell FUDS in accordance with applicableAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) guidance (ADEC, 1992).Approximately 21 monitoring wells were reportedly located at the site at the beginning of siteactivities. Monitoring well locations are listed on Table 1 and are shown on Figure 2.COMPLETED TASKSBristol personnel mobilized to Gambell from Anchorage, Alaska on August 19 and met withpersonnel from Bristol’s subcontractor, the Native Village of Gambell (NVG), to go over theWork Plan and the Site Health and Safety Plan (Bristol, 2008). On August 20 and 21, Bristoland the NVG crew located and decommissioned 17 monitoring wells. On August 22, the NVGcrew consolidated well construction materials accumulated during the decommissioningactivities, and Bristol personnel demobilized from Gambell back to Anchorage. All wellconstruction materials have been temporarily staged in Conexes along with other debris fromGambell, and will be transported to the Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon fordisposal.Monitoring wells were located using a global positioning system (GPS) unit and aerialphotographs. Bristol’s procedure for decommissioning the wells was to first pull the protectivesteel casing from the ground using a chain attached to a loader bucket. Once the protectivecasing had been removed, the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casing was removed using the samemethod. Once the PVC had been removed, each bore hole was backfilled with bentonite pellets,taking care to minimize void spaces. The bentonite was then hydrated to plug the bore hole.Photographs illustrating site activities are included as Attachment 1. Field notes detailing siteactivities are included as Attachment 2.Bristol and the NVG crew were unable to locate four of the 21 monitoring wells reported to belocated at the site. Two of these wells (MW-5 and MW-7) were located on the North Beach ofthe gravel spit on the northeastern tip of Saint Lawrence Island, while the other two (MW-25 andMW-27) were located within the community of Gambell (Figure 2).Technical MemorandumSeptember 5, 2008Page 3Monitoring wells MW-5 and MW-7 appear to have been located below the storm surge line onthe North Beach (Figure 2). This determination was made by Bristol personnel using aerialphotographs and a GPS unit. The monitoring wells were reported to have been constructed asaboveground completions protected by stick-up steel casings. For each of the two wells, a searchgrid with dimensions of 100-feet by 100-feet was established. Each grid was centered on thereported location of the well (as determined using the GPS unit) and was screened using a metaldetector in east to west and north to south passes. All anomalies indicated by the metal detectorwere investigated by hand-digging and determined to be metal debris unrelated to the monitoringwells. Each grid was also investigated by using a backhoe to dig down approximately one to twofeet below the ground surface at the reported location of the well. No evidence of eithermonitoring well was found.Monitoring wells MW-25 and MW-27 were located within the community of Gambell(Figure 2). The monitoring wells were reported to have been constructed as flush-mountcompletions protected by steel covers. For each of the two wells, a search grid with dimensionsof 120 feet by 120 feet was established. Each grid was centered on the reported location of thewell (as determined using the GPS unit) and was screened using a metal detector in east to westand north to south passes. All anomalies indicated by the metal detector were investigated byhand-digging and determined to be metal debris unrelated to the monitoring wells. Due to thepresence of shallow utilities in the area, a decision was made by Bristol to not investigate thearea using heavy equipment. No evidence of either monitoring well was found.SUMMARYBetween August 20 and 21, 2008, Bristol and the NVG crew decommissioned 17 monitoringwells at the Gambell FUDS. Bristol and the NVG crew looked for four other monitoring wells,but was unable to locate them. All accumulated debris will be disposed of at the ColumbiaRidge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon.Technical MemorandumJune 20, 2008Page 4REFERENCESAlaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1992 (April). Guidance No. 001 –Recommended Practices for Monitoring Well Design, Installation, andDecommissioning.Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC. 2008 (June 20). Technical Memorandum,Contract No. W911KB-08-P-0074, Monitoring Well Decommissioning, Gambell, Alaska,Work PlanU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005 (June). Decision Document, Gambell Formerly UsedDefense Site, F10AK0696, St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.FIGURESDrawing: O:\JOBS\49003 GAMBELL MONITORING WELL DECOM\ACAD-ENVIRO\FIGURES\DWG\49003_FIG1_SVM_JUNE08.DWG - Layout: 49003_FIG1_SVM_JUNE08User: MGARCIA Sep 08, 2008 - 10:43am Xrefs: - Images: C62168G5.TIFSite LocationGambell Site036Scale: 1"= 6 MILESSource: USGS National Atlas Sheet Number 42-43FIGURE 1GAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONINGVICINITY MAPBristolENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATIONSERVICES, LLCPhone (907) 563-0013 Fax (907) 563-6713Project No: 49003DATUM:NAPROJECTION:NADATE06/20/08DWN.MTG1SCALESHOWNofSAJ2APPRVD.SHEET1. Mapping taken from Chemical Data Aquisition Plan by Ecology& Environment (1993). Mapping believed to be sketchedfrom aerial photography taken in 1985. Accuracy unknown.2. Contour interval varies 5/100 ft.WESTBEACH8RUNWAY1BERING SEA8CITY LANDFILLOLD GAMBELL8OLD VILLAGE WELLARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESUSPECTED ORDNANCE BURIAL SITEVILLAGE OFGAMBELLNORTH BEACHMUNICIPAL BUILDINGTROUTMAN LAKE816PUMP HOUSEHIGH SCHOOLARMYLANDFILL17MW-27FORMER MAIN CAMPMW-25WATER TRANSMISSION LINE1994 SUMMER LAKE BOUNDARY17AREA 1AARMY LANDING AREA6UNNAMEDPONDMW-5ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITESNAYVAGHAQ LAKESOUTH AREA13NORTH AREA12PROPOSED WASTEACCUMULATION POINTLANDFILL NO. 2NEW VILLAGEWATER SUPPLYFORMER CABLE BURIAL AREA10PROPOSED BEESCLANDING AREA5BURIED FORMER TRAM ANCHORBERING SEAFORMER INFILTRATION GALLERY(CURRENTLY USED)210SUSPECTED ORDNANCE BURIAL SITECATIONSFORMER MILITARY HOUSING/ OPERATIONS BURIAL SITEBLCAEROUTEAREA 1B3FORMER TRANSFORMER AREAAREA 4DCOMMUNIDrawing: O:\JOBS\49003 GAMBELL MONITORING WELL DECOM\ACAD-ENVIRO\FIGURES\DWG\49003_FIG2_MWL_JUNE08.DWG - Layout: 49003_FIG2_MWL_JUNE08User: MGARCIA Sep 08, 2008 - 12:51pm Xrefs: - Images:LANDFILL NO. 1AIR FORCE LANDING AREA1MW-7FORMER COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY BURIAL AREAQUONSET HUTS10DRUMSAREA 4C10AREA 4A4ARMY TRAILAREA 4BFORMER AIR FORCE RADAR SITESEVUOKUK MTN.AIR FORCE TRAILFIGURE 2GAMBELL, ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ALASKAMONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONINGMONITORING WELL LOCATIONSAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MONITORING WELL DECOMMISSIONED IN AUGUST 2008APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MONITORING WELL NOT LOCATED IN AUGUST 2008SOURCE: U.S. ARMY ENGINEERING DISTRICT, ALASKAST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, AKFIGURE 1-3, GAMBELL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION(SITE 5)-MWH MONTGOMERY WATSON, INC.12000600APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET1200BristolENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATIONSERVICES, LLCPhone (907) 563-0013 Fax (907) 563-6713Project No: 49003DATUM:NAPROJECTION:NADATE06/20/08DWN.MTG2SCALESHOWNofSAJ2APPRVD.SHEETTABLETable 1 - Approximate Monitoring Well LocationsWell IDNorth LatitudeWest LongitudeNotesMW-163.781356°171.7149255°DecommissionedMW-263.781983°171.7136754°DecommissionedMW-363.782303°171.7167222°DecommissionedMW-463.782614°171.7157427°MW-563.782632°171.7142623°MW-663.781235°171.6986545°MW-763.781432°171.697668°DecommissionedNot found during August 2008site activitiesNot found during August 2008site activitiesDecommissionedMW-863.781016°171.6978684°DecommissionedMW-963.779763°171.6953778°DecommissionedMW-1063.779493°171.696521°DecommissionedMW-1163.779979°171.6976435°DecommissionedMW-1263.780023°171.6995515°DecommissionedMW-1363.77942°171.6999017°DecommissionedMW-1763.741088°171.7076646°DecommissionedMW-1863.741363°171.7085022°DecommissionedMW-1963.737655°171.7164491°DecommissionedMW-2063.744871°171.7115767°DecommissionedMW-2163.745254°171.7108938°DecommissionedMW-2263.744751°171.7100725°MW-2563.777664°171.7174244°MW-2763.777449°171.7185506°DecommissionedNot found during August 2008site activitiesNot found during August 2008site activitiesNotes:° = degreesID = identificationATTACHMENT 1Site PhotographsPhotograph No. 1Direction: SouthDate: 8/20/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldDescription: Removing protective well cover from MW-12.Photograph No. 2Direction: WestDescription: Pulling PVC well casing from MW-22.Date: 8/20/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldPhotograph No. 3Direction: NADate: 8/20/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldDescription: Bentonite pellets in MW-3 (prior to hydration of pellets) following removal of well casing.Photograph No. 4Direction: EastDate: 8/20/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldDescription: NVG personnel looking for MW-7. Crew utilized a metal detector, heavy equipment, andhand-digging while attempting to find MW-5 and MW-7.Photograph No. 5Direction: WestDate: 8/21/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldDescription: NVG personnel looking for MW-27. Crew utilized a metal detector and hand-digging whileattempting to find MW-25 and MW-27.Photograph No. 6Direction: EastDate: 8/21/08Photographer: L. MacDonaldDescription: NVG heavy-equipment operator consolidating well construction materials at the end of themonitoring well decommissioning effort.ATTACHMENT 2Field Notes'It II11>¥:11•••IILL:II. . . . . -~~""'*-t--r----r----Ft---- "110,).,.J.....'>.4:-~~--tr--r.------• •~ \-JII;•}'t,.sII.,. a----,if--+---==-_.____II·--+-~,._,... __•n-Jt-.~~~~-- a1a·J·:•.J.·II•..).·11BristolENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERINGSERVICES CORPORATIONComputed:Checked:[Date:Date:~Is &.r.zr,t w lfL5 ~ lAJ -
ACAT FOIA Repository 44
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 44, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB regarding Gambell FUDS technical memos
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Summary:
Form letter to the Restoration Advisory Board members about archiving two technical reports regarding monitoring well decommissioning at the Gambell FUDS.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 44, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2008
Pages: 3
Document Title: Form letter to RAB regarding Gambell FUDS technical memos
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska)
Summary:
Form letter to the Restoration Advisory Board members about archiving two technical reports regarding monitoring well decommissioning at the Gambell FUDS.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat44SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 44," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898REPLY TOATTENTION OF:October 16, 2008Programs and Project Management DivisionSpeCial Projects Management Branch«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»«Company»«Address 1»«City», «State» «PostalCode»Dear «Title» «LastName»:A copy of two Technical Memorandums for the Gambell Formerly Used Defense Site(FUDS), dated June 20 and September 5, 2008, was recently serit to your local InformationRepository. These reports present the monitoring well decommissioning information for the 17wells that the Corps had removed from the Gambell community this past summer as acompletion of the Gambell Project.We are not asking for comments on these memorandums. This letter has been furnished tothe following RAB Members:Mr. Leonard Apangalook, Sr.Mr. Jerome ApatikiMr. Jesse GologerganMs. Jeanette IyaMs. C. Jane KavaMr. Christopher KoonookaMs. Pam MillerMr. George NoongwookMr. Jerry ReichlinMr. Paul Rookok, Sr.Ms. Viola WaghiyiMr. Kevin ZweifelIf you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 753-2689, or by e-mail atcarey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,G-earey CossaboomProject ManagerF10AK069603_07.01_0502_a200-1eFlOAK069603 - 07.01 - 0502- a• 0:\ESP\Private\FUDS\_Properties\Gambell FlOAK0696\HTRW-03\ RAB transmittalnoitce Well Decommission.docMerge with 0:\ESP\Private\FUDS\_Properties\Gambell F10AK0696\Merge Files\ RAB Mailoutdata source Oct08.docTitleMr.FirstNameLeonardMr.JeromeLastNameApangalook,Sr.ApatikiCompanyMr.JesseGologerganMs.JeanetteIyaMs.C. JaneKavaMr.ChristopherKoonookaMs.PamMillerMr.GeorgeNoongwookMr.JerryReichlinMr.PaulRookok, Sr.Ms.ViWaghiyiAlaskaCommunityAction onToxicsMr.KevinZweifelNorton SoundHealthCorporationSavoonga IRABuildingAlaskaCommunityAction onToxicsFortier andMikkoAddresslP.O.B ox93P.O. Box12P.O. Box105P.O. Box120P.O. Box154P.O. Box123505W.NorthernLightsBlvd., Ste205P.O. Box81101 w.BensenBlvd.,Suite 304P.O. Box135505W.NorthernLightsBlvd., Ste205P.O. Box966CityGambellStateAKPostalCode99742GambellAK99742SavoongaAK99769SavoongaAK99769SavoongaAK99769GambellAK99742AnchorageAK99503SavoongaAK99769AnchorageAK99503SavoongaAK99769AnchorageAK99503NomeAK99762Merge file: 0:\ESP\Private\FUDS\ _Properties\GambellF10AK0696\Merge Files\ RAB Mailout data source OctOB.doc -
ACAT FOIA Repository 45
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 5, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 28, 2009
Pages: 2
Document Title: Memo: Project Closeout Report for Gambell Comments and Questions
Agency/Organization: FUDS Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
Memo from Jerald Reichlin (Fortier & Mikko, P.C.) to Carey Cossaboom, FUDS Project Manager, after Sivuqaq Inc. reviewed the Closeout Report requesting changes or asking for further information.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 5, Date Received July 2023
Year: January 28, 2009
Pages: 2
Document Title: Memo: Project Closeout Report for Gambell Comments and Questions
Agency/Organization: FUDS Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers
Document Summary:
Memo from Jerald Reichlin (Fortier & Mikko, P.C.) to Carey Cossaboom, FUDS Project Manager, after Sivuqaq Inc. reviewed the Closeout Report requesting changes or asking for further information.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat45SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 5," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
FORTIER & MIKKOl01 W . BENSON BOULEVARDSUITE 304ANCHORAGE, AK 99503A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a teyd at 4aSAMUEL,J . FORTIERDAGMAR C . MLKKoTELEPHONE ( 907)277-4222OOdFAX LINE ( 907)277-4221JERALDM . REICHLINE-MAIL : fortnik k (a ak .netJanuary 28, 2009Carey CossaboomFUDS Project ManagerUS Army Corps of EngineersPO Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-0898Via First Class Mail andVia Email : carey .c.cossaboom@poa02 .usace.army.milRe : Project Closeout Report for GambellComments and QuestionsDear Carey :Sivuqaq, Inc . has reviewed the closeout report for the Gambell FUDS Project#F 10AK069603 . Sivuqaq believes that one statement is incorrect, and hasquestions about another . First, Sivuqaq takes issue with the statement on Page 2 ofthe report that the Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late1950's . They report to me that the Gambell site was used at least into the early1960's. Sivuqaq, Inc . would like this to be changed by an amendment or by errata .Second, your report says that the military leased approximately 2,543 acres iiiGambell of which the U .S . Air Force leased 1,807 acres and the U .S . Army leased736 acres . The directors of Sivuqaq, Inc . are unaware of any such lease with themilitary . If there was a lease with the military, do you have a copy? Who was thelessor? How much were the lease payments? To whom were the payments made?Who signed the lease?These are fundamental questions, but I also recognize that this information may notbe at your fingertips . If there any complications, please let . me know . I lookforward to your response .FlOAK069603 01 .01 0008a200-1eCarey CossaboomFUDS Project ManagerUS Army Corps of EngineersPage 2Very truly yours, -
ACAT FOIA Repository 46
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 46, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2009
Pages: 2
Document Title: Edited paragraph in Project Closeout Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers; Sivuqaq Inc
Document Summary:
A letter including edits to a paragraph describing the military's use of the site, corrected by Sivuqaq Inc.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 46, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2009
Pages: 2
Document Title: Edited paragraph in Project Closeout Report
Agency/Organization:
US Army Corps of Engineers; Sivuqaq Inc
Document Summary:
A letter including edits to a paragraph describing the military's use of the site, corrected by Sivuqaq Inc.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat46SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 46," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898October 6, 2009Environmental Special ProgramsPrograms and Project Management«Title» «FirstName» «LastName»«Company»«Address1»«City», «State» «PostalCode»Dear «Title» «LastName»:It has come to our attention through Sivuqaq, Inc., based in Gambell, Alaska, that a fewstatements regarding land usage in Gambell that were written in the HTRW Project CloseoutReport (Gambell FUDS) are in error. Errors occur specifically, in Section 2.0 on page 2, withinthe third paragraph. That third paragraph is hereby corrected by amendment as follows:The Gambell site was used by the military from 1948 until the late 1950’s1960’s. Variousfacilities were constructed by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force near the village of Gambellto provide housing and operations, aircraft radar, communications, and other functions. Themilitary leasedArmy/Air Force used approximately 2,543 acres in Gambell under Special UsePermits and Public Land Order, of which the U.S. Air Force leased 1,807 acres and the U.S.Army leased the remaining acreage. The Air Force built a base camp in 1950 at the foot ofSevuokuk Mountain and a radar site directly above on the mountain top (both abandoned in1956). The Army occupied several sites during the late 1950s, with a main base camp locatedjust north of Troutman Lake. The Gambell Annex, Gambell Army Site No 1, Gambell Site No2, and Gambell Army Station were not relinquished to BLM until 1965. The Navy also laidcommunications cables from the village of Gambell, up Sevuokuk Mountain, and south toBrunnell Cape.F10AK069603_07.12_0501_a200-1ePlease add this letter amendment to the Gambell HTRW Project Closeout Report datedJune 2009. If you have any questions, please contact me at (907) 753-2689, or bye-mail atcarey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,Carey CossaboomProject ManagerFIOAK069603_07.12_0501.pO:\ESP\Private\FUDS\yroperties\Gambell FlOAK0696\ccc Letters\ Gambell HTRW PCOAmendment_Info Rep & Stakeholder. docMerge with O:\ESP\Private\FUDS,-Properties\Gambell Fl OAK0696\Merge Files\ Amendmentdata source. doc -
ACAT FOIA Repository 47
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 47, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2009
Pages: 12
Document Title: Communications between EPA Region 10 and USACE regarding ACAT and Tribal concerns
Agency/Organization:
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; US Army Corps of Engineers; Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Document Summary:
A letter from the EPA Region 10 Administrator to the Alaska district commander of the US Army Corps of Engineers asking questions based on ACAT's concerns about the extent of clean up and future monitoring at Gambell and the Northeast Cape, the response from the USACE, and the letter from ACAT to the EPA detailing the concerns. The EPA letter mentions that EPA's 2002 decision not to list Gambell on the NPL depended on USACE's planned remediation since the evaluation and cleanup under NPL would not be substantially different from that under FUDS. USACE states that, with the exception of two issues to be addressed in 2010 and 2011 and long-term drinking water contamination at one site that will not be addressed, Gambell is considered fully remediated.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 47, Date Received July 2023
Year: 2009
Pages: 12
Document Title: Communications between EPA Region 10 and USACE regarding ACAT and Tribal concerns
Agency/Organization:
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; US Army Corps of Engineers; Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Document Summary:
A letter from the EPA Region 10 Administrator to the Alaska district commander of the US Army Corps of Engineers asking questions based on ACAT's concerns about the extent of clean up and future monitoring at Gambell and the Northeast Cape, the response from the USACE, and the letter from ACAT to the EPA detailing the concerns. The EPA letter mentions that EPA's 2002 decision not to list Gambell on the NPL depended on USACE's planned remediation since the evaluation and cleanup under NPL would not be substantially different from that under FUDS. USACE states that, with the exception of two issues to be addressed in 2010 and 2011 and long-term drinking water contamination at one site that will not be addressed, Gambell is considered fully remediated.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat47SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 47," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, Washington 98101-3140REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORMAR 2 3 2010Colonel Reinhard W. KoenigDistrict CommanderU.S. Army Corp of EngineersP.O. Box 6898Elmendorf AFB, Alaska 99506-0898Dear Colonel Koenig:On September 24, 2009, Mathy Stanislaus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and other EPAstaff met with Tribal representatives from St. Lawrence Island, Alaska, and the AlaskaCommunity Action on Taxies (ACAT) to discuss their concerns about ongoing U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (USACE) cleanup work at the Northeast Cape and Gambell "Formerly UsedDefense Sites" located on St. Lawrence Island. Mr. Stanislaus has delegated this matter to theEPA Region 10 office to take the lead in reviewing the issues raised by ACAT. The purpose ofthis letter is to request information from the USACE to determine whether the cleanup at the NECape and Gambell sites are consistent with EPA requirements and to determine EPA's futurerole at these sites.I understand that ACAT and Tribal representatives also met with the USACE inSeptember 2009 to discuss their concerns about the Northeast Cape and Gambell sites. ACATsent Mr. Stanislaus a letter on November 11, 2009 addressing the concerns they presented at theSeptember 24, 2009 meeting. Enclosed is a copy of that letter.ACAT specifically requested that EPA place the sites on the Superfund NationalPriorities List (NPL) and provide them with a copy of the current Hazard Ranking Systemevaluation. ACAT and the Tribal delegation also raised concerns about the adequacy of sitecharacterization, cleanup, and oversight. As you know, in 2002 EPA evaluated the NE Cape anddecided not to pursue an NPL listing because we believed that listing the site on the NPL wouldnot significantly improve conditions or cleanup progress at the site. Our decision took intoaccount the USACE's clean-up efforts.We are considering ACAT' s current request to re-evaluate the sites for NPL listing, aswell as our future role at this site. However, we want to ensure that we coordinate with theUSACE prior to responding to ACAT and that we base our decisions on the most currentinformation.F10AK069603_08.01_0082_aF10AK096903_08.01_0519_a200-1e0PffntMI on Recycled PaperIn order to be responsive to ACAT and Tribal concerns, EPA requests that the USACE:Provide a response to the 10 bulleted issues ACAT presents on page 3 of theirNovember 11, 2009 letter.Include a summary of site investigation and cleanup activities performed to date, aswell as your future plans.Include a list of any waste and contaminants that will remain on St. Lawrence Islandafter completion of remediation, and the plans for long term monitoring.Both the USACE and EPA have a trust responsibility for the two Tribes on St. LawrenceIsland. I ask that you detail the efforts you have made to honor the Government to Governmentconsultation duties we share. During the meeting with EPA, the Tribal delegation indicated theirdesire for greater inclusion of the Tribes in the decision-making process, including directconcurrence on the Record of Decision (bullet item #10).I request that you direct your response to Dan Opalski, Director, Office of EnvironmentalCleanup. It would be most helpful if you can provide a response within thirty days. If you haveany questions regarding our request, please contact Dan Opalski at (206) 553-1855. I appreciateyour consideration of this request and look forward to your response.Sincerely,~~~Regional AdministratorEnclosurecc:Steve BainbridgeAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationJennifer RobertsAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationJohn HalversonAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationCurtis DuncanAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationCarey CossaboomU.S. Corp of EngineersAlaska Community Action on Toxics505 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 205Anchorage, Alaska 99503(907) 222-7714; (907) 222-7715 (FAX)www.akaction.orgNovember 11, 2009Mr. Mathy StanilausAssistant AdministratorOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency ResponseEPA West1301 Constitution Avenue NW, room 3146BWashington DC 20314-1000RE: THANK YOUDear Mr. Stanilaus:On behalf of the St. Lawrence Island Delegation and Alaska Community Action on Toxics(ACAT), thank you for meeting with members of our delegation on Thursday September 24,2009. We appreciated the time that you took with us to discuss the pressing needs of thepeople of St. Lawrence Island, including the toxic contamination of formerly used defensesites (FUDS), the need for proper site characterization and EPA oversight at Gambell andNortheast Cape FUDs, thorough and aggressive clean up, and the inclusion of NortheastCape on the National Priorities List. The Yupik people of St. Lawrence Island havedisproportionate health problems that may be associated with exposures to chemicalcontamination from the formerly used defense sites and long-range transport, includingcancers, diabetes, reproductive problems, thyroid disease, nervous and immune systemdisorders, and learning disabilities. Actions are needed to protect the health and well-being ofpresent and future generations, the lands, waters, and traditional subsistence way of life of theYupik people. Climate warming exacerbates the mobilization and transport of persistentorganic pollutants (POPs) from local and distant sources in the Arctic. Synergistic effectsof climate warming and increasing levels of contaminants in the Arctic threaten foodsecurity and the survival of the Yupik people.As we discussed, we are concerned about the contamination and environmental health issuesassociated with the formerly used defense sites on St. Lawrence Island at Northeast Cape andGambell. The island's military installations and residents served important strategic rolesduring the Cold War. However, when the bases were shut down, large quantities ofhazardous wastes and debris were left behind. At Northeast Cape, massive fuel spills, PCBs,pesticides, heavy metals, asbestos, and solvents were dumped on the surface or buried inunlined landfills that are leaching to the Suqitughneq (Suqi) River and coastal waters. Thevillage at Northeast Cape was displaced after the military contaminated the area and cannotbe re-established until effective remedial measures are implemented and finalized.At Gambell, the wastes, including fuels, solvents, unexploded ordnance, and metal debriswere buried in the unconsolidated gravel which forms the foundation of the village. AtGambell, we are concerned about the vulnerability of the shallow (about 10 feet) aquifer thatserves as the community water source. We are also concerned that the school and residentialareas are located on areas overlying military contamination. The toxic waste dumps on St.Lawrence Island have devastated the lands and waters, and have continued to affect thetraditional food gathering and health for more than 50 years.In addition to the military contamination, the Yupik people of St. Lawrence Island are alsosuffering from the contamination that arrives on wind and ocean currents into our region vialong-range transport. As you know, the Arctic has become a hemispheric sink for POPsthat travel hundreds and thousands of miles northward on wind and ocean currents, wherethey accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people of the north. This contaminationharms our traditional foods and the health of our people. Arctic Indigenous peoples carrysome of the highest levels of these contaminants in their bodies. The chemicals includelegacy chemicals such as PCBs and DDT, as well as currently used industrial chemicals andpesticides such as brominated flame retardants, fluorinated substances, and endosulfan. Weask for your support in preventing the production and release of these chemicals throughreform of our federal laws, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). We al~o ask for U.S. participation andleadership internationally through the Stockholm Convention on Persistent OrganicPollutants (POPs). It is only through national and international actions that we can protect thehealth of the peoples of the Arctic.U.S. leadership is critical to the success of international efforts to eliminate the world'smost dangerous substances. We are eager to work with the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Department of State, and Congress to enact legislation that reflects theprecautionary spirit and scientific rigor of the Stockholm Convention and enable swjftaction by the U.S. on POPs chemicals. We are committed to ensure ratification of astrong, protective treaty.The Preamble Qf the Convention recognizes the special vulnerability of Arctic IndigenousPeoples and states: "Acknowledging that the Arctic ecosystems and indigenouscommunities are particularly at risk because ofbiomagniffcations ofpersistent organicpollutants and that contamination of their traditional foods is a public health issue."Some Arctic Indigenous populations have shown "levels of contaminants in blood andbreast milk [that are] higher than those found anywhere else on the Earth." Thisrecognition inspired the negotiation of the Stockholm Convention, as noted in thepreamble, and must now motivate the Convention's strong implementation. This is not anabstract issue for the Yupik people and other Arctic Indigenous peoples-it affects theirdaily lives and the health of future generations. They depend on traditional foods fromthe land and sea for their physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being-foods that arecontaminated with POPs chemicals. Our own community-based research has found highlevels of such POPs chemicals as PCBs and other "legacy" chemicals in the traditionalfoods and blood serum of the Yupik people. The most recent Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme report also raises concerns about increasing levels of "new"POPs chemicals in the Arctic such as the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) andperfluorinated substances. With the rapid decline of sea ice, scientists predict greateratmospheric loading of such chemicals as endosulfan into the marine environment. Wemust take swift national and international actions to eliminate the production and use ofthese chemicals that threaten the integrity of ecosystems and public health in the Arcticand around the globe.The people of St. Lawrence Island need your help to move forward and to renew their way oflife. We want to ensure that Northeast Cape is safe and healthy for the restoration of the SuqiRiver watershed and re-establishment of the village. ·Our research in the Suqi Riverwatershed indicates the presence of PCBs, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsassociated with past fuel spills, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and heavy metals.In Gambell, we must also ensure protection of the drinking water source, the school, andresidential areas.We request your support to ensure proper regulatory oversight, enforcement, and funding forcharacterization and responsible cleanup of the formerly used defense sites. This includesprovisions for use of innovative clean-up technologies relevant to the Arctic, accountabilityto the leadership of the communities of Savoonga and Gambell, government-to-governmentconsultation with Tribes, and citizen participation in remedial decisions. Tribes, as sovereigngovernments, must have the right to determine clean-up standards and serve as official partiesto the Records of Decision. We also request your support to achieve restoration and removalof the contamination rather than premature closures, partial excavations, natural attenuation,and/or land use controls. We request the following actions to address and prevent furtherhealth and environmental effects of military contamination on St. Lawrence Island.Specifically, the matters of primary urgency for your attention and action include:••••••••••Complete removal of the solid and hazardous waste materials at the NortheastCape Site 7 landfill;Removal and treatment of the White Alice site soils and groundwater toeffectively remove associated contaminants;Removal/remediation of contaminants in the Northeast Cape Main Complex soilsand groundwater, as well as on-going monitoring to ensure safe drinking watersupplies;Effective remediation and long term monitoring of the Suqi River drainage basinsediments and surface water (fuels and PCB contamination);Complete removal or destruction of the contaminants identified at the formervillage site at Northeast Cape;Restoration of the Suqi River watershed and shallow groundwater resourceswithin the area of the Main Complex and up-gradient regions of the MainComplex to ensure adequate and safe drinking water at Northeast Cape;Removal of contaminant sources at the village in Gambell including those upgradient from the municipal water supplies and those beneath the residentialareas, the school and community buildings;Long term, bi-annual monitoring of contaminants of concern within the municipalwater supply areas;Establishment of a safe drinking water source at Gambell that is up-gradient ofthe contaminated sites; andInstitute the tribes as official signatories/Parties to any Records of Decision(RODs).••Protect the health of children and other vulnerable populations in Alaska andelsewhere through reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and thefederal pesticide law (FIFRA). Include provisions to: 1) phase. out persistent,bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs), and chemicals that harm health; 2) require safesubstitutes and solutions; 3) give the public and workers the full right-to-knowand participate; and 4) require prior, comprehensive safety data for all chemicals.Take swift, bold measures to substantially reduce the greenhouse gases to protectcommunities of the Arctic from climate change impacts.U.S. participation and leadership is critical to the success of international effortsto eliminate the world's most dangerous substances that threaten the north/Arctic.Ensure passage of strong, effective implementation legislation for the ratificationof the Stockholm Convention, the international, legally-binding treaty on POPs.Again, we very much appreciate your time in meeting with the delegation. ACA T is a nonprofit organization that empowers individuals and tribes throughout Alaska who are seekingassistance with toxic contamination issues that affect the health of people and theenvironment. We look forward to working with you to address the concerns of the Yupikpeople of St. Lawrence Island.If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact usdirectly or to reach us through our Washington D.C. representative-The Raben Group(contact: Ellie Collinson at (202) 587-4935 or ecollinson@rabengroup.com)].Sincerely,Vi WaghiyiEnvironmental Health and JusticeProgram DirectorccSenator Lisa MarkowskiSenator Mark BegichPamela K. MillerExecutive DirectorREPLY TOATTENTION OF:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898APR9 2010Programs and Project Management DivisionEnvironmental Special ProjectsMr. Dan Opalski, DirectorOffice of Environmental CleanupEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, WA 98101-3140Dear Mr. Opalski:We received a letter from the EPA Regional Administrator, Dennis J. McLerran, dated March23, 2010. Mr. McLerran requested that we respond to you on three specific points regarding theUSACE Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.The Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) group has been involved for many yearswith FUDS projects on St. Lawrence Island, specifically our Gambell and Northeast CapeProjects. ACAT has consulted with the two Tribal IRA Councils in Gambell and Savoonga, andthey appear to have a great deal of influence with the Tribal leaders.We understand the need to be responsive to Tribal concerns. We recognize the trustresponsibility we have for the Tribes and the open dialogue we must maintain with their chosenadvisors. We welcome your inquiries and are pleased to provide the information requested inEPA's March 23 letter.The following paragraphs are the USACE Alaska District's responses to the 10 bulleted issuesACAT presented in their November 11,2009, letter to the EPA. These are the same issues thatACAT sent by letter November 4, 2010, to USACE Headquarters (Mr. Stacey Hirata) inWashington, D.C.• Complete removal of the solid and hazardous waste materials at the Northeast Cape Site 7landfillWe believe that the excavations and capping of the Site 7 landfill accomplished during thesummer of 2009 removed the contamination sources from this site. Previous investigationsindicated that little if any leachate migrates from the landfill, and the groundwater results were2essentially clean. The effort completed this past summer exceeded our expectations. Drumremoval was extremely thorough, batteries and PCB-ballasts were completely removed, and 50tons of visibly-stained soils were removed. Based on the completed cleanup efforts and new cap,we are confident Site 7 meets protective health-based standards.• Removal and treatment of the White Alice site soils and groundwater to effectively removeassociated contaminantsRemoval of remaining PCB-contaminated soils at the White Alice Site is planned for 2010.The groundwater near the fom1er White Alice site is not contaminated.• Removal/remediation of contaminants in the Northeast Cape Main Complex soils andgroundwater, as well as on-going monitoring to ensure safe drinldng water suppliesRemoval ofPCB-contaminated soils at the Main Operations Complex is scheduled for 2010.Cleanup of the petroleum-contaminated soils at the Main Operations Complex is planned for2011. We tested chemical oxidation techniques for both soil and groundwater in 2009 (at theadvice of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings). However, it does not appear that theoxidation techniques will be effective in the peat-rich soils that are petroleum contaminated at thenorthern edge of the Main Operations 'Complex. Since chemical oxidation processes were notsuccessful, the contingency approach of soil excavation will be implemented. Our remediationobjective remains the same: cleanup of petroleum contaminated soils (maximum depth of 15feet, as required for future unrestricted use), to meet the site-specific, risk-based cleanup levelsapproved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and specified in ourapproved Decision Document. After source removal is completed, monitored natural attenuationof the groundwater will be implemented. The Main Operations Complex should not beconsidered a good source for drinking water in the near future. A restriction on installing adrinking water source within the contaminated zone of the Main Complex should be made unlessfuture data confirms cleanup levels are achieved. Clean sources of groundwater for a futurecommunity exist up gradient from the Main Operations Complex.• Effective remediation and long term monitoring of the Suqi River drainage basin sedimentsand surface water (fuels and PCB contamination)Testing conducted by USACE has demonstrated that the Suqi River drainage basin does notexhibit significant levels of contamination in sediments, except near the Main OperationsComplex. The approved Decision Document includes a plan to excavate the contaminatedsediments immediately adjacent to the Main Complex and a portion of the narrow down-gradientchannel.• Complete removal or destruction of the contaminants identified at the former village site atNortheast Cape3The former village site at Northeast Cape was not a DoD facility and is, therefore, not eligibleunder the FUDS program. The DoD has shown a willingness to assess conditions at the formervillage site under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP}.• Restoration of the Suqi River watershed and shallow groundwater resources within thearea of the Main Complex and upgradient regions of the Main Complex to ensure adequateand safe drinking water at Northeast CapeCleanup of contamination sources at the Main Operations Complex and the sediments in thenearby Drainage Basin will significantly improve the overall Suqi River watershed. We believethat our remediation efforts will improve the shallow groundwater at Northeast Cape, but weacknowledge that groundwater in the Main Operations Complex will not be suitable as potablewater in the near future. However, the groundwater just up gradient of the Main OperationsComplex is not contaminated and would be a suitable place for a potable water well that couldserve a future community.• Removal of contaminant sources at the Village in Gambell including those up-gradientfrom the municipal water supplies and those beneath the residential areas, the school andcommunity buildingsUSACE conducted active investigation and cleanup efforts in Gambell between 1994 and2006. All known, eligible military sources of contaminants were removed. The State of AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation approved the investigation and cleanup reports andconcurred that no further action is necessary at the site. Debris was cleared from beneath theschool during its construction and moved to Site 8C near the city landfill. The NALEMP projectremoved the military debris material during the summers of 2008-09. We have heard reports thatsome houses were built on top of scrap wastes. Based on previous debris removal efforts, wehave found that only rarely does buried debris in Gambell contain contamination. The NALEMPcrew will address concerns about debris beneath residential areas as close as practical, but wecannot justify moving buildings to access debris that is not a source of contamination. Theremaining buried debris does not constitute a health hazard or endangerment and is therefore noteligible under the FUDS program. The DoD continues to work with the Native Village ofGambell through NALEMP to assess conditions and cleanup additional military impacts ordebris. This NALEMP project is run by the Tribe, and as such, they are responsible for mitigatingenvironmental hazards associated with this buried debris.• Long term, bi-annual monitoring of contaminants of concern within the municipal watersupply areasTo our knowledge, the drinking water source in Gambell has never been compromised byactivities attributed to the Department of Defense. One monitoring well cross-gradient from thecommunity well showed fuel contamination in the past, but subsequent investigationsdemonstrated no significant contamination remains. To our knowledge, the community well inGambell has never been contaminated except for one act of juvenile vandalism.4• Establishment of a safe drinking water source at Gambell that is up-gradient of thecontaminated sitesThe drinking water source in Gambell has not been compromised by activities attributed tothe Department of Defense. Therefore, the DoD is not responsible for creating a new watersource in Gambell.• Institute the tribes as official signatories/Parties to any Records ofDecision (RODs)The Corps cannot seek tribal signatures on Records of Decision because the tribe does nothave jurisdiction over the land itself CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) regulations (see 40 CFR 300.515) require that Indiantribes have jurisdiction over the site in order to be afforded substantially the same treatment asstates. However, the State of Alaska maintains jurisdictional authority over territory other thanNative allotments or other lands set aside under the superintendence ofthe federal government.Therefore, it would not be appropriate to request Tribal signatures on Decision Documents.According to FUDS Program Policy (ER 200-3-1, May 2004), the Department of the Army,Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM) is the approval authority for alldecision documents that have a selected remedy with a present worth cost estimate of more than$10 million. Lt General Robert Wilson approved the overall cleanup plans (Decision Document)for the Northeast Cape Air Force Station FUDS on 3 September 2009.The EPA March 23 letter requested us to provide a summary of site investigation and cleanupactivities perfonned to date as well as future plans. We have enclosed two Project CloseoutReports (HTRW and CON/HTRW) for our Gambell Project and two Decision Documents forour Northeast Cape Project to summarize work completed on these projects.As mentioned earlier, environmental remediation efforts under the FUDS program atGambell have been completed. However, environmental mitigation efforts continue in Gambellunder the DoD-funded NALEMP. NALEMP eligibility requirements are more liberal than FUDScriteria; buried debris in Gambell can be excavated even though it doesn't present an immediatehazard. The NALEMP Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) is being updated by theNative Village of Gambell's environmental contractor. The SPIP briefly covers the NALEMPhistory in Gambell from 2003 to present.The remedial actions outlined in the Northeast Cape Site 7 Cargo Beach Road Landfill CONHTRW Decision Document at Northeast Cape were completed in 2009. The final ConstructionCompletion Report is pending. Our contractor went above and beyond the stated scope and dugthrough the entire landfill, removing all drums and stained soils, before placing a new cap on theSite 7 Landfill.The remedial actions outlined within the Northeast Cape HTRW Decision Doc~ment wereinitiated in 2009 with the chemical oxidation pilot study for the petroleum-contaminated soils atthe Main Operations Complex. Unfortunately, layers of peat at this location rendered chem-ox5treatment ineffective. Our Decision Document included a contingency scenario identified as theexcavation of soils and monitored natural attenuation of groundwater. The remedial actionsoutlined in the Decision Document will be implemented starting this field season and continue.'over the next several years as funding is available. Long-term monitoring and 5 years reviewswill extend beyond 2012.Another point the EPA March 23 letter requested that we address was to include a list of anywaste and contaminants that will remain on St. Lawrence Island after completion of remediation,and the plans for long term monitoring. The following paragraphs address those areas.Wastes and/or contaminants that are likely to remain behind in Gambell after completion ofNALEMP remediation efforts include:••••Some debris, largely consisting of scrap metal, that exists under the city water tankEmpty former latrine drums beneath the city snow fenceDebris that is speculated to be beneath the new city housing areaScattered .30-caliber ammunition rounds at the bottom of Troutman LakeNo long term monitoring is slated for Gambell.Wastes and/or contaminants that are likely to remain behind at Northeast Cape aftercompletion of remediation efforts include:• Petroleum-contaminated soils deeper than 15 feet at the Main Operations Complex• Petroleum-contaminated groundwater at the Main Operations Complex• Small residual pockets of petroleum-contaminated soil/sediment within the wetlanddrainage basin below the Main Operations Complex• DRO-contaminated soils in wetlands at Site 8 (monitored natural attenuation)• Non-hazardous solid waste debris beneath the two newly-capped disposal areas(Site 7 and Site 9)Long-term monitoring will occur at the Main Operations Complex, Site 8, and the Site 7 andSite 9 landfills.The last area that the EPA March 23 letter requested that we address was to detail our effortsto honor the Government to Government consultation duties. To honor the Government toGovernment consultation with the Triballeaderships on St. Lawrence Island, we routinely haveom Project Manager meet separately with the Tribal President and IRA Council Members priorto scheduled Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meetings. In addition, several former AlaskaDistrict Commanders have met with Tribal Leaders in the past, both on St. Lawrence Island andhere on Elmendorf Air Force Base. The most recent meetings took place in January 2007 (Col.Wilson traveled to Gambell), April 2006 (Col. Gallagher traveled to Savoonga), and July 2002(Lt. Col Gingras here at Elmendorf AFB). I also intend to visit St. Lawrence Island this smnmer.6If you have any remaining questions or concerns, please contact our St. Lawrence IslandProject Manager, Mr. Carey Cossaboom, at (907) 753-2689, or by e-mail atcarey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,~~Reinhard W. KoenigColonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict CommanderEnclosurescc: S. Bainbridge, ADECJ. Roberts, ADECJ. Halverson, ADECC. Dunkin, ADECD. McLerran, EPA -
ACAT FOIA Repository 48
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 48, Date Received July 2023
Year: March 23, 2010
Pages: 8
Document Title: Memo: To ACAT from US EPA Region 10 Administrator, Dennis J. McLerran
Agency/Organization: US EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Response to a request on November 11, 2009, on cleanup actions and the request for NPL status of the Northeast Cape site.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 48, Date Received July 2023
Year: March 23, 2010
Pages: 8
Document Title: Memo: To ACAT from US EPA Region 10 Administrator, Dennis J. McLerran
Agency/Organization: US EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Response to a request on November 11, 2009, on cleanup actions and the request for NPL status of the Northeast Cape site.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat48SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 48," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, Washington 98101-3140-REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR2 3 2010Ms. Pamela K. Miller, Executive DirectorMs. Vi Waghiyi, Program DirectorAlaska Community Action on Toxics505 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 205Anchorage, Alaska 99503Dear Ms. Miller and Ms. Waghiyi:Thank you for your letter dated November 11, 2009, to Mathy Stanislaus, theEnvironment Protection Agency's (EPA) Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste andEmergency Response, regarding the FUDS on St. Lawrence Island at Northeast Cape andGambell. Mr. Stanislaus has delegated this matter to the EPA Region 10 Seattle office to takethe lead in reviewing the issues raised by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) anddetermining EPA's future role at these sites. I apologize for the delay in following up with you,but with my recent appointment, I want to bring you up to date on our activities related to thesesites.In 2002 EPA reviewed the work by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at thesesites and determined that the USACE was proceeding in a manner consistent with EPA'sexpectations for hazardous waste sites. We are in communication with the USACE as we beginto update our evaluation of both the cleanup actions they have taken and their expected futureactions. I also have asked our Site Assessment program to evaluate these sites to determine ifthey qualify to be included on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Based on theoutcomes of the above two activities, we will consider again whether or not the USACE'scleanup is consistent with EPA requirements and the appropriate role for EPA in the cleanup ofthese two sites. We anticipate making determinations on these matters within three months.In your conversation with Mr. Stanislaus and Region 10 staff, you mentioned that ACAThas collected additional data. Now is an opportune time to make any new data available for ourconsideration. Please forward any new information you have to Sylvia Kawabata, Unit Managerof our Assessment and Brownfields Unit. Sylvia can be reached at 206-553-1078 or by e-mail atkawabata.sylvia@epa.gov. Sylvia will be our overall point of contact, so you may also contacther should you have any questions.F10AK096903_01.01_0503_aF10AK069603_01.01_0009_a200-1ef Printed on Recycled PaperThank you for your continued interest in the FUDS on St. Lawrence Island at NortheastCape and Gambell. We will keep you advised of our progress as we proceed with our review.Sincerely,Dennis J. McLerranRegional AdministratorREPLY TOATTENTION OF:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKAP.O. BOX 6898ELMENDORF AFB, ALASKA 99506-0898APR9 2010Programs and Project Management DivisionEnvironmental Special ProjectsMr. Dan Opalski, DirectorOffice of Environmental CleanupEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, WA 98101-3140Dear Mr. Opalski:We received a letter from the EPA Regional Administrator, Dennis J. McLerran, dated March23, 2010. Mr. McLerran requested that we respond to you on three specific points regarding theUSACE Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.The Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) group has been involved for many yearswith FUDS projects on St. Lawrence Island, specifically our Gambell and Northeast CapeProjects. ACAT has consulted with the two Tribal IRA Councils in Gambell and Savoonga, andthey appear to have a great deal of influence with the Tribal leaders.We understand the need to be responsive to Tribal concerns. We recognize the trustresponsibility we have for the Tribes and the open dialogue we must maintain with their chosenadvisors. We welcome your inquiries and are pleased to provide the information requested inEPA's March 23 letter.The following paragraphs are the US ACE Alaska District's responses to the 10 bulleted issuesACAT presented in their November 11, 2009, letter to the EPA. These are the same issues thatACAT sent by letter November 4, 2010, to US ACE Headquarters (Mr. Stacey Hirata) inWashington, D.C.• Complete removal of the solid and hazardous waste materials at the Northeast Cape Site 7landfillWe believe that the excavations and capping of the Site 7landfill accomplished during thesummer of 2009 removed the contamination sources from this site. Previous investigationsindicated that little if any leachate migrates from the landfill, and the groundwater results were2essentially clean. The effort completed this past summer exceeded our expectations. Drumremoval was extremely thorough, batteries and PCB-ballasts were completely removed, and 50tons of visibly-stained soils were removed. Based on the completed cleanup efforts and new cap,we are confident Site 7 meets protective health-based standards.• Removal and treatment of the White Alice site soils and groundwater to effectively removeassociated contaminantsRemoval of remaining PCB-contaminated soils at the White Alice Site is planned for 2010.The groundwater near the former White Alice site is not contaminated.• Removal/remediation of contaminants in the Northeast Cape Main Complex soils andgroundwater, as well as on-going monitoring to ensure safe drinking water suppliesRemoval ofPCB-contaminated soils at the Main Operations Complex is scheduled for 2010.Cleanup of the petroleum-contaminated soils at the Main Operations Complex is planned for2011. We tested chemical oxidation techniques for both soil and groundwater in 2009 (at theadvice of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings). However, it does not appear that theoxidation techniques will be effective in the peat-rich soils that are petroleum contaminated at thenorthern edge of the Main Operations -complex. Since chemical oxidation processes were notsuccessful, the contingency approach of soil excavation will be implemented. Our remediationobjective remains the same: cleanup of petroleum contaminated soils (maximum depth of 15feet, as required for future unrestricted use), to meet the site-specific, risk-based cleanup levelsapproved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and specified in ourapproved Decision Document. After source removal is completed, monitored natural attenuationof the groundwater will be implemented. The Main Operations Complex should not beconsidered a good source for drinking water in the near future. A restriction on installing adrinking water source within the contaminated zone of the Main Complex should be made unlessfuture data confirms cleanup levels are achieved. Clean sources of groundwater for a futurecommunity exist up gradient from the Main Operations Complex.• Effective remediation and long term monitoring of the Suqi River drainage basin sedimentsand surface water (fuels and PCB contamination)Testing conducted by USACE has demonstrated that the Suqi River drainage basin does notexhibit significant levels of contamination in sediments, except near the Main OperationsComplex. The approved Decision Document includes a plan to excavate the contaminatedsediments immediately adjacent to the Main Complex and a portion of the narrow down-gradientchannel.• Complete removal or destruction of the contaminants identified at the former village site atNortheast Cape3The former village site at Northeast Cape was not a DoD facility and is, therefore, not eligibleunder the FUDS program. The DoD has shown a willingness to assess conditions at the formervillage site under the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program (NALEMP).• Restoration of the Suqi River watershed and shallow groundwater resources within thearea of the Main Complex and upgradient regions of the Main Complex to ensure adequateand safe drinking water at Northeast CapeCleanup of contamination sources at the Main Operations Complex and the sediments in thenearby Drainage Basin will significantly improve the overall Suqi River watershed. We believethat our remediation efforts will improve the shallow groundwater at Northeast Cape, but weacknowledge that groundwater in the Main Operations Complex will not be suitable as potablewater in the near future. However, the groundwater just up gradient ofthe Main OperationsComplex is not contaminated and would be a suitable place for a potable water well that couldserve a future community.• Removal of contaminant sources at the Village in Gambell including those up-gradientfrom the municipal water supplies and those beneath the residential areas, the school andcommunity buildingsUSACE conducted active investigation and cleanup efforts in Gambell between 1994 and2006. All known, eligible military sources of contaminants were removed. The State of AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation approved the investigation and cleanup reports andconcurred that no further action is necessary at the site. Debris was cleared from beneath theschool during its construction and moved to Site 8C near the city landfill. The NALEMP projectremoved the military debris material during the summers of 2008-09. We have heard reports thatsome houses were built on top of scrap wastes. Based on previous debris removal efforts, wehave found that only rarely does buried debris in Gambell contain contamination. The NALEMPcrew will address concerns about debris beneath residential areas as close as practical, but wecannot justify moving buildings to access debris that is not a source of contamination. Theremaining buried debris does not constitute a health hazard or endangerment and is therefore noteligible under the FUDS program. The DoD continues to work with the Native Village ofGambell through NALEMP to assess conditions and cleanup additional military impacts ordebris. This NALEMP project is run by the Tribe, and as such, they are responsible for mitigatingenvironmental hazards associated with this buried debris.• Long term, bi-annual monitoring of contaminants of concern within the municipal watersupply areasTo our knowledge, the drinking water source in Gambell has never been compromised byactivities attributed to the Department of Defense. One monitoring well cross-gradient from thecommunity well showed fuel contamination in the past, but subsequent investigationsdemonstrated no significant contamination remains. To our knowledge, the community well inGambell has never been contaminated except for one act of juvenile vandalism.4• Establishment of a safe drinking water source at Gambell that is up-gradient of thecontaminated sitesThe drinking water source in Gambell has not been compromised by activities attributed tothe Department of Defense. Therefore, the DoD is not responsible for creating a new watersource in Gambell.• Institute the tribes as official signatories/Parties to any Records of Decision (RODs)The Corps cannot seek tribal signatures on Records of Decision because the tribe does nothave jurisdiction over the land itself. CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) regulations (see 40 CFR 300.515) require that Indiantribes have jurisdiction over the site in order to be afforded substantially the same treatment asstates. However, the State of Alaska maintains jurisdictional authority over territory other thanNative allotments or other lands set aside under the superintendence of the federal government.Therefore, it would not be appropriate to request Tribal signatures on Decision Documents.According to FUDS Program Policy (ER 200-3-1, May 2004), the Department ofthe Army,Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management (ACSIM) is the approval authority for alldecision documents that have a selected remedy with a present worth cost estimate of more than$10 million. Lt General Robert Wilson approved the overall cleanup plans (Decision Document)for the Northeast Cape Air Force Station FUDS on 3 September 2009.The EPA March 23 letter requested us to provide a summary of site investigation and cleanupactivities performed to date as well as future plans. We have enclosed two Project CloseoutReports {HTRW and CON/HTRW) for our Gambell Project and two Decision Documents forour Northeast Cape Project to summarize work completed on these projects.As mentioned earlier, environmental remediation efforts under the FUDS program atGambell have been completed. However, environmental mitigation efforts continue in Gambellunder the DoD-funded NALEMP. NALEMP eligibility requirements are more liberal than FUDScriteria; buried debris in Gambell can be excavated even though it doesn't present an immediatehazard. The NALEMP Strategic Project Implementation Plan (SPIP) is being updated by theNative Village of Gambell's environmental contractor. The SPIP briefly covers the NALEMPhistory in Gambell from 2003 to present.The remedial actions outlined in the Northeast Cape Site 7 Cargo Beach Road Landfill CONHTRW Decision Document at Northeast Cape were completed in 2009. The final ConstructionCompletion Report is pending. Our contractor went above and beyond the stated scope and dugthrough the entire landfill, removing all drums and stained soils, before placing a new cap on theSite 7 Landfill.The remedial actions outlined within the Northeast Cape HTRW Decision Doc).lment wereinitiated in 2009 with the chemical oxidation pilot study for the petroleum-contaminated soils atthe Main Operations Complex. Unfortunately, layers of peat at this location rendered chem-ox..5treatment ineffective. Our Decision Document included a contingency scenario identified as theexcavation of soils and monitored natural attenuation of groundwater. The remedial actionsoutlined in the Decision Document will be implemented starting this field season, and continueover the next several years as funding is available. Long-term monitoring and 5 years reviewswill extend beyond 2012.Another point the EPA March 23 letter requested that we address was to include a list of anywaste and contaminants that will remain on St. Lawrence Island after completion of remediation,and the plans for long term monitoring. The following paragraphs address those areas.Wastes and/or contaminants that are likely to remain behind in Gambell after completion ofNALEMP remediation efforts include:••••Some debris, largely consisting of scrap metal, that exists under the city water tankEmpty former latrine drums beneath the city snow fenceDebris that is speculated to be beneath the new city housing areaScattered .30-caliber ammunition rounds at the bottom of Troutman LakeNo long term monitoring is slated for Gambell.Wastes and/or contaminants that are likely to remain behind at Northeast Cape aftercompletion of remediation efforts include:• Petroleum-contaminated soils deeper than 15 feet at the Main Operations Complex• Petroleum-contaminated groundwater at the Main Operations Complex• Small residual pockets of petroleum-contaminated soil/sediment within the wetlanddrainage basin below the Main Operations Complex• DRO-contaminated soils in wetlands at Site 8 (monitored natural attenuation)• Non-hazardous solid waste debris beneath the two newly-capped disposal areas(Site 7 and Site 9)Long-term monitoring will occur at the Main Operations Complex, Site 8, and the Site 7 andSite 9 landfills.The last area that the EPA March 23 letter requested that we address was to detail our effortsto honor the Government to Government consultation duties. To honor the Government toGovernment consultation with the Triballeaderships on St. Lawrence Island, we routinely haveour Project Manager meet separately with the Tribal President and IRA Council Members priorto scheduled Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meetings. In addition, several former AlaskaDistrict Commanders have met with Tribal Leaders in the past, both on St. Lawrence Island andhere on Elmendorf Air Force Base. The most recent meetings took place in January 2007 (Col.Wilson traveled to Gambell), April 2006 (Col. Gallagher traveled to Savoonga), and July 2002(Lt. Col Gingras here at Elmendorf AFB). I also intend to visit St. Lawrence Island this summer.'..6If you have any remaining questions or concerns, please contact our St. Lawrence IslandProject Manager, Mr. Carey Cossaboom, at (907) 753-2689, or by e-mail atcarey.c.cossaboom@usace.army.mil.Sincerely,~~~Reinhard W. KoenigColonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict CommanderEnclosurescc: S. Bainbridge, ADECJ. Roberts, ADECJ. Halverson, ADECC. Dunkin, ADECD. McLerran, EPA -
ACAT FOIA Repository 49
UPLOADED 15 August 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 49, Date Received July 2023
Year: February 14, 2013
Pages: 24
Document Title: Memo: To Valerie Palmer, USACE Alaska, from EPA Region 10, Richard Albright, Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup
Agency/Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), EPA Region 10, Office of Environmental Cleanup
Document Summary:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10’s Evaluation of Army Corps of Engineers Cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) at NE Cape and Gambell. Significantly it states the NPL issue, "After reviewing the information, EPA also assessed how the cleanup would have been performed if the site had been a formal Superfund Site. EPA’s conclusion is that generally the approach would not be significantly different."Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 49, Date Received July 2023
Year: February 14, 2013
Pages: 24
Document Title: Memo: To Valerie Palmer, USACE Alaska, from EPA Region 10, Richard Albright, Director, Office of Environmental Cleanup
Agency/Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers (Alaska), EPA Region 10, Office of Environmental Cleanup
Document Summary:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10’s Evaluation of Army Corps of Engineers Cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) at NE Cape and Gambell. Significantly it states the NPL issue, "After reviewing the information, EPA also assessed how the cleanup would have been performed if the site had been a formal Superfund Site. EPA’s conclusion is that generally the approach would not be significantly different."LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat49SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, July 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 49," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900Seattle, WA 98101-3140OFFICE OFENVIRONMENTALCLEANUPFEB 14 2013Ms. Valerie PalmerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, AlaskaCEPOA-PM-ESP (Y. Palmer)P.O. Box 6898JBER, Alaska 99506-0898Re:EPA's Evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers Cleanup of the Formerly Used Defense Sitesat NE Cape and Gambell, St. Lawrence Island, AlaskaDear Ms. Palmer:This is to inform you that the EPA has completed its evaluation of the Army Corps of Engineers'cleanup of the Formerly Used Defense Sites at NE Cape and Gambell on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska.The conclusions we reached have not changed significantly from those that were presented during theDecember 2011 public meetings at the villages of Savoonga and Gambell. In general, the cleanup by theCorps of the Gambell and the NE Cape FUDS is consistent with CERCLA and the NationalContingency Plan. While the EPA may have done some of the analysis differently, the conclusions arenot appreciatively different.However, there are some additional actions that are necessary to fully comply with CERCLA and theNCP. The main issue is associated with those actions that left hazardous substances on site above levelsthat allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP requires thereview of such actions no less than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedy. This isnecessary to insure that the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.Such reviews are necessary at several sites within the two FUDS and are noted in the EPA's attachedevaluation. Examples of these sites include the Cargo Beach Landfill at NE Cape and the Beach BurialSite along Troutman Lake at Gambell.Another outstanding issue relates to the use of monitored natural attenuation to clean up the diesel rangeorganics in the groundwater at the NE Cape Main Operations Complex. Continued monitoring of thegroundwater in this area must be done to track the degradation of the DRO. In addition, a conceptual sitemodel of the hydrogeology must be developed in order to determine the number of wells and theirlocation necessary to properly monitor the degradation of the DRO as well as to develop a timeframe forwhen natural attenuation will clean up the contamination at the site. This model should be shared withthe affected community and the regulatory agency. These issues and others are discussed in more detailin the attached evaluation report.F10AK096903_01.07_0011_a200-1eF10AK069603_01.07_0500_a200-1eFinally, it is important to note that under CERCLA if new infonnation comes to light that may call intoquestion the investigation or cleanup at a site, the site can be reopened. There are a variety of ways thatthis new infonnation can be discovered, for example, through the periodic reviews of an implementedremedy, monitoring data or observations of changes in the site conditions. The EPA expects that theCorps will continue to respond to changes in site conditions in a manner that is protective of humanhealth and the environment. Also, the EPA trusts that the Corps will continue to work with thecommunities and their representatives on StLawrence Island and to work cooperatively with Alaska' sDepartment of Environmental Conservation.If you have any questions regarding the evaluation report, please contact the EPA's project manager,Matt Wilkening, at 208-378-5760.Sincerely,·chard Albright, DirectorOffice of Environmental CleanupEnclosurecc:Mitchell Kiyuklook, President, Native Village of SavoongaEddie Ungott, President, Native Village of GambellMyron Kingeekuk, Mayor of SavoongaErika Apatiki, Mayor of GambellRodney Ungwiluk, Jr., President of Sivuqaq, IncCurtis Duncan, ADEC-AnchoragePam Miller, Alaska Community Actions on ToxicsRon ScrudatoJoe Sarcone, ATSDR-AnchorageEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10’s Evaluation ofArmy Corps of Engineers Cleanup ofFormerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) atNE Cape and Gambell,St. Lawrence Island, Alaska(Final Report February, 2013)1Forward to EPA’s EvaluationIn the spring of 2010 EPA Region 10 was tasked by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse to review the Army Corps of Engineers’ cleanup of the two Formally Used Defense Sites,Gambell and NE Cape. This review was in response to the concerns raised by the communities ofGambell and Savoonga and Alaska Community Action on Toxics. EPA Region 10’s task was to reviewthe cleanup at these sites to determine if the cleanup was consistent with CERCLA regulations and EPAguidance. The FUDS cleanup was completed at Gambell and is ongoing at NE Cape. The cleanup atboth sites was/is performed under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly UsedDefense Sites. DERP provides authority and funds to investigate and contain, remove, or dispose ofhazardous and toxic materials at active and formerly owned military properties. It is important to knowthat DERP restricts the investigation and cleanup to contaminants associated with military properties.EPA’s evaluation of the cleanup was based on the review of select documents written by the Corps andtheir contractor that discussed site conditions or discussed the cleanup as well as documents written byindependent parties such as ACAT. EPA also reviewed select meeting minutes from the variousRestoration Advisory Board meetings. The Agency also participated in the community meetings inSavoonga and Gambell in December 2011 and several conference calls with all the parties over the lasttwo years.After reviewing the information, EPA also assessed how the cleanup would have been performed if thesite had been a formal Superfund Site. EPA’s conclusion is that generally the approach would not besignificantly different. Some specific differences, such as the need for long term monitoring at specificsites, are noted and actions the Corps should take are recommended. The communities requested EPAperform some actions that the Agency does not commonly perform at Superfund Site. Such actionsinclude independent sampling and analysis of media and long term monitoring of the remedy. EPA’sapproach at other sites is to make the responsible party perform these actions and then review the data toinsure that data meets the criteria in the workplan. In the case of the FUDS on St Lawrence Island,Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation performed that role, providing regulatory oversightof the Corps investigation and of the cleanup of the Gambell and NE Cape sites.The communities of Savoonga and Gambell have repeatedly expressed concerns in public meetings,conference calls and at RAB meetings about general health issues of the residents. These includecontamination of subsistence food sources from Persistent Organic Pollutants such as PCBs, site-widerisks, potential threats to the drinking water at Gambell and possible residual contamination underbuildings at Gambell. As stated in the opening paragraph above DERP provides authority and funds toinvestigate and address hazardous and toxic materials associated with military properties only. It cannotaddress contamination from global deposition from POPs.Furthermore it is difficult to tease out the risk posed by site-specific contamination associated with theFUDS from the cumulative impact from regional deposition of similar contaminants, see the POPs issuediscussed in this report. EPA understands that the communities are planning to meet with the Corps andADEC to discuss whether ADEC’s established cleanup concentrations are appropriate for the sitespecific conditions at St Lawrence Island. Beginning in 2013 ATSDR will assess potential healthimpacts to residents from the FUDS using the ATSDR methodology which is different from theCERCLA process. ATSDR plans to look at potential impacts from these FUDS to accustomed andtraditional sites.2Finally EPA is aware that we were unable to meet with individual residents of Savoonga and Gambellwhen we were there in December 2011. We did intend to do so but the extended length of the meetingsand weather affected travel prevented these interviews from occurring. EPA understands that theATSDR will try to fill this gap in gathering direct information from the community during theirupcoming health assessment. Also ATSDR plans to meet with the Norton Sound Health Cooperativeafter they visit the island this winter in an attempt to make the Health Cooperative aware of the issuesthat ATSDR is hearing from the residents of St Lawrence Island.The communities and ACAT requested that these sites be listed on the National Priorities List, i.e. theSuperfund List. This evaluation indicates that the Corps is generally following the CERCLA processand that Alaska DEC is performing adequate oversight. In addition the cleanup is in the latter stages ofon-the-ground work. The listing of these sites on the NPL would not result in additional investigation orcleanup, or get additional funding from the EPA. As stated in this report, EPA does have severalrecommendations that we strongly encourage the Corps to implement to improve the protectiveness ofthe cleanup.3IntroductionThe military began constructing sites in Alaska to provide early warning of possible Soviet attacks in thelate 1940s. In 1948 the military established the Gambell site, the first defense site on the island, adjacentto the village of Gambell. The Gambell site continued to be used until the late 1950s when a similarfacility was constructed at NE Cape. The NE Cape facility was operated from 1958 until 1972, when thesite was closed. When the military abandoned Gambell, the structures were demolished, burned orsalvaged and the debris buried on site. At NE Cape, the military just walked away, leaving everythingbehind. This resulted in various contaminants being left at these two facilities. In 1985 the Army Corpsof Engineers, as the lead agency for cleanup of Department of Defense sites, began cleanupinvestigations at Gambell and NE Cape under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program. Thiscleanup is being performed under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly UsedDefense Sites. DERP provides authority and funds to investigate and contain, remove, or dispose ofhazardous and toxic materials at active and formerly owned military properties. It must be noted thatDERP restricts the investigation and cleanup to contaminants associated with military properties.When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was passed in 1971, Gambell and Savoonga opted fortitle to the 1.136 million acres of land in the former St. Lawrence Island Reserve instead of participatingin the corporate profits of the other Alaska Native Regional Corporations. The Gambell NativeCorporation and Savoonga Native Corporation received title to all of St. Lawrence Island (except USSurveys 4235, 4237, 4340, 4369, 3728) by Interim Conveyance No. 203 dated 21 June 1979. Thus, theisland is jointly owned (surface and subsurface rights) by the Savoonga and Gambell NativeCorporations, now known as Kukulget, Inc. and Sivuqaq, Inc., respectively.The Gambell FUDS consisted of 2,543 acres obtained by public land order and special use permits fromthe Bureau of Land Management. The site is south and east of the village of Gambell (populationapproximately 800). This site was used by the military for housing and operations, aircraft radar,communications and other functions. Based on the Corps’ investigation, 38 sites of suspectcontamination were located throughout these acres (Figure 1), and CERCLA cleanup was required atthree sites located around Troutman Lake. In 2008 the Corps declared cleanup of the Gambell FUDScompleted with a cost of approximately $11.5 million. ($7.3M. for CERCLA cleanup; $4.2M underNALEMP). The St. Lawrence Island (SLI) leaders and residents have stated that the FUDS cleanup wasclosed prematurely, that the site was not adequately characterized and requires long term monitoring.The NE Cape site was an established village and was displaced when the military established thesurveillance station in the mid-1950s. ACAT and village leaders state that the military in 1951 had anagreement to not leave waste behind and that this agreement was violated by the military. The residentsof SLI stated that they would like to restore the community at NE Cape, but that contamination in thearea makes it unsafe to do so. The residents also stated that currently the fish populations and habitat ofthe Suqi River remains severely impaired.The NE Cape FUDS is included in lands selected for withdrawal by Sivuqaq Inc. and Savoonga NativeCorporation (now known as Kukulget, Inc.). The site is about 60 miles SE of Savoonga (populationapproximately 800). The NE Cape site is not connected to the village of Savoonga by roads, althoughthe site is accessible by boat, ATV or snowmobile. The military left behind an airstrip that is seasonallyimproved by FUDS contractors. A trail network in the NE Cape area is used for ATV travel during4hunting and fishing season, and camping. The site is also accessed in the winter during inclementweather and as a stop to collect drinking water during spring whaling.The NE Cape study area encompasses 2,560 acres and includes the areas used for housing site personnel(up to 200 people during the peak of activity), power plant facilities, fuel storage tanks and distributionlines, maintenance shops, waste water treatment facilities, landfills, etc. The known and potentialsources of environmental contamination from activities at the site include, but are not limited to,petroleum products used for heating and fuel, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from electricaltransformers, pesticides, metals and organic chemicals from paint, solvents and other common industrialproducts and associated debris disposed in the facility’s landfill or abandoned on the tundra as debrispiles.At NE Cape, the Corps’ investigation located 33 distinct sites of possible contamination. Furthersampling and investigation determined that 11 sites required No Further Action, i.e. they contained deminimus concentrations of diesel range organics (DRO) and residual range organics (RRO), PCBs (2sites) or no detects. Of the 22 sites requiring cleanup, 11 were due to DRO/RRO contamination, andseven sites were contaminated by PCBs (Figure 2). During the 2010 field season, 2,730 tons ofpetroleum-contaminated soil and 1,245 tons of PCB-contaminated soil were excavated and removed.Also, 21 bulk bags of PCB-contaminated soil were staged for future off-site removal, as well as 16.7tons of arsenic-contaminated soil. Cost of cleanup through the end of the 2010 field season was$62 million.* Approximately $83.5 million has been spent through FY2011 under the FUDS program.*Notes: Remedial efforts through fall 2011 include the excavation of approximately 12,500 tonsof petroleum-contaminated soil and 4,500 tons of PCB-contaminated soil. The Corps awarded a$19.1 million contract during FY11 to continue site remediation activities during the summers of2011 and 2012. Fieldwork implemented during the summer of 2011 included: excavation/removal of PCB-contaminated soils, excavation/removal of petroleum-contaminated soils fromthe Main Complex, miscellaneous debris removal, sampling for monitored natural attenuationand additional delineation of sediment contamination at Site 28.Work during the 2011 and 2012 field seasons at NE Cape was to include groundwater monitoring forpetroleum related compounds at nine monitoring wells located in the Main Operations Complex (MOC).These data will be used to help determine the amount of DRO degradation in the shallow groundwater.Additional work for the 2011 and 2012 field seasons included further excavation of PCBs andpetroleum-contaminated soil at the MOC, the Power and Heating Building and the White Alice Site. Thesoil at the Waste Water Treatment Tank was sampled for arsenic. Concentrations of arsenic are greaterthan background, so all soil with arsenic concentrations above cleanup levels are scheduled to beexcavated.As these last paragraphs indicate work is ongoing at the NE Cape site. Accordingly, this evaluationrepresents conditions at the point in time that it was written, the summer and fall of 2011.As the cleanup continues, conditions may change. The removal of contamination from the FUDS willresult in an improving eco-system as the system responds to the cleanup. However, it must beremembered that this will be slow process. EPA anticipates that this additional work will generatereports that document the cleanup etc., and that these reports will be routed to the parties for their reviewand comments. Also, EPA anticipates that the RAB will continue to provide a forum for the local5communities to raise concerns to the Corps and the Corps will continue to provide the RAB with supportfor technical resources.It is also important to note that under CERCLA, if new information comes to light that may call intoquestion the investigation/cleanup at a site, the site can be reopened. There are a variety of ways thatthis new information can be discovered, for example, through the periodic reviews of an implementedremedy, monitoring data, or observations of changes in the site conditions. EPA expects that the Corpswill continue to respond to changes in site conditions in a manner that is protective of human health andthe environment.EPA’s Review of Army Corps of Engineers Cleanup DocumentsIn the fall of 2009, a delegation of leaders, elders and youth from St Lawrence Island, along with staff ofthe Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), wrote a letter to Mathy Stanislaus (AssistantAdministrator of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) and visited EPA headquartersregarding their concerns about the Corps’ cleanup of the Gambell and NE Cape FUDS. Mr. Stanislausasked EPA Region 10 to take the lead in responding to the issues raised by the communities of Gambelland Savoonga and ACAT and assess the EPA’s future role at these sites. EPA’s evaluation was limitedin scope. EPA’s task was to review the cleanup of the FUDS and determine if it was consistent withCERCLA regulations and EPA guidance. EPA’s evaluation of the cleanup was based on the review ofselect documents written by the Corps and their contractor that discussed site conditions or discussed thecleanup and results. EPA also review meeting minutes from the various Restoration Advisory Boards.The Agency also attended two site meetings in December 2011 and was on several conference calls withthe all the parties.Previously in 2002, EPA Region 10 reviewed the work by the Corps at the NE Cape site and determinedthat the Corps was proceeding in a manner consistent with EPA’s expectation for cleaning up hazardouswaste sites. Once again, EPA Region 10 has agreed to evaluate the Corps’ cleanup work at the NE Capeand Gambell FUDS to determine if their cleanup work is consistent with EPA’s expectations forhazardous waste sites.EPA’s review has determined that the Corps’ documents on the work at Gambell and NE Cape FUDSindicate that they generally followed the EPA rules and regulations 1 with a few noted exceptions that arediscussed below. Since the Corps has worked directly with Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation (ADEC) throughout this project, the Corps more closely follows ADEC guidance. Forexample, the approach for incorporating ambient/background concentrations in the risk assessment isnot the same approach as used by the EPA. The Corps compared the maximum concentration ofinorganic contaminants only to a calculated 95% background upper tolerance limit, i.e., an ambientconcentration. If the maximum concentration of a site-related chemical was less than the ambientconcentration, the chemical was dropped. EPA guidance recommends that any contaminant be carriedthrough the risk analysis and then the impact of elevated concentrations of contaminants in backgroundcan be addressed in the uncertainty discussion of the risk management section.1The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) is the overall Act that provides theEPA and the Corps the authority to clean up hazardous waste sites. From this Act, implementing regulations (i.e. the NationalContingency Plan – NCP) and guidance have been developed to provide the cleanup authorities with more specific directionson the rules for cleanup. EPA’s evaluation of the Corps’ cleanup is based on these regulations and guidance.6In reviewing the March 2004 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the NE Cape FUDS itwas noted that ecological risk assessment did not include an aquatic species. In addition, the ecologicalrisk assessment appears to be done more to supplement the human health risk assessment than to directlyassess impacts to biota. For example, in the risk assessment the presence of PCBs in ambient fish isnoted and used in the calculation of human health risk. But the impacts of the PCBs on the fish in theSuqitughneq (Suqi) River were not directly evaluated. The Corps did consider using a marine fish, butdecided not to since they are migratory and would only be exposed to site conditions a portion of thetime. However, there are non-migratory freshwater fish species that could have been used, such assculpin or blackfish.The approach the Corps took to calculate both human health and ecological risk is not as protective asthe approach the EPA would use. As noted earlier, the Corps did not directly calculate a risk to anaquatic organism. However, EPA’s risk assessors did not find that any additional cleanup would havebeen necessary had the risk assessment process more closely followed EPA guidance. In addition, allecological risk sites are co-located with human health risk sites. Thus cleaning up to protect humanhealth should also protect the potentially affected species, which is commonly a vole.There is also the issue of long-term monitoring at these sites. If contamination is removed to allowunrestricted use, long-term monitoring is not required. However, if contamination remains on site atconcentrations that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, then periodic reviews ofthe site are necessary until the site conditions change to allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.Five-year reviews are required under section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, which states that "If the President selects a remedial action that resultsin any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall reviewsuch remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action toassure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action beingimplemented."The Corps has stated that five-year reviews are anticipated at the MOC site at NE Cape only, due togroundwater contamination with COCs (e.g., benzene and lead) other than just petroleum. However,they plan to do "periodic reviews" at sites with residual petroleum-oil-lubricant (POL) contamination(e.g., Site 8), in conjunction with the evaluation of the MOC. EPA would approach POL contaminationdifferently. It would look at the individual chemical constituents, such as benzene, and determine if theindividual compounds pose a risk rather than the fuel as a group of compounds. However, thedifferences in approach would not result in a different cleanup.At NE Cape the Corps will also conduct periodic visual monitoring of the capped area at the Site 9Housing and Operations Landfill and Site 7 Cargo Beach Road Landfill for settling and erosion for fiveyears post implementation of the remedy. Additional visual monitoring, up to 30 years, may beconducted if deemed necessary based on the results of the site inspections. The Decision Documentapproved by ADEC required limited removal of drums debris and stained soil in the upper one foot,capping and institutional controls without further characterization. Since there was no sampling todetermine if contamination above cleanup goals were left behind, EPA would work under theassumption that waste is left in place and that longer monitoring, including periodic review, e.g. FiveYear Review, be required; see additional discussion later in this report.In a May 2002 Overview Report, it was noted that the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR) was involved in a review of fish tissue analysis from fish collected from the Suqi7River during previous investigations. The report states the ATSDR will work with the communities andthe Corps as more data is available to help evaluate if there are any likely adverse impacts fromsubsistence level consumption of fish from the Suqi River. Such coordination with other agencies withspecialized expertise is an approach the EPA employs at their site cleanup work. The EPA is aware thatin October 2011, the community of Savoonga petitioned ATSDR to conduct a health assessment due tothe contamination at the Gambell and NE Cape sites and because more information is available sinceATSDR last reviewed the data in 2002. In February 2012 ATSDR agreed to conduct this healthassessment and is expecting to initiate this assessment work in 2013.Community Issues and ConcernsThere are several site specific concerns that have been captured in notes from the Restoration AdvisoryBoards (RABs) meetings and/or concerns by leadership and other community members on St. LawrenceIsland as expressed in the 2009 ACAT letter to EPA.Gambell FUDSAt Gambell there were several concerns; residual munitions, buried debris, and protection of drinkingwater. Munitions, specifically 30-caliber rounds, were found at a beach burial pit between the BeringSea and Troutman Lake. In addition, there were statements that the Army disposed of a large volume ofordnance in the north end of Troutman Lake in the early 1960s. These oral statements said that crates ofammo were placed on the ice of Troutman Lake and with spring breakup they were “flushed away.”However, the geophysical survey of the lake combined with depth-sounding equipment, ice augers,underwater video cameras and dredging anchors failed to detect a large ordnance disposal site at thebottom of Troutman Lake.Geophysical investigations by the Army’s contractor for munitions and explosives of concern located thebeach burial site and removed several hundred rounds of ammunition. Following the investigation andremoval actions in the early 2000s, the Corps placed institutional controls on the site. However, ADECdid not agree with institutional controls as the final remedy. Later the Corps-funded NALEMP programinvestigated the beach burial site using Schonstedt metal detectors and visual surveys and removedadditional ammunition in the summer of 2006. It was during this action that two hand grenades werealso encountered. After using these detectors and visual surveys to sweep the area for two years, theCorps declared the site clear of munitions in September 2008 and removed the institutional controls withADEC’s concurrence. The Corps’ project closeout report states that all known munitions and explosivesof concern have been removed from the area and the residual small arms ammunition has been 100%cleared. Thus, institutional controls and any additional reviews were no longer necessary. The ADECconcurred that all necessary actions to address military munitions or explosives concerns have beencompleted at the Gambell site.These reports indicate a good faith effort on the part of the Corps to remove all munitions from the sites.However, it is hard to say with 100% certainty that all munitions were removed. The Schonstedtinstrument used by the NALEMP program is a hand-held magnetometer, which detects ferrous metals,but not non-ferrous metals. It could not detect brass casings nor the presumably copper-jacketed leadprojectiles that comprise a 30-caliber round. The Corps should have used an all-metals (ferrous and nonferrous) detector, such as an EM-61 hand-held instrument, for surveying sites with potential rifle rounds.While localized sampling of the lake bottom did not find any munitions, the potential for munitionsremains. The Corps did survey the entire lake via geophysical instruments. Also, this disposal event isbased on recollections by individuals, but is not documented in any Corps’ reports from the time. Given8this lack of documentation and the rigorous geophysical investigation, the EPA concurs that is it unlikelyMEC are present in the sediment of Troutman Lake. However, the EPA recommends additionalsurveying of the 30-caliber round site with an all-metals detector and continuing institutional controlsuntil surveying determines the site is clear of munitions.Besides the issue of munitions, another concern at Gambell is related to debris that remains on site,whether under buildings and other structures or just in the general area of the village. It appears that theCorps, through the NALEMP program, has actively addressed some of these concerns. However, theyhave not addressed issues where the debris is under structures with some exceptions. (There isdocumentation of the removal of debris in 2008 and 2009 from the area of the school.) Excavatingdebris from under existing structures does pose a host of additional issues, such as maintaining thestructural integrity of the building. Generally, the EPA would not remove such material either unless itposed an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. It does not appear that this material,such as construction debris like rebar and/or metal from Marston matting, presents a health threat. TheEPA concurs with the Corps that presence of inert debris under buildings does not present a threat tohuman health and the environment and removal of such debris is not necessary.Also, concerns about the protection of the drinking water aquifer have been expressed. Based on the datareviewed in the June 2005 Decision Document for the Gambell FUDS, it appears that any contaminantsin the groundwater that exceeded the screening levels, i.e., the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) fordrinking water are due to the turbidity of groundwater. This turbidity is representative of the poor qualityof the groundwater at Site 6 and Site 7. An August 2012 comment from the Corps notes the following:The 1994 RI included both filtered and unfiltered groundwater samples for metals, which arepresented as total and dissolved concentrations in the summary Table 7 of the DecisionDocument. It is the filtered or dissolved concentrations that represent drinking water in this caseand thus these concentrations were evaluated to see if groundwater levels will exceed screeninglevels. The only dissolved concentrations above detection levels are for chromium and lead andthese are below screening levels. The other analyses of filtered water samples were non-detectfor arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and nickel.This additional information resolves EPA’s concern. Metals in the filtered groundwater do not exceedscreening level.One groundwater sample cross-gradient to Gambell’s water supply well had fuel contamination, butsubsequent sampling did not find any contamination. Other sites where groundwater was sampled didnot have contaminants above the MCLs. There were also some concerns expressed that other areaswhere contamination is found in the soil could pose a threat to the groundwater, specifically the radarstation on Sevoukuk Mountain. Based on a review of the documents, there does not appear to be ahydrogeological connection between the radar site and the drinking water source on the plain below themountain. Also, dioxins, the contaminant of concern at the radar site, do not travel very easily in thesubsurface because they bind tightly to the soil. In addition, the average concentration of dioxins in thesoil at the radar station is below EPA’s screening concentration and ADEC’s cleanup value. Thus,additional excavation at the radar site is not necessary since there is no risk to human health or theenvironment. In conclusion, reports reviewed indicated that this FUDS does not pose a threat to thegroundwater that serves as a drinking water source for the village of Gambell.9NE CapeThe local community has expressed concerns about whether the site has been adequately characterizedand about the cleanup at several sites located within the NE Cape FUDS. These concerns can be groupedinto some general categories: PCBs, contamination of the surface water and the Suqi River, failure toremove all contaminated material from the site and contamination of the groundwater.PCBs: As noted in the 2009 ACAT letter to EPA, PCB contamination at the NE Cape site was one of themajor concerns. This concern is driven by the subsistence lifestyle practiced by most of the localpopulation. An ACAT study on PCB concentrations in common food sources (marine mammal:Bowhead Whale and a land mammal: reindeer) used by residents on the island documented thefollowing:Bowhead whale (in ppb)Blubber (n=3)Meat (n=4)Mungtak (n=7)Rendered oil (n=3)Skin (n=1)PCBs317.6127.20142.61353.9585.91DDE+856.290.275.2626.430.93HCB23.820.5813.0916.914.36Mirex0.260.080.142.900.06DDE+8513.210.780.960.620.560.01HCB2.940.290.000.000.000.77Mirex0.000.000.000.000.000.00n= the number of samples collectedReindeer (in ppb)Fat (n=5)Meat (n=8)Liver (n=4)Kidney (n=4)Heart (n=2)Prepared meat (n=1)PCBs2.771.420.180.030.061.14(Note: these data represent results from food source throughout the area and are not specific to the NECape site.)The value established by the EPA for PCB concentration in fish that allows for unlimited consumption is -
ACAT FOIA Repository 50
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 50, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1985
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Memo on Initial Site Visit to Northeast Cape and Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Memo within EPA Alaska Office regarding an initial site visit to take photos and note spill sites etc at the former military bases at Northeast Cape and Gambell, which were now listed as Defense Environmental Restoration Project (DERP) sites.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 50, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1985
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Memo on Initial Site Visit to Northeast Cape and Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Memo within EPA Alaska Office regarding an initial site visit to take photos and note spill sites etc at the former military bases at Northeast Cape and Gambell, which were now listed as Defense Environmental Restoration Project (DERP) sites.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-50SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 50," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
u.s.EfVlRONMENTAL PROTECTI...,.AGENCYD S?.ALASKA OPERATIONS OFFICERoom E535, Federal Building701 CStreet, Box 9ncnorlge, F.la5KatPhone (907) 271-5083August 26, 1985IJS).JJiSubject: DERP Site Visit - St. Lawrence islandjuly 30, 1985 - August i, 1985Fran:Jack GusmanoTo:Steve TrokSituation: Site assessment with COE Project Mgr., ADEC Field Officer andCOE Environmental Branch July 30 - August 2, 1985. COE, DERP consists of oldarmy installations on Gambel, Alaska and White Alice USAF on Northeast Cape,Alaska, both on St. Lawrence Is1and, Alaska. Sites consist of multiplebarracks, fuel tanks, radar towers, past fuel spills, PCB transformers,asbestos and possibie H.W. A&E firm has done site assessment, EA will bewritten.Actions:1) F1y to Northeast Cape - take photos2) Note spiii sites, dump sites3) Note hazardous material (calcium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide,paints, thinners, antifreeze, various unknown liquids, PCB transformers,asbestos, barrel dumps4) F1y to Gambei - meet Mayor and native guide - discover t armypower plants buried in or near viliage with large transformers5) Note locations of power plants and debris6) Request testing of drinking water and groundwater at both sitesFuture Actions:1) COE authorized only PCB sampling will include priority pollutants onfuture samples2) A&E wili do a formai sampling plan to include sainpling matrix,groundwater, Q, QC for review by COE and EPA-AAO3) A&E firm will have a registered industrial hygenist and a labtechnician on scene of contract cleanup to monitor hazardous materialsanpiing & cieanupUSEPA SFllÔltrnyiiii1624676 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 51
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 51, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1985
Page(s): 9
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Preliminary Assessment form indicating suspected and/or confirmed contamination across multiple media; set as medium priority for inspection.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 51, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1985
Page(s): 9
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Preliminary Assessment form indicating suspected and/or confirmed contamination across multiple media; set as medium priority for inspection.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-51SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 51," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
.'rI. IOENTIFICATION4+STAT! ylcruMo.trePOTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITEPREL-IMIN*R'f ASSESSMENTAKPART 1• SITE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENTD981765894IL SITE NAME ANO LOCAT1ON)1 SITE NAME (Laq wIN.ee. dre8e.n.n.ÕI$W4st. Lawrence Is1andI STAGambel, AlaskaCOUNTYAK09 COOROINATES LIIÌITUOE99742LONGITUOE° L__._l10 OIRECTIONS TO SITE (SNIaa,qiL.ff°_WL.__._lp..ÕAC o.aÕ4Located in the Bering Sea, 135 miles southwest of Nome, Alaska.111. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES01 OWNER (V "a','402 STREET (8uw.u. ln ,q, ,.w..wuSavoonga Native Corp. & Sivuqaq Inc.O4STATE O5ZIPCOOE •Gambel, Alaska07 OPERATOR (1! nooa,AK.,wboa,o.no.i08TELEPHONENUMRER99742(08 STREET (auw..& ,nNa.q. .w..t.dCorps of EngineersElmendorf Air Force Base09 CITY10TAÎE 1 1 ZIP COOEAnchorage, AlaskaAK13 TYPE OF OWNERSHIP (Ch.eaoa.1D A. PRIVATE D B. FEDERALDF.OTHER:12 TELEPI'IONE NUM8ER99506___________________________(A9uCY aØn.I(9071 753-2706D C. STATENative CorporationDD.COUNT?D E. MUNIC)PALDG.UNKNOWN(SO.CÕ'y/4 OWNER/OPERATOR NOTIF)CAT1ON ON FlLE(C0.cxuu.ooðyiD A. RCRA 3001 DAT'E RECEIVED://tdONTH 0AY YEARB. UNCONTROLLED WASTE SlTErcsic103c1DATE RECEIVED:12 ,1 1 /85NONTU OAY YEARD C. NONEIV. CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL. HAZARO01 ON SJTE NSPECTION'YESNODATE07, 5 /85MONTN DAV YEAR8V (ChuE.l Th uØyA. EPAD B. EPA CONTRACTORD C. STATECorps ofD E.LOCALHEALTHOFFICIALF.OTI-4ER:URS CorporationCONTRACTORNAME(S):o A. ACTIVEB. INACTIVED D. ÇTHER CONTRACTOREnineers1 950o c. uNKNowN1 9728EG1NNING YEARENOINO YEARD UNKNOWN04 OESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANCES POSSIBLY PRESENT. KNOWP4, OR ALLEGEDPCB, halogenated solvents, corrosives, Class A explosives, asbestosOD 0ESCRl)T1ON OF POTENTIAL HAZARO TO ENVIRONMENT ANO/OR POPULATIONMigrationFire & ExplosionDirect Contactpopulation 1,000non-explosíve H.W. onuninhabitated end of islandV.PRIORITYASSESSMENT.oi PRIORITY FOR INSPECT1ON (Ch.eao,... U,..qa e'n.oa 'a cheE0. ceaØNNI2' a'.D A. HIGHJa. MEDIUMD C. LOW(1n10u1oa IN'S .(NIØ.etlo...Õ40W- no imminent health threat- explosives buried by militarywill be removed by military- PC,Bs in soil 1-5 ppm,' no groun water°'contamination de ectedD D. NONE(P40 #u.1h utO. a..a.c. co.neu. c..n"w ai.oeaa.w. banlvl. INFORMATION AVAILABL.E FROMO 1 CONTACTRichard Parrish[ Jacques Gusmano/Doug Johnson J02 OF (Ag.nC'pO,q'wa1wI03 TELEPP4ONtT4UM!R____________________(907)753-2706US Arrny Corps of EngineersUSEPAJRegion 10-A00/(90271-5083J08,29,86NONTU DAY YEAAEPA FGRM 2070-1217-81)USEPA SF1624661POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE STEPRE1JMINARY ASSESSMENT&EPAO1 STATE 02 $1TE MERPART 2 WASTE 7t4FORMATION11. WASTE STATES. QUANTrTIES. Af4O CI4ARACTEIST7CSQ I PMV3ICM. $TATESasoi.! POWOER FM(3)&C. .LIOG(C E. 3UJRVF LIOUIO---02 WAS1•! QLJA,irrry AT $4T!03 WAS1•E C4ARACTEIST1C3Æ ouca. coosvTON$ -C C ROACTVEQ. P(F.513T344T2 , 000200GJ8IC YAO$ ________________i.cousG F1AeLa)4P4OYj. ptsiv(. PEAC11V(PATISI.(C L.CMOø18I.EP4O. OF 0_______IIL WASTE TYPCATEGOMYSUTA,IC( MAMEs.usuoGEOLWO4LYWASTE0 l GMOSS AMOUNT 02 UNITOF MEASUM( 03 COMUENT3so.ve4rs______SOPST1CCESOGCOCRGCCiEMC.LSOC44C CMICALSACOACOS3ASBASESMES______________________1,0001,0001,500lbs.gallonsgallons400 gal3002002002007 transf rmers1b s.__________________________________gallons _________________________________gallons _______________________________lbs.______________________________IV.HAZAROOUS SUSSTANCES01 CATEGGRV02 31J8STMICZ NAM(_________ _______________________________0LW10cACDS0L0LW____________________03 CAS NUMS(F_________________________________________________________________________________________________04 3TORE1SFO.SA4. M€T)O005 CCNCZNIRATION_____________________________ _______________CNCENTI1A TIOMPolychlorinated Biphen ls 1336-3 -3 Transformers/spi]1 500,000 ppmCalcium Hypochlorite7778-54-3 plastic contam/spi]1________Sulfuric Acid7664-93-9 carbuoyTrichloroethylene79-01--6 drum___________Paints & thinnerscans____________________________________________________________________V. FEEDSTOCXSc.*a.s3 ______C__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ l. _______________________________________________________________CATEGCRY0 1 PEEOSTOCX MAMEFOSFOSFOSP03V7. SOURCES OF NFORMATION02 CÄ$ UMSERCATEGCRYFCSPOSFOSFCS0 PEEDSTCCX NAAI(____________________________ j ________________________________________ J ____________Site surveyIT Corporation analysis - Soil grab & drinking water & groundwaterEPAFCRU20T0.12 7-Aij02 CÄ$ N4JM8ERÆPA1DENT1FICATION-POrTENTtAt FZÄRDOUSWÊTË sj- g-PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTPART 3 DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONSl111111111111111DENTIL HAZAROOUS C0P401T10NS ANO INCI0ENTSO1A. GROUNOWATER CONTAMINATION03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTEO:1 00002 G OBSERVED (OATE: ___________ 104 NARRATIVE DESCR?PTION01 8. SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION03 POPULAT1ON POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:1 00002OBSERVEO (OATE: 0 7 70 5 ¡R 504 NARRAT1VE DESCRIPTION01C. CONTAMINATION OF AIR03'PÒPULATlON POTENT1ALLY AFFECTED:1 00002 C OBSERVED(OATE:04 NARRAT1VE OESCRIPTION01D. FIRE/EXPLOSIVE CONOITIONS03 POPULAT1ON POTENT1ALLY AFFECTED:00002 G OBSERVEO (OATE: 04 NARRATIVE OESCRIPTION01,E. OIRECT CONTACT03 POPULAT1ON POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:1 000,j)02 G OBSERVEO (OATE: O7 /05 /š504 NARRAT1VE OESCRIPTIONPOTENTIALG AU.EGEDPOTENTIALG ALLEGEDPOTENTIALC ALLEGEDPOTENT1ALG ALLEGEOG POTEN11ALC ALLEGEDPositíve PCB samples, asbestos sampleand corrosivesO200BSERVED(DATE. fl7/ÛS/RSj04 NAIRRATIVE OESCRIPTION01F. CONTAM1NAT1ONOFSOIL503 AREA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: _____________(ACr.,lG POTENTIALC ALLEGEDPOTENT1ALC ALLEGEDPOTEN11ALALLEGEOPOTENTIALG ALLEGEDPositive PCB contaminationPositive oil contamination01 G. DRINKING WATERCONTAMINATION03 PÖPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:1 00002 G OBSERVED (DATE: ____________04 NAARATIVE OESCRIPTION01H. WORKER EXPOSUREIIN.JURY2003 WORXERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ____________02 G OBSERVED (DATE. ___________04 NARAATIVE DESCRIPTION01 I. POPULATION EXPOSUREIINJURY03 POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: •02 D OSSERVED (OATE: __________04 NARRATIVE OESCRIPTIONEPA FORH 207012 (7-811')))/, EF'APOTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE S1TEPR1JMINARY ASSESSMENTPART 3. DESCRIPT1ON OF HAZARDOIJS CONO1T1ON.S ANO INCOE1TSI. IOENT1PCAT1ONolArEto2i. tfAZAROOU$ coNomoNs ANO P4CIOEÌfTs01, .J. QAUAGE TO FLCRA04 NARPATIV€ DESCRIPflOP402O8SEPVED (OATE01)(. OAMAGE TO FALJNA04 NARRATIVE OESCRPTIOP402O8SEPVED {OATE _________>01L CONTAMINATICN OF F000 ClAlN04 J4ARRA'flVE OESCRIPfl0N02028EPVED (OATE01M. UNSTA8LE CCNTAINMENT OF WASTES03 POPUI.ATICN POTB4TIM.L.Y AFECT:i , 'o o. POTEÌ4T1AIALL.EGEDOBSEPVED CQATE __________PTENThà.I.AU.EGEO0 7 /0 5 / 8 E>POTfflALALJ.EGEDPOTEN11AI.ALLG04 MAAT1VE OESCP'flON01OAUAGE TO CFFTE PROPER1?04 NARRAT1VE OESCRFTICN02 O OBSEPVED (OATE __________)01 O O. COP(TAM*4AT1CN OF SEWEPS, STCPM ORNNS.04 MARRATIVE OESCF1'1CNWTPI 02OSSEPVEO (OATE __________>C PCTENTIAÅC ALJ.EGEC02 O OBSERVEO (OATE __________)O POTENT!AI.ÂLJ.GEN/A01 O P, ILJ.EGM.JUNAUTHORIZEO OIJMPINO04 NARMATIVE QESCRFT1CN05 QESCPIPT1CN CF ANY Ofll€R I(NCWN. PCTENTIAL OR AL.LGEO HAZARO$lH. TOTAI. PCPULATION POTENT1AU.Y AFFECTEO:1_000Iv. CCMME4TSSite inspectionURS Corporation, Environmental AssessmentIT Corporption Laboratory AnalysisV. SOURCES OF INFORMAT!OI4P& FCRM 2O7. 1 2 7tlq. ,POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITEPRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTGeneral lnformatjonThe Potentiai Hazardous Waste Site, Prelimínary Assessment form is used to record information rsecessary to rnakean initial evaluation of the potential risk posed by a slte andto recommend further action.1nstructionsPart 1The Preliminar-y Assessment form contains three parts:Part 1 — Site lnformation and Asse5smentPart 2 — Waste lnformationPart 3 — Description of Hazardous Conditions and lncidents"I-0lState: Enter the two character alpha FIPS code forthe state in which the site is located. lt must beidentical to State on the Site ldentificat)on form,02Site Number: Enter the ten character alphanumericcode for sites which have a Dun and Bradstreet orEPA "user" Dun and Bradstreet number or the tencharacter numeric GSA identification code for federal sites. The Site Number must be identical to theSite Number on the Site ldentification form.Part 1 — Site lnformation and Assessment contains all ofthe data elements also contained on the Site ldentificationform required to add a site to the automated Site TrackingSystem (STS). lt is therefore possible to add a site to STS atthe Preliminary Assessment stage. lnstructions are givenbelow.Part 2 — Waste lnformation and Part 3 — Description of-lazardous Conditions and lncidents are used to record specificinformation about substances, amounts, hazards, and targets,e.g., population potentially affected, that are used in determining the prioriry for further action. Parts 2 and 3 are also contained in the Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site lnspecrionReport form where they may be used to update, add, delete, orcorrect information supplied on the Preliminary Assessment.An Appendix with feedstock names and CAS Numbersand the most frequently cited hazardous substances and CASNumbers is located behínd the 'nstructions for the PreliminaryAssessment.11.Site Name and Location: lf Site Name and Locationinformarion require rso additions or changes, theseitems are not required on the Preliminary .Assessment form. However, completing these items willfaci!itate use of the completed form and recordsmanagement procedures.*11-01Site Name: Enter the legat, common, or descriptivename of the site.*11-02Site Street: Enter the street address and nurnber (ifappropriatel where the site is located. lf the precisestreet address is unavailable for this site, enter briefdirection ïdentifier, e.g., NW irstersection 1-295 &US 99; Post Rd, 5 mi W of Rt. 5.*11-03Site City: Enter the city, town, villaqe, or othermunicipaliry in which the site ïs located. f the siteis not located in a municipality, enter the name ofthe municipality (or place) which is nearest the siteor which most easily locates the site.*11-04Site State: Enter the two character alpha FIPS codefor the state irt which the site is located. The codemust be the same as in item 1.01.*11-05Site Zip Code: Enter the five character numeric zipcode for the posta! zone iri which the site is located.*ll06Site County: Enter the name of the county, parish(Louisianal, or borough (Alaska) in which the site slocated.*11.07County Code: Enter the three character numericFIPS county code for the county, parish, or borough in which the site is located. (The regional dataanaíys't will furnish this data item.)*11-08Site Congressional District: Enter the two characternurnber for the congressional district in which thešìteis )ocated.11-09Coordinates: Enter the Coordinates, Latitude andLongitude. of the site in deqrees, minutes, secondsand tenths of seconds. If a tenrh of a second s in.significant at this site. enter ')J•'11-10Directions to Site: Starting from the neares-t publicroad, provide narrative directions to the site.General lnstructions1. Complete the Preliminary Assessment form as completely as possible.2. Starred items () are required before assessmentinformation can be added to STS. The system will not acceptincomplete assessment information.3. To add a slte to STS at the Preliminary Assessmentsrage. write "New" across the top of the form and completeitems 11-01, 02, 03. 04, and 06, Site Name and Location, anditem lll-13, TypeofOwnership.4. Data items carried iri STS, which are identical tothose on the Site Identification form and which can be added,deleted, or changed using the Preliminary Assessment form,are indicated wlth a pounci sign (). To ensure that the properaction is taken, outline the tem(s) to be added, deleted, orchanged with a bright color and indicate the proper actionwith "A" (add), "D" (delete). or 'C" (change).5, There are two optlons available for adding, deleting,or changing information supplied on rhe Preliminary Assessment form. The firt s to use a riew Preliminary Assessmentform, completing Only thoseiterns to be added, deleted, orchanged. Mark the form clearty, using "A", 'D", or "C', toindicate the action to be taken. lf anly data carried in STS areto be altered. the Site Source Data Report may be used. Usingthe report, mark clearly the items to be changed and theaction to be taken.Site lnforrnation and Assassmentldentification: ldentification (State and Site Number) s the site record key, or primary identifier,for the site. Site records in the STS are updatedbased on ldentification. lt is essentiaj that Stateand Site Number are correctly entered ori eachform.Part 1 (continu.d)PREUMINARY ASSESSMENTl l l.Rsiponaibl. Parti.s*$ll-O1Site Qwnar: Enter the nem• of th. ownr of thesrte. Th. site ownr ¡s the person, company. or fed.ral, state. municipal or other pubtic or private enticy, wno currently holds tstle to tl'ie property onwhicfl the sit. s Iocated.*fll.02•03-04•05111-06slll-07Sita Owner Addresi: Errter th. current complet.busariesi. rasidential, or mailing address at which th.own.rofth.srt.canbereacñ.d,Sits 0wn.r Telephon. Mumber: Enter the are codeand local tel.pflone number ar which tha own.r ofth. ssta can b. reacfiad.Site Operator: lf ditfarerrt frorn Site Owner, .nterthe name of the operacor at the site. fls. site operatof is the person, company. oi' feda'at, stace,municipaå or otìser puotic or private entity. who currentty, or mos-t recerrtly, is, or was, responssbt. foroperations at the sste.*111-08-09-10.11111.12Site Oprator Addresi: Entar th. Oirrent complet.busin. residerstiat, or rnailiog addresi at whicflth. op.rator of the site can be reached.*$tl.13Type of Owner'ship: Chedc th. appropriate box toinclicats th. type of site ownersnip. lf the site isursdar tts, ursiction of ars activit'y f the tederalgovernmerit. snter tfl. narne of th. deoartn'ent,agerscv, or activic'y. lf Other is indicated, specîfytfle t'ype of ownersflip and nam.111-14IV1V11V-02lV-03IV-04hazardous, potentially hazardous. or ther substances pres.nt, or clairned to be pres.nt, at the sste.IV-O5V.Priority Asa.semantV-01Prioriry fcr lnspection: C1'sedc the appropriace boxto indicate tts. priority for further action or inspectiors. lf rso furtfier accfon ¡s reguired, complate tPsePotentisl Hazardous Wast. Site, Curr.nt Dispossmusttion form. Th. Pnority for lnsg.ctionb. supporred by appropriat. d,ata n Part 2 — Waszelnfcrmatior. and Part 3 — Description of HazardousCsandiriosis and lncidents of this form. lf no hazardous cohcitions exist, Part 3 ¡s not reouired.vl.Iniormation Avsilabl FrornVl-01Contact: Enter the nariie of the sndividual who casiprovide inforrnation about the sits.Vl-02Of: lf appropriat., eriter the riarne of the Public orprìvate aqesicy, firrn, or company and the ortjanization wsthin thu ages-scy, firrsi, or company of theindividu,al nemed as Csaricact.Vt-03Telephone Numbar: Enter the area code asid localtaleghone numb.r of the rsdividuaå rsarrsed as contact.Vl-04Person Reiponsabte for Assessrnent: Enter the riameof tl'se ihcividuat who mad. the sita asis'nent arsdassigned the prioricy rating to the site. The personrasponsibte for th. assersent may ba dif'ferentfrom tha individual who prepared ths form.Vt-05Agency: Erscer the name af the Ages'scy where tfle¡ndividual who made ttse asses-nenr is ernpioved.Vt-08Organization: Enter the narrre of the organizatîonvvithin the Agency.VT-07Telegt'ion. Number: Entes' the area code and localtelephone rsumber of the ¡ndividuat wflo made theasseisarterst.Vl-08Date: Enta' th. dat. the ass.ssrnent was made.Sit. Operztor Tetephon. Nun-tba': Erster the areacode aod locat talephon. number at which th.operator of the sita can be reach.d.Ossvner/0perator Notification On File: C1'sed th.appropriac. box(ei) to indicata that the rsociflcavon reguired by RCRA (3001) andíor CERCLAS(103c, Sup.rfund) )save been received. lf receiv.d,enter the date(s) receiv.d. Check none ¡f not received.Charact.rizztion of Potart1i HudOn Site lnspeczton: C1'seck ti'ts appropnace box to¡ndicata tfsat the sit. has been insp.ctad or visitedby EPA, a staca or local ofticiat, or a ccntractorrepres.rttative of EPA or a stzt, or local goverrimenc. Enter tfse date of tfl inspection. Check theappropriate box(es) to ¡ndicate who vissted ttia siteor perforrned the iospaction. lf the sit. visit was oerforrned by a contractor, esrter tfle rieme of ttiecomparty.Site Status: C1'seck tfle appropriace box(es) ro indicaza the aarrent statua of th. sit.. Active sites arathos. which traat, store, or disposs of was'tes. ChedcAcrivu for tt'tosa active sites with an nactive storaqe or disposal area. lrsactive sites are rhose at whschtrestrner.c, storage, or disposal activirses no ongeroccur.Yesrs of Oaeration: Enter th. beginning and endingyearl (or binninq oniy if operarions at th. slta araOn-goírlg), e.q.. 187811932. of wasts treetrysenc,scoraqe, andlor disposal activizies at th. site. CheckUnknown f the yean of operatson are r,ot 'nown0escriptson of Subscances Psssbåy Present, Known,or Alleged: Provide a r,arrarsve desciption ofDescriprton of Potantiat -lazard ro Env,ronmentandíor Populatson: Provide a narracive descriptionof ti's. potential hazard the site pos.s to the envsronment and to expcs.d populatioo or wildlifa. lf csohazzrd, or potentiat hazard, exists, provide the basisfor thst detarmination,Part 2Wazta lnformstaon. t.Td.ntiflcation: Reter to Part 1—l,.l l.Wssta Stat,s, Ou.nities, arad Charactaristica: WasteSt,ates, Quantsrtes. and C1'saracreristica provide information abour tha physical sucture and fcrrrt of thewasts, messaares of gross arrsounts at tt,e site, andthe hazattia pcsed by the 'svaste, conssdering acuteand d'sronic heaíth effecra aod mooslity atonq apathway.11-O1Physicat Stares: C1'seck the locrcprsare oxlesl to¡ndicare tha stata(s) ot waste present, or tflougnt tob. present, at th. size. lf Othar is ndicoted, scecsf-ytfle physacai stace of the waste.11-02Wasre Quarttit'y at Site: Enter es-zsmateaot an'sountaof ws-to ac the sire. Esttmates may b. in weiqrsc(Tons) or voåume (Cubic Yards or Number ofDrumsi. Use a.s many ersrrses as are spproprsatehowrver. rneesuremeflt! must e flfletjafldentrPart 2 (continued)PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTexan'iple, do not measure the same amounts ofwaste as both tons and cubic yards.•l ¿3Waste Characteristics: Check all appropriate entriesto indicata the hazards posed by waste at the site.lf waste at the šite poses no hazard, check NotApplicable.111.Waste Category: General categories of waste typicaily found are listed here. Enter the estimated grossamount of the category of waste next to the appropriate substance name and enter the unit of measureused with the estimate.111-01Gross Amount: Gross Amount is the estimate of theamount of the waste category found at the site.Estimates should be furnished in metric tons (MT).tons (TN), cubic meters (CM), cubic yards (CY),drums (DR). acres (AC), acre feet (AF), Iiters (LT),or gallons (GA). Enter the estimated amount nextto the appropriate waste category.111-02Unit of Measure: Enter the appropriate unit of measure: MT (metric tons)TN (tons).CM (cubic meters).CY (cubic yards(, DR (number of drums). AC(acrcs), AF )acre feet), LT (iiters), or GA (gallons),next to the estimate of gross amount.111-03Comments: Commerits may be used to further explain, or provide additional information, about particular waste cateqories.lv.Hazardous Substances: Specific hazardous, orpotentially hazardous, chemicals, mixtures, andsubstances found at the site are listed here. Thisinformation may not be available at the PreliminaryAssessment stage. Substances for which nforrnationis avatlable are to be listed here. For each substancelisted those data items marked with an 'at" sign(@) must be included.@lV-01Cateqory: Enter in front of the substance narne thethree character waste cateqory from Section lwhich best describes the substance, e.g., OLW (OilyWaste).@IV-02Substance Narne: Enter one of the following: thename of the substance reqistered with the ChemicalAbstract Service, the common or accepted abbreviation of the substance, the generic name of thesubstance. or commercial name of the substance.@lV-03CAS Number: Enter the number assigned to thesubstance when it was registered with the ChemicalAbstract Service. Refer to the Appendix for mostfrequently cited CAS Nurnbers. CAS Numbers mustbe furnished for each substance listed. lf a CASNumber for this substance has not been assigned,enter "999".@IV-04Storage/Disposal Method: Enter the type of storageor disposal facility in which the substance wasfound: Sl (surface tmpoundment, including pits,ponds, and lagoons), PL (pile), DR (drum), TK{tank), LF (laridff .i..ñdarñTOD )opendump).IV-05Concentration: Enter the concentration of the substance found in samples taken at the site.IV-06Measure of Concentration: Enter the appropriateunit of measure for the measured concentration ofthe substance found in the sample, e.g., MG/L,UG/L.V.wFeedstocksV-01Feedstock Name: lf feedstocks, or substancesderived from one or more feedstocks, are presentat the site, enter the name of each feedstock found.See the Appendix for the feedstock list.V-02CAS Number: Enter the CAS Number for eachfeedstock named. See theendîx l1or fèedstckCAS Numbers.vl.Sources of lnformation: List the sources used toobtain information for this form. Sources cited mayinclude: sample analysis, reports, inspections, official records, or other documentation. Sources citedprovide the basis for information entered on theform and may be used to obtain further informationabout the site,Part3Description of Hazardous Conditions and lncidentsl.ldentification: Refer to Part 1—)Hazardous Conditions and lncidents:ii-01Hazards: lridicate each hazardous, or potentiallyhazardous, condition known, or claimed, to exist atthe site.11.02Observed, Potential, or Alleqed: Check Observedand enter the date, or approximate date, of occurrence if a release of contaminants to the environment, or some other hazardous incident, is knownto have occurred. ln cases of a continuing release,e.g., groundwater coritamination, enter the date,or approximate date. the condition first becameapparent. lf conditions exist for a potential release.check potential. Check Alleged for hazardous, orpotentially hazardous, condittons claimed to existat the site.11-03Population Potential)y Affected: For each haz.ardous coridition at the site, enter the number ofpeople potentially affected. For Soil enter the number of acres potentially affected.11-04Narrative Oescription: Provide a narrative description, or explanation, of each condition. lnclude anyadditional information which further explains thecond ition.l -05Description of Any Other Known, Potential, or Alleged Hazards: Provide a narrative description ofany other hazardous, or potentially hazardous,conditions at the site not covered above.111.Total Population Potentially Affected: Enter thetotal number of people potenttally affected by theexistence of hazardous, or potentially hazardous,conditions at the site. Do not sum the numbersshown for each condition.IV.Comments: Other information relevant to observed,potential, or alleged hazard.s may be entered here.V.Sourcas of lnformation: List the sources used toobtain information for this form. Sources citedmay include: sample analysis, reports, inspections,official records. or other documentation. Sourcescited provide the basis for information enteredon the form and may be used to obtain further information about the site..-wAPPENDIXl. FEEDSTOCKSCAS Mumb.rCh.micai Nam.CAS Numb.rChemical Nam•CAS NumbarCh.mica Name1.7664.41.72. 7440-36-03. 1309-64-44. 7440-38.25. 1327-53-36. 21109-95-57.7726-95-68. 106-99.09. 7440-43.910.7782-50-511,12737-27-812,7440-47-3AmmoniaAntimonyAntirnonv TrioxideArsenicArsoriic TrioxdeBariurn Sulfide8rom1ne8utadianaCadmiumChlorinoChromiteChromiumCobalt14.1317-38-015. 7758-98-716.1317-39-117.74-85.118.7647-01-019.7664-39--320. 1335-25-721. 7439-97-622. 74-82-823.91-20-324. 7440-02.025. 7697-37-226. 7723-14-0Cupric Ox,deCupric SulfateCuprous OxideEthyleneHydrochloric AcidHydrog.n Fluorid.Lead 0xideMorcuryMettion.NapttialoneNickeiNitric AcidPhosphorus2 7 7 7 7l3-0-928. 1310-58-329 115-07-130. 10588-01-931. 1310-73-232. 7646-78-833. 7772-99-834. 7664-93-935. 108-88-336. 1330-20-737, 7646-85-738. 7733-02-0Potagium DichrometePotassium HydroxidePropyleneSodium DichromateSodium HydroxideStannic ChloridoStannous ChlorideSulfuric AcidToiuenoXylenoZinc ChlorideZinc Sulfate13. 74.40-48-411. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCESCAS NbarCh.mscai N.rn.CAS Numb.rchemical Nam.CAS Numb.rCh.micai Nam.1.75-07-02. 64-19.73. 108-24-74. 75-86-55.506-96-76. 75-36-57.107-02-88. 107-13-19. 124-04-910_ 309-00-211.10043-01-312.107-18-613.107-05-114.7664-41-715.631-61-816.1863-63-417.11366-33-718.7789.09-519.1341-49-720. 10192-30-021. 1111-78-022. 12125.02-923. 7788-98-924 3012-65-525. 13826-83-026. 12125-01-827. 1336-21-628. 6009.70-729. 16919-19-030. 7773-06-031. 12135-76.132. 10196-04.033. 14307-43-834.1762-95-435. 7783-18-836. 628-63.737.62-53-338. 71B39. 7789-61-940. 10025-91-941. 7783-56-442. 1309-64-443. 1303-32-844. 1303-28-245. 7784-34-146. 1327-53-3AcetoldehydaAcatic AcidAcatic AnhydrideAcatone CyanohydrinAcetyl 8romideAcatyl ChlorideAcroleinAcrylonitrileAdipic AcidAldrinAluminumSulfateAllyl AlcoholAllyl ChlorideAmmoniaAmmonium AcetateAmmonium ßanzoateAmmonium BicarbonetoAmmonium 8ichromatoAmmonium 8ifluoridoAmmonium BisulfiteAmmonium CarbamateAmmonium ChloridoAmmonìum ChromateAmmonium Cítrate, DibasicAmmonium FluoborateAmmonium FluorideAmmonium HydroxideAmmonium OxalateAmmonium SilicofluorideAmmonium SulfamateAmmonium SulfidoAmrnonium SulfiteAmmonium TartrateAmmonìum ThiocyanatoAmmonium ThiosulfatoAmyl AcetateAnulineAntimony PentachlorideAntin-iony TribromideAntimony TrìchlorideAntimony TrifluorideAntimony TrioxidaArsenic DisulfidoArsenic PentoxideArsenic TrichlorideArsenic Trioxide47. 1303-33-948. 542-62-149. 71-43-250.65-85-051. 100-47-052. 98-88-453. 100-44-754. 7440-41-755. 7787-47-556. 7787-49-757. 13597-99-458. 123-86-459.84-74-260. 109-73-961. 107-92-662. 543-90-863. 7789-42-664. 10108-64-265. 7778-44-166. 52740-16-667. 75-20.768. 13765-19-069. 592-01-870. 26264-06-2Arsanic Trisulfide8arium CyanideBenzeneB.nzoic AcidBonzonitrlleBonzoyl ChlortdoBenzyl ChloridaBeryllium8ery11ium ChlorideBeryllium FluoridoBeryllium Nitrato8uty1 Acetateru-8uty1 PhthalateButylamine8uryric AcidCadimium AcotateCadmium BromideCadmium ChlorideCalcium ArsenatoCalcium ArieniteCalciurn CarbideCalcium ChromateCalcium CvanideCalcium DodecylbenzeneSulfonateCaicium HypochloriteCaptanCarbarylCarbofuranCarbon DisultidoCarbon TetracfiloridaChlordaneChlorin.Chlorob.nzon.ChloroformChlorosulfonuc AcidChtorpyrifosChromic AcetateChromic AcidChromic SulfateChromous ChloridoCobaltous FormeteCobaitous SulfamateCoumaphosCresol92. 142-71-293. 12002-03-894, 7447-39-495. 3251-23-896. 5893-66-397. 7758-98-798. 10380-29-799. 815-82-7100.506-77-4101.110-82-7102.94-75-7103.94-11-1104.50-29-3105.333-41-5106.1918-00-9107.1194-65-6108, 117-80-6109.25321-22-6110.266-38-19-7111. 26952-23-8112. 8003-19-8Cupric AcetateCupric AcetoarieniteCupric ChlorideCupric NitratoCupric OxalateCupric SulfateCupric Sulfate AmmoniatedCupric TartrateCyanoqen ChlorideCyclohexane2,4-0 Acid2,4-0 EstersDDTDiazinonDicambaDichlobenilDichloneDichlorobenzeno (all isomers)Dichloropropana lall isorners)Dichloropropane (all isomers)DichloropropeneDichloropropane Mixture2--0ichloropropionic Acid0ichlorvosDieldrinDiethyiam,neDimethylamine0initrobenzene (all !somers)DinitrophenolDinitrotoluena (all isomers)DiiluatDisulfoton0iuronDodecvlb.nzonesulfonic AcidEndosulfan (all isomerilEndrin and MotabolitesEpichlorohydrinEthionEthyl BenzerieEthyienediamineEthylene DibromidaEthylene Dichioride EDTAFerric Ammonium CitrateFerric Ammonium OxalateFerric Chloride71.7778-54-372.133-06-273.63-25-274.1563-66-275. 75-15-076.56-23-577.57-74.978.7782-50-579.108-90-780. 67-66-381. 7790-94-582. 2921-88-283. 1066-30-484. 7738-94-585. 10101-53-886. 10049-05-587. 544-18-388. 14017-41-589. 56-72-490. 1319-77-391.4170-30-3Crotonaldehyde113.75-99-0114.62-73-7115.60-57-1116.109-89-7117.124-40-3118.25154-54-5119.51-28-5120.25321-14-6121.85-00-7122.298-04-4123.330-54-1124.27176-87-0125.115-29-7126.72-20-8127.106-89-8128.563-12-2129.100-41-4130.107-15-3131.106-93-4132.107-06-2133.60-00-4134.1185-57-5135.2944-67-4136.7705-08-011. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCESCAS Numbsr137 7783.50.8138.10421-18-4139.10028-T2.5140.10045-89-3141.7758-94-3142.7720-78.7143.20644-0144.50-00.0146. 5418-8146. 110.17-8147.98.01-1148.36-60-0149.78-44-8150.118.74-1151.87-68-3152.67-72-1153.70.30-4154.77.47-4155.7647.01-0158. 7864-39.3157, 74.80-6158.7783-08-4159.78-79-6180. 42504-46.1161.115.32.2162.143.60-0183, 301-04-2164.3587-31-8165.7758-98-4166.13314-36.8167.7783-48.2168.10101-63-0169.18256-98-9170.7422-'8-0171.15739-80-7172.1314-87-0173.582.87-0174, 53.39.9175. 14.307-35-8178. 121-75-8177.110-16-7178.108-31-6179.2032-65-7180.592-04.1181.10046-94-0182.7783-35-9183.592-85-3184.10415-75-5185.72-43-6188. 74-83-1187.80-82-6188.296-00.0189.T786-34.7190.315-18-4191.75-01-7Ch.neNsm.F.rric Fluerld.Ferric N*ttF.rr,c SulfiteF,rroui Arnmonium SulfatsFsrrous Chlortd.F,rrou, SulfttsFluor.ntflsn.Føniiald.fl'ydsForrn.c AcsdFum.ric AcidFurfuralGutflioiiH.atacflto,J-tsxadito,oø.nzsn..OcoOutnUi.ri,-4.xacflšoro.tflsn.-4sO1.Cilorogfleri..xadiloroc'ydog.ntndi.n.J-IydroCišeric Acsd(Hydrogeri Chlondt-lydrofluoric Acrd(Hydr'og.n Fluorid.lHydrog.n Cysnid.t-4y0r0g.n SulfldslsoOr,n.sOgrog.riolarnineOoøsc-ttb.rizsn..dfon.teKaltflsrieKagon.Laad Acst,tsLaed ArseriateLaad Chlortø.Lsed FluoboritsLa.d FlucriO.Liad lodid.La.d NitritsLa.d StesratsLiad Su&tat.Uad Su&fJdsLa.d ThiocyeriaaLndar.Lttflium ChromsisM.lthperiM.4sic AdidM..c Anfl'tdridsM-_.,...,toøimwttiurMercuric Cysnidstl.rcunc Nitr,t.Mercuric SultsteM.rcuric ThiocvsnitsMeqcurou* NitritsM.ttioxyditorMuttiyt M,rcigttnM.tflyl Uidiscry4st.Mdiyl PsrsttiponM.vingflosMsxacast.Monodiyš.rninCAS Numø.,Chsntlca4 Nam.CAS Numb.,Chsmica4 Nsm.192.74-89-8193.300-76-5194.91-20-3195.1338.24-8198. 7440-02-0197.15699.18-0198.37211-05-5199.12054-48-7200.14218.75-2201.7786-81-4202.7687-37.2203.98-95-3204.10102-44-0205.25154-55-8208. 1321-12-6207.30525-89-4208.58-38-2209.508-93-6210.87-88-5211.85-01-3212.108-95-2213.75-44-8214.7564-38-2215.7723.14-0216.10025-87-3217.1314-80-3218.7719.12-2219.778441-0230. 10124-60-2231. 7778.50-9. 7789.00-8. 7722-84-7234.2312-35-8. 79.094235.123-62-6227. 1335-36-3. 151-50-8229. 1310-68-323 75-58.9231. 121-29-9232. 91-22-5223. 108-48.3Monorn.iflyl.m.n.NatedNoottiiialen.Nsuhttt.n.c AcidNick.lMlck.4 Ammonium SulfataNick.l Chtorid.MIctc.l 14ydroxid.N4CICII P.lltritaNictcI4 SulfatsNitric AcidNitrob.nzeri.NJo-ogen 01oxid.Mitrogfl.nod .44 isømeralMitrotoluer..Pariforrn.døeflyd.PsratflionPniaC,Joron.nz.n.Psntnct,lorogflsiiolPt'ien.ntflrsi-i.Ptt.noêPtio,g.ti.Pttoflor4d AódPtto.ahoru,Pttoigflotus Cxycfllorid.Ptte.aflo,us P,nt..d(10.Ptto,ghoru* 'rricflloriO.Potasiijm ArieniiPotasstum Ar,.n.t.Potass,urn aidirornst.Pi,ta*sium Chrom.taPotsss,um P.rvnanqsi-iatsProg.ergrteProonic Ac,dProgionic Anflydr,dePo4yditorin, ßlpfl.nytsPotasnum Cy.nid.Pi,ra*s,u,n HydroxidaPrgylsri. Oxld.Pyr,tflnn.Cuinolin.P.sorcanolSl.nium (3x10.Silv,r Nttr,t.Sodlurn Arien.taSodlurn Ars.n,t.Sodium BicflromstsSodlum 3iiluorid.Sodlun, BisulfitaSodluni Chromst.Sorsium Cvsn,d.SOdIUm 00d.cy40.nzen.Sulton.taSodlurn F1uoricteSodium I4ydro.ullld.Sodium H'ydroxid.sodlum l+ypoct'ilorttsSodlum Mudiylste249.7632-00.0250.7558.79-4251.7601-64-9252.10102.18-8253.7789-06-2254.57-24-9255.100-420-625ß. 1277t-.08--3257.7684-93-9258.93-76-5259.2005-46-0280. 93-79-8251. 13580-89-12. 93-72-1253. 3253.4-45-6284. 724-8265. 95-44-3288. 127-18-4267. 78-00-2288. 107-49-3259. 7446.18-6270. 1088771. 8001-35-2272.12002-48-1273.52-68-8274.25323.89-1275.79-01-8278. 25167-82-2277. 27323-41-7Sodlurri Nitl'iteSodlurn Pfto,gttst., CibasscSodlum Ptto,gflaia, Trbss,c5odium Sl.nitaStrontium Chromat.Strydinin. and SsltiStyr.ri.Suliur P40I.OCflIO,id.Suifuric Acid2.4.5-7 Acid2,4.5-T Aminss2,4,5-7 Est.r,2.4,5-T Saiti2.4,5-TP Acid2,4,5-TP Acsd Est,rsfDET.t,'.cttloroøeqizsn.T.tr.ct,lro.tfisrt.T.triuttiyl LC'r.trs.divl Pyrt,gho,gnwtaîPialllwii l) 3u41stloluen.Toxaghsi'isTricfllorob.nzsn. IsU 'orn.rslîridilo,toriîricritoroettian, (.41 isornertlTr,cflloroetfl'yl.n.TridiJort,pfl.nol .11 isomerslTrt.rli.nolarnin.0od.cyibenzen.sutfonsieTri.tliylaminsTrirr,.ttrylsririn.Ursnyt Acat.t.Urariy* Nio-atsVsnadluryt P,nct,icidsVsn.dy4 SulfstsVin'yl AcatitsVlny4id.ne Chtorid.Xyt.nolZlna AcatataZlnc Arr,rrtoniurn ChloridsZlnc 8or*ceZlnc 3romidsZinc C.ìrt,onst.Zlr,c Chloriø.Zinc CyinidsZirtc F!uorid*Zlnc ForrnatsZinc t-4'ydro,u,fltaZinc Nitrat.Z1r.c Pttenolsulfonst.zlnc PttosuflidsZlnc 5i1ic0f1u0r,dsZlnc Sultat.Zlrconium tlltrst.Zlrconium Pi,ia*sium FluortdeZircortiurn SulflteZlrconturn Tstr.cttJorids234. 7446-08-4235.7751-88-8235. 7831-89-2237. 7784-46-5232. 10588-01-9239.1333-83-1240.7831-90-6241.7775-11-3242.143-33.9243.25155-30-0244. 7581-48..4245.16721-80-6246.1310-73-2247.7681-52-9248.124-41-4278.121-44-3279.75-60-3220.541-09-3221.10102.06-4222.1314-82-1283. 27774-13-6254. 1O85-4225. 75-354286. 1300-71-6227. 557-34-8288.52828-25-8289.1332-07-6290.7599-45-8291.3485-35-8222. 7648-85.7293. 557-21-1224. 778349-3295.557-41-6296.7779-86-4297.7779-88-6298.127-82-2299.1314-84-7300.16871.71-9301.7733-02-0302.13746-89-9303.15923-96-330.4. 14644-81-2305. 10025-11-6 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 52
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 52, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1986
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Form indicating sampling and analyses to be done to help determine the extent of contaminated soil after the initial Environmental Assessment.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 52, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1986
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Form indicating sampling and analyses to be done to help determine the extent of contaminated soil after the initial Environmental Assessment.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-52SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 52," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
REGION SITE )UM8ERPOTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE STEDISPOSITIONFile this form xn the region.al HazardousW.ste Log File and submxtacopyto:U.S.EflVirOnmefltatPrOteCt1OnAgency; Stte Tracking!. SITE IDENTtFICATIONB. STREETA. SITE NAMEST.E. ztP COOEO. STATEC. CITY;99 7','M511. TENTATIVE DtSPOSlTlQNlriate boxes.lndicate the recommended action(s) and agency(ies) that should be involved by marking 'X in the iACTlON AGENCYRECOMMENOATIONIMARK' *'IrATEEPAl LOCAL•1P,.A. NO ACTlON NEEOED --x9. INVESTIGATIVE ACTION(S) NEEOEO (11 y.a, compl.t. S.ction 111.)C. REMEOIAL ACTION NEEOEO (11 y•s. comp1.t. S.ction ¡V.)aNFORC!P.IENT ACTION NEEOEO (.1 ye., sp.c.ly in Part E wh.thar th. css. .villD. b. pr.marily mana.d by th. EPA or the Stat. arid what yp. 0! .nlorc.m.nt action1, anticipat.d.)E. RATIONALE FOR DISPOSITION/ S.cgg- UP..S C'on,oA/-r&)./fl7,ç,j-pfle,1t,./í,1 t//9/y5ì5ÇJfrfp)(USEPA SF/ztsxi.lrsí5i51624667F. lNOtCATE THE ESTIMATEO OATE OF FINAL OISPOSITION(mo., day,&yr.)f ,,G. lF A CASE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NECESSARV INOICATE THEESTIMATED DATE ON WHICH THE PLAN WILL BE OEVELOPEO(mo., day, & yr.),H. PREPARER INFORNATION3. CATE(mo.,day.&Yt.)2. TLEPI.4ONNUMØERI.NAMEJÀce5(9a7)/a3- _______________111. INVESTIGAT1VE ACTIVITY NEEDED-iFY AOOITIONAL lNFORNATlON NEEOEO TO ACNlEvE A FINAL OlSPOSlTtON.Ø. PROPOSEO INVESTIGATIVE ACTlvlTY (D.tail.d ¡nformation)I2.SCHEOULED PERFORMED3.TO BEBYl. METHOD FOR OeTAlNlNGNEEOEO AOOITIONAL INFO.a. TVPE OF SITE INSPECTIONtii—lOATE OFACTION(mo.d.y.&yr)(EPA Contr.ctot,'Stat.,atc.)'C.d 1E. -f/____________4.ESTIMATEOMANNOURS5. REMAfii -
ACAT FOIA Repository 53
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 53, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1986
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Form indicating sampling and analyses to be done to help determine the extent of contaminated soil after the initial Environmental Assessment. By Jacques Gusmano. It appears to be the typed version of the same document from December 1986 (ACAT FOIA Repository 52).Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 53, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1986
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Gambell
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Form indicating sampling and analyses to be done to help determine the extent of contaminated soil after the initial Environmental Assessment. By Jacques Gusmano. It appears to be the typed version of the same document from December 1986 (ACAT FOIA Repository 52).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-53SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 53," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
r -.*AIREG1ON ISITE NLJMBERPOTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITEIl 3I.DSPOS1TIOND981765894File his torm u the reglonal Hazardous Waste Log File and submxt a copy to: U.S. Envxronznental Protection Agency; S&tc TrackxngSyst.m; Hazardous Wsat. Enforc.ment Tssk Forc. (EN-335); 4O1 f St.. SW.ashington, DC-2Q46O.I. SITE IDENT1F1CAT1ON•A. SI'E NAMEJ B. S'TREE,rSt. Lawrence Is1andC. C11YE. ZIP COOED. STATEGambel99742Alaska•tl. TENTATIVE DISPOSITIONrndicate the recommended actlon(s) and agency(:es) that should be invo1ved by marking X' xn the approprlate boxe3.ACTION AGENCYRECOMUENDATIONMa,R -
ACAT FOIA Repository 54
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 54, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1989
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Site Inspection Notes for Anvil Mountain
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Site inspection notes for Anvil Mountain. The same watchman for the Anvil Mountain site was the watchman for the Northeast Cape site and shared the knowledge that the only wastes on the site were PCBs and oils and that they had been cleaned up.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 54, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1989
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Site Inspection Notes for Anvil Mountain
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Site inspection notes for Anvil Mountain. The same watchman for the Anvil Mountain site was the watchman for the Northeast Cape site and shared the knowledge that the only wastes on the site were PCBs and oils and that they had been cleaned up.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-54SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 54," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
IJCiOfFileJune 9, 1989465-2671Jeff Ingalls, EcologistHazardous Waste Mgmt.White Alice Site-AnvilMountain NomeNon-NotifierRCRA inspectors Jeff Ingalls of the Juneau Central Office andRich Cormack of the Northern Regional Office conducted a visualsite inspection of the Anvil Mountain White Alice communicationsite in Nome, Alaska on June 8, 1989. This inspection wasconducted at the request of Irene Alexakos of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Alaska Operations Office. Ms. Alexakos wasinterested in determining if any hazardous waste activities,(primarily relating to CERCLA) have occurred or were currentlyoccurring on this site.The site notified EPA of their hazardous waste managementactivities in May 1981. Under "dates of waste handling" theyhave 1957 through 1980. Their EPA identification number isAK7570028616. The facility under waste types checked"sanitary/refuse" and "mixed municipal." Known, suspected orlikely releases to the environment is listed as "none". The siteno longer appears on the EPA RCRA handlers list for the State ofAlaska.We met with the site watchman George Motschman at 2:00 p.m. Mr.Motschman explained that he had been the watchman for the AnvilMountain White Alice site and five other sites for about 10years. Mr. Motschman stated that he worked at the Anvil Mountainsite prior to becoming the watchman for the six White Alicesites.Mr. Motschman explained that the Anvil Mountain site was obtainedby the U.S. Air Force by means of a military withdrawal from theBLM in 1954. He further stated that the U.S. Air Force stillholds the withdrawal. According to Mr. Motschman the site wasused strictly for communications, no radar. Four repeaters arestill standing on this site. Refer to the attached photos.Mr. Motschman explained, with regard to generation of hazardouswaste, that about 4 years ago the U.S. Army in conjunction withthe State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) cleanedup the Anvil Mountain site. He explained that the wastes werePCB oils and waste oil. He had no records of the clean up andcould not recall by name who was involved. The site did have sixUSEPASF1477076JUN 1 9 1989Sunerfunri Branchold 55 gallon drums that were empty and were now filled withrocks to help support one of the stations during high winds.Mr. Motschman stated that he also looked after 5 other WhiteAlice sites in the region. The sites were:(1)Northeast Cape; a radar and communication sitecurrently owned by the Native Corporation;(2)Kotzebue; a radar and communication site currentlyowned by the FAA. The radar equipment at this site isstill in use;(3)Granite Mountain; a communication site currently ownedby the U.S. Air Force;(4)Tin City; a communication site currently owned by theNavy ;(5)Unakalet; a communication site that has beendismantled.These sites according to Mr. Motschman have all been cleaned upof PCB waste and waste oil. Again these wastes were the onlywastes Mr. Motschman was aware of on any of these sites. Mr.Motschman stated that he had physically been at each of thesesites in the past year. He also stated that this Anvil Mountainsite was scheduled to be dismantled soon.Wlile on site Mr. Motschman opened up the maintenance workshopbuilding to demonstrate that all waste had been removed. He alsoexplained that the University was doing some seismographicresearch on the site. We concluded the visual site inspection ofthe Anvil Mountain site at 3:05 p.m.cc:David DiTraglia, DEC/COIrene Alexakos, EPA/AOORich Cormack, DEC/NROSimon Mawson, DEC/Nome, DO -
ACAT FOIA Repository 55
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 55, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1991
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Letter from EPA to PRC Environmental Management
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Letter from EPA to the contractor company PRC Environmental Management stating the current work assignment, including HRS scores on a handful of sites, including the White Alice site at Northeast Cape.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 55, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1991
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Letter from EPA to PRC Environmental Management
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Letter from EPA to the contractor company PRC Environmental Management stating the current work assignment, including HRS scores on a handful of sites, including the White Alice site at Northeast Cape.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-55SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 55," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
:5'OnRegion 101200 Sixth AvenoeSeattle WA 03' t-AlaskaIdahoOregonAil,6,5^/UfSDf ^‘l \/\A’t si- ‘^0'as’i\October 4, 1991Mr. James PankaninPRC Environmental Management, Inc.1411 4th Ave.Seattle, Wa 98101The following is the initial assignment to PRC under thecurrent work assignment. The list includes original docketedsites (those subject to the court order), sites docketedsubsequent to 2/12/88 and sites that have not yet been added tothe docket. There are 6 sites that are on the original docketand should be the first priority for completion. The Oregon AirNational Guard site is the only one assigned for the completionof an HRS documentation package at the present time, howeveradditional sites should be assigned shortly. The remaining sitesare docketed sites that need to have PA/SI reviews andpreliminary scores completed if adequate information isavailable.ORIGINAL DOCKET SITES1.2.3.4.5.6.USFA Champagne CreekUS Army - Fort RichardsonAmchitka IslandNavy Arctic Research LaboratoryFAA - Umiat Airstrip and Associated FacilitiesFAA - Northway Staging AreaGENERAL DOCKET SITES1.2.3.USES - Panhandle National ForestUSDA - Sheep Experiment StationUSDA - Soil and Water Management Research UnitSITES NOT ON DOCKET1.2.3.4COE - Teller, AlaskaCOE - Cape of Prince of WalesCOE - Davidsons LandingNavy - Wljite Alice Site Northwest CapeAll preliminary scoring is considered confidential and notsubject to release. As per the work assignment preliminaryscores should only be completed on sites determined by EPA. Ifsites include any confidential information it should be treatedas such. If you have any questions please give me a call.Sincerely,Mark AderFederal Facilities WAMUSEPASF1477078 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 56
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 56, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Letter from EPA to PRC Environmental Management
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Letter from EPA to the contractor company PRC Environmental Management requesting they complete preliminary HRS scores on a handful of sites, including the White Alice site at Northeast Cape.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 56, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Letter from EPA to PRC Environmental Management
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Letter from EPA to the contractor company PRC Environmental Management requesting they complete preliminary HRS scores on a handful of sites, including the White Alice site at Northeast Cape.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-56SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 56," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgencyRegion 101200 Sixlh AvenueSeattle WA 98101AlaskaIdahoOregonWashington///. S'.April 8, 1992David ZiitunermannPRC Environmental Management, Inc.1411 4th Ave.Seattle, Wa 98101The following is the latest work assignment submitted toPRC. Please complete preliminary HRS scores on the followingsites:USAF - Galena AFSUSAF - Shemya AFBUSAF - Murphy DomeNAVY - White Alice Site, NE Cape'-~DSFW5”^Amchitka IslandFAA - Fire Island Navigation ReportFAA - Northway Air Navigation StationCOE - Bonneville DamIf information is missing that is essential to thecompletion of a preliminary score, please notify me immediately.If the information is readily available PRC may be able tocollect it with prior approval from me. If the information isnot easy to obtain a deficiency letter will have to be sent tothe federal facility responsible for the submittal.All preliminary scoring is considered confidential and notsubject to release. As per the work assignment, preliminaryscores should only be completed on sites determined by EPA. Ifsites include any confidential information it should be treatedas such. If you have any questions please give me a call.Sincerely,Mark AderFederal Facilities WAMCC: Peter Rubenstein, SFKaren Prater, HW074USE 3ASF1477080 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 57
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 57, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition states that it was determined that the Northeast Cape site did not score high enough to be included on the National Priorities List.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 57, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 2
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Disposition states that it was determined that the Northeast Cape site did not score high enough to be included on the National Priorities List.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-57SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 57," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
ICvciiL1 y 1)0/i.c.Ki;axaroous waste sitePOTEH_________________ _______________ OISPOSITIOH________________ ^--------- ----------------- ------------------------------ -■tSITE lOEHTIEICATlON_v\or^ftQs4 Onpf». ^4. Lawrence,»/-IXV*•AISPOSITIladicatw tt>€ fwcoX* in tfa« «Porop«i«t« bon«*.d •ctiooC*) «na acwacTTiw) Q>«V ahould b< invoUwd by aaritiacPCCOMMCHOATiaMaction Nceoeo - underEventlallfierCERGLA/SARAa. iNwesTtOATive actiohih Mceoeo at r*^ «—w«OV«OgO IM PA"r r^nn ^t«*t «•'og TMg INgORMAnon■ iHVgSTIGATIVg VIOAK.TOTAt.MAmiboRS^gON•HvcjTiGA-nygNATEO MANHOUR* NT action ACgNCYAU eSTlMAl CONAHHOURS gORINVgSTtGATiyCI.ACnON AGENCYI.ACTK3N agencyd. oTwcnCAA COMTAACTOngPueOIAL ACTIONS-----------------------------TERM/gMERGENCY *TRATE^f^u.. A*.t•tri«t ACeAAA, pro»t4«.i(« w.»r---!A.T. EST.TtartEST.enoGATEDATE(ma,aar,*>rf) (ato,dMr,*nr'l1. actionACTION agency(EPA. 1»AC«.■s. estimateo costJ11 OR OTHER action:the MACNtTUOE Oggnrc«mov«U1 OHG TERM STRATEGY (On Sit* A Ot$*« tnotruetlon* lor • ll*« o< K«Tlor ooch ot th« «ctione tob« u««tl in ih< «P**= **EST.SPECIFY 111 on otheraction agency(■ERA. S(*f«P»t -
ACAT FOIA Repository 58
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 58, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 1
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Assessment Form for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Assessment Form for Northeast Cape that simply says, "For more information regarding this site, see Federal Facilities Docket Files."Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 58, Date Received November 2023
Year: 1992
Page(s): 1
Document Title: EPA Potential Hazardous Waste Site Assessment Form for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Assessment Form for Northeast Cape that simply says, "For more information regarding this site, see Federal Facilities Docket Files."LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-58SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 58," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
t. IOENTIFICATIOU1 $TATE 02STTENiJu߀RPOTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTEStTESITE I0ENTIFICATION11. S(TE NAME A)LOCATIONOi STTE t1Au€ 1.ç.o02 STREET. AOUTE NO..O4T. SP€CIFIC LOCArre4 STATE os zie coo€jrfjCapeÑcrh€c09 0iP.€CTIONS TO STTE tS..ç l,o.rVÅac. LCrcrc03 crrý)ENTIFIERO r'rlEc•JG06 COUNTÝAo 'o..OI111. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES01 O4€Rçouo..og02 STREETta.,.,..c cn•y04 STAT1 05 ZtP COTELEPHON€ NUMBER¡(07 OPERATOR (to.oo .o!. 'o.st loo., o-o.q38 STP.€CT .j,.0.09 CTTYo STATE1 ZlP COOEi 3 TYP€ 06 OWNERSi.ILP (Ci.. oo.j—o A PRIVATED 8 FEOERAL:DF.OTHER:).S.4., çLli2 TELEPHON€ NUM8ERo C. STATE___________D O. COUNTYD E. uuuicieo G. (RNO''Qlv. HOW tOENTIFIEDoi UAT L 7€NTO02 OENT1FlE0 BY ec.c..tt.iyjo A. CITIZEN COMPLA(NTo E. RCRAUONTH OAYSPECTlOrlH. OTHER _VEPí AcD B. ItlOUSTRyD C. STATEL0CALG0VgNMED F. SURFAC€ I*.4POUNDMENT ASSESS*.(TD o. AERIAL RECONNAzSED G. OTHER EPA I0ENT1FlCATlONV. S(TE CHARACTERLZATIONo1 TYP€ 04 SITE (CA.o.* . .S. OØ.jO A. STORAGED 8. TREAT*O4ENT02 SUMUARY 04 KNOWN PROOŒU$ (p,00.0.FormoreD C. DISPOSALregardingPROOLEUS (P'oo.o.Vl. INFORMATION AVAILABLEFROM01 CONTACTthissiteseeFederal02 O( (o.*.o.jDocketFiles03 TELEPfJNE NUMPCaE05 AG.ENCY:,EPAFORU2OZO.ii (7.611Facilities0.O,.oÖO..J1der04 PREPAP.EQ BYO E. OTKER ______________________flo00•informatjon03 SUMUARY O# AUIGEO OR POTENT1AI.O 0. UNAUTHOÇTLZED DUUPING06 ORGai.ZAt;\()07 TFLFPHOFI NUUBER 08 OAJ(•,)¡ - i_r;±UQNTp* OAY Y(ARUSEPAIÎF ill llSFOl1624642lllll -
ACAT FOIA Repository 59
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 59, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2000
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Field Notes by EPA R10
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Very brief field notes by Mark Ader noting that there is likely contamination by former military activities.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 59, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2000
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Field Notes by EPA R10
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Very brief field notes by Mark Ader noting that there is likely contamination by former military activities.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-59SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 59," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
1,3■.cemynoN4■'POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITESITE IDENTIFICATION f DISCOVERY^01 ST02 SITE NUMBER ’11. SITE NAME AND LOCATION01 SITE NZiME (Legal.Cr-f02 SIHfcET. ROUTE NUMBER, OR SPEQEIC LOCATION IDENTIFIERmt.ion. or descriptive name of site)/J05 ZIP CODE04 ST03 QTY06 COUNTY07 CO CODEMoivie (Z-, At ■08 CONG GISTi8a09 DtRECnONS TO STTE (Starting from nearest public road: enter up to 4 lines o< text)11. responsible parties.■Yi::-::’;-.,■■■-■02 STREET (Business, residential, mailing)01 OWNER (If known)o t>05 21PCOOE06 TELEPHONE NUMBER03 CHY04 ST07 OPERATOR (H known and differenl (rgm owner)08 STREET (Business, fesidential. mailing)09 CITY10 ST11 ZIP CODE12 TELEPHONE NUMBER13TffiSljF OWNERSHIP (Mark one: use "insert" mode)131YJ613Pl/^PRiVPRIVATEE. MUNICIPALD. COUNTYC. STATEG. UNKNOWNB. FEDERAL (Agency name):F. OTHER (Specify):n/'ICjIV HOW IDENTIFIED01 DATE IDENTIFIEDQ t^loc>[Mor\v\/QayneaT}02 IDENTIFIED SY.(Mark all that apply; use ‘•insert" mode) . .iZ^TciTIZEN COMPLAINTD. AERIAL RECONNAISSANCEG. OTHER EPA IDENTIFICATIONB. INDUSTRYE. RCRA INSPECTION_ H. OTHER (Specify):C. STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTF. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT ASSESSMENTV. SITE CHARACTERIZATION01 TYPE OF SITE (Mark all that apply: use "insert" mode)A. STORAGEB. TREATMENTC. DISPOSALD. UNAUTHORIZED DUMPING02 SUMMARY OF KNOWN PROBLEMS (Provide narrative description: enter up to 6 lines o( text)y’/-»"TE. OTHER (Specify):-e- /"e.'-103 SUMMARY OF ALLEGED OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS (Provide narraiive description: enter uo lo 5 lines ol lex!)USEPA SFI I I II I III1114517VI; INEOPMATION AVAILABLE FROM:01 CONTACT02 OF (AqencY/Orqanization)04 PREPARED 9Y05 AGENCY06 ORGANIZATION07 telephoneNUMBEREPA FORM 2070-n (07/81): Revised by EPA/Rgn 3/SAS/KJW (09/94)■ :Y:< (i:03 TELEPHONE NUMBER(08 DATE (Month/Day/Year)r4Page«1__of _3_WASTELAN/CERCLISDATA ENTRY FORMDate:5*09/08/00EPA ID#Lat/LongDate Entered in WasteLAN:Name & AddressCnty Code/Cnty/Cong Dist/SAM/OSCFedFacActionLeadPlannedStartCompIActualStartCompIALASKAAKN001002244 FORMER USAF NE CAPE ST.LAWRENCE NFACILITYT25S R54W, 70 Ml E OF SAVOONGA63° 17' 00" NST. LAWRENCE ISLAND168° 58' 00" W SAVOONGA, AK 99769180 NOME C.A.DSEPA(SAM: MARKADER)109/06/00ActionQualifier -
ACAT FOIA Repository 60
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 60, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Senator Stevens
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Senator Ted Stevens regarding being in touch with the lawyer representing the Village of Savoonga and explaining the status of the EPA assessment of the Northeast Cape cleanup plans and progress.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 60, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Senator Stevens
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Senator Ted Stevens regarding being in touch with the lawyer representing the Village of Savoonga and explaining the status of the EPA assessment of the Northeast Cape cleanup plans and progress.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-60SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 60," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
;.MUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle. WA 98101JAN 2 5 2001Reply ToAttn Of:ECL - 115Honorable Ted StevensUnited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Senator Stevens:V- X,response to your letter of January 10, 2001, onbehalf of your constituent, Jerald M. Reichlin, legal counsel forthe Savoonga Native Corporation and Sivuqaq Inc., concerning aFormerly Utilized Defense Site (FUDS). at Northeast Cape on St.Lawrence Island, Alaska.Mr. Reichlin provided your office with acopy of the Preliminary Assessment (PA) Petition submitted to theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dated July 26, 2000.The Petition requests that EPA conduct an assessment of the FUDSsites at Northeast Cape.The Region responded to all signatories on the Petition onSeptember 5, 2000 (copy attached), explaining that EPA would addtne site to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensationand Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, and conduct astated that all work would be coordinatedwith the local and Tribal governments. Mark Ader, of my staffcontacted Mr. Reichlin on January 9, 2001, and explained the Regionwas proceeding with assessment work at the island, but that we werebetween contracts and the start of the work was delayed.TheRegion will assign the site to the new contractor the week ofJanuary 21 2001. Mr. Reichlin was satisfied by the response.2 0 00attached).Provided a copy of the Region's September 5,on January 9, 2001 (FAX cover sheet206addresses your concerns. Please call me atfurther questions, or have your staffcontact Mark Ader at 206-553-1808.Sincerely,/Charles E. FindleyActing Regional AdministratorEnclosure (s)U8EPA SF1130082dPaper -
ACAT FOIA Repository 61
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 61, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Senator Stevens
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL).Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 61, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Senator Stevens
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-61SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 61," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
^ A \14.rUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101SEP 1 3 2UUiReply ToAttn Of: ECL-115Fritz Waghiyi, PresidentNative Village of SavoongaP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769RE:Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation for the NE Cape Air Force Facility,St. Lawrence IslandDear President Wagliiyi:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to thank you for the opportunityfor a govermnent-to-govemment consultation in Anchorage on August 8, 2001. This face-to-facemeeting provided a good opportunity for EPA to gain a better understanding of your concernsover the NE Cape site, as well as the other Fonnally Used Defense (FUD) sites at Savoonga. Thepurpose of this letter is to reiterate our understanding of the many concerns you raised and tooutline the next steps that EPA will be taking concerning the NE Cape site.Both Tribes raised many concerns about the current work being conducted by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). These concerns include:•The site clean up at the NE Cape site needs to occur much more quickly. Whilethere are many studies being done on the NE Cape site, little is being done toactually clean up the site.•Tlie cancer rates among the native people on the St. Lawrence are quite high.Tliere is concern that these cancer rates are associated with the NE Cape site.•There is concern that the food supply is contaminated. Of particular concern isthat the fish collected from the Suqi River were contaminated with PCBs, and thatthey might migrate to other areas and be consumed by mai'ine mammals where thePCBs would bio accumulate. Marine mammals make up a large part of the nativepeople’s diet. Also, reindeer graze near NE Cape.•Tlie two Tribal governments do not have adequate mput to the ACOE’s planningfor the NE Cape site. Sample plans are almost in their final version when they aremade available for comments.U8EPA SF173306The technical reports produced by the ACOE are difficult for the affected Tribesto understand. Without that understanding, they cannot participate fuUy indiscussions with the ACOE.The Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings are quite long and atinconvenient times. As expressed during the RAB meetings, the Tribes do notfeel that the ACOE is adequately addressing their concerns. Through the RABprocess, the ACOE communicates what is being done currently, or in the verynear future, both of wliich already have established budgets with little flexibility.The Tribes would like to partner with the agencies earlier in the planning andbudgeting phases in a cooperative manner.Nothing is being done about debris that is underground unless there is a release ofhazardous substances, wliich is difficult to prove.There is a FUD site at GambeU which includes a great amount of buried debris.Some of this debris has surfaced due to erosion and is posing a safety problemThere is also concern that new homes are being built on top of the debris and it isnot known if this debris contains hazardous substances.The Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority buUt several houses on top of theFUD site at GambeU, and is continuing to buUd more houses in the same area.During soU excavation for placement of water and sewer lines, a large amount ofdebris was uncovered, and the VUlage of GambeU was left with the responsibUityof disposal. There is concern that this debris may contain hazardous substances.The Tribal governments would like to see the area investigated before anyadditional houses are buUt. Any debris that is uncovered should be removed bythe ACOE, at ACOE expense.The ACOE has been unable to locate unexploded ordinance deposited by themUitary in Troutman Lake, at GambeU. The Tribes beUeve a more thoroughinvestigation of Troutman Lake is necessary.Tlie Tribal governments want the ACOE to provide an inventory of mUitarymaterials that were buried at the NE Cape and GambeU sites.The Tribal governments want to understand the big picture regarding cleanupauthorities. They specificaUy would Uke to know the difference in cleanupauthorities and responsibUities amount the various agencies involved - the AlaskaDepartment of Enviromnental Conservation (ADEC), the ACOE and EPA - andhow the agencies interact. Tlie Tribal govennnents also want to know about thetribal poUcies of each individual agency. .•The Tribal governments would hke the federal agencies to consult with the fuUBoard of the Tribal Councils rather than just the Tribal President.In response to these concerns, EPA has agreed to review the ACOE’s work to date todetermine whether EPA generally agrees with ACOE’s approach. Because of the limits of ourauthority, our review and evaluation wiU focus on the adequacy and time line of ACOE’shazardous waste cleanup activities, not debris removal, health evaluations or petroleumcontamination. As part of our review, EPA wiU review ACOE’s existing reports and plans forthe NE Cape site, and wiU discuss the ongoing cleanup activities with the ACOE, focusing on theschedule for site cleanup. As a preUminary step, EPA contacted the ACOE and conveyed someconcerns raised at the meeting and EPA’s plan to review the investigation and cleanup activitiesat the NE Cape site to date. EPA also informed the ACOE of the Tribal governments’ desire tohave the NE Cape site placed on the National Priority List (NPL). Tlie ACOE was receptive toEPA’s plan for a review of the NE Cape project and was interested in hearing EPA’s evaluationEPA wiU also coordinate with ADEC, the current agency overseeing the ACOE, to gain theirperspective on the ACOE’s activities at the NE Cape site. We estimate that this review wUl takeabout three montlis. Once this review is complete, EPA wUl provide a written evaluation to theViUages of GambeU and Savoonga, and discuss our findings with the Tribal governments.With regard to your inquiry about fisting the NE Cape site on the NPL, EPA has taken thefirst step to detennine whether the site is eligible for the NPL. To do tliis, EPA has reevaluatedthe NE Cape site using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). While the numerical score didindicate that this site could qualify for the NPL, EPA wifi need to consider additional factors todetermine whether placement on the NPL is the best approach for cleaning up the site. For theNE Cape site, it wifi be necessary to determine if EPA involvement wfil improve the currentactivities at the site and promote a quicker cleanup. As was mentioned during the meeting, evenif EPA were to list the site on the NPL, EPA could not provide additional funding for siteinvestigation and cleanup. Tlie ACOE must continue to provide the funding for cleanup. Tiremain effect of NPL fisting is that EPA, with ADEC, would oversee the ACOE’s cleanup work atNE Cape.Like EPA, the ACOE also has a federal trust responsibility to consult with Tribalgovernments. EPA understands that the Tribes have had the opportunity to interact with theACOE through the RAB meetings. During our meeting with you, we agreed that the RABmeetings are not a substitute for Tribal consultation. EPA views consultation as respectful,meaningful, and effective two-way conununication that works toward a consensus reflecting theconcerns of the affected federally recognized tribe(s) before a decision is made. We encourageyou to pursue formal govennnent-to-govemment consultations with the ACOE.Again, we appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. Should you have any additionalquestions or concerns regarding consultation or the site please do not hesitate to call me at (206)553-1234, or Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Office of Environmental Cleanup, at(206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assigned to the site, can be reached at (206)553-2594. Richard Porter, the Tribal Coordinator assigned to coordinate future consultations,can be reached at (907) 271-1270.Sincerely,Ron KreizenbeckActing Deputy Regional Administratorcc:Scott Sufficool, EPA Tribal OfficeMarcia Combes, EPA Alaska Operations OlficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Jackson, U.S. ACOE, Alaska DistrictJerald M. Reichlin, Fortier & Mikko -
ACAT FOIA Repository 62
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 62, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 3
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook (President of Gambell) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL).Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 62, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 3
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook (President of Gambell) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-62SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 62," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
1,1.1UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle. WA 98101SEP I 3 2001Reply ToAttnOf: ECL-115Gerald Soonagrook Sr., PresidentNative Village of GambellP.O. Box 90Gambell, Alaska 99742RE:Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation for the NE Cape Air Force Facility,St. Lawrence IslandDear President Soonagrook:Tlae Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) would like to thank you for the opportunityfor a govemment-to-govemment consultation in Anchorage on August 8, 2001. This face-to-facemeeting provided a good opportunity for EPA to gain a better understanding of your concernsover the NE Cape site, as well as the other Formally Used Defense (FUD) site at Gambell. Thepurpose of this letter is to reiterate our understanding of the many concerns you raised and tooutline next steps that EPA will be taking concerning the NE Cape site.Both Tribes raised many concerns about the ciurent work being conducted by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). These concerns include:•The site clean up at the NE Cape site needs to occur much more quickly. Whilethere are many studies being done on the NE Cape site, little is being done toactually clean up the site.•The cancer rates among the native people on St. Lawrence are quite high Thereis concern that these cancer rates are associated with the NE Cape site.•There is concern that the food supply is contaminated. Of particular concern isthat the fish collected from the Suqi River were contaminated with PCBs, and thatthey might migrate to other areas and be consumed by marine mammals where thePCBs would bio accumulate. Marine mammals make up a large part of the nativepeople’s diet. Also, reindeer graze near NE Cape.•The two Tribal governments do not have adequate input to the ACOE’s planningfor the NE Cape site. Sample plans are abnost in their final version when they aremade available for comments.USEPA SFThe technical reports produced by the ACOE are difficult for the affected Tribesto understand. Without that understanding, they cannot participate fuUy indiscussions with the ACOE.The Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings are quite long and atinconvenient times. Although the Tribes comment during the RAB meetings,they do not feel that the ACOE is adequately addressing their concerns. Throughthe RAB process, the ACOE communicates what is being done currently, or inthe very near future, both of which have already have established budgets withlittle flexibility. The Tribes would like to partner with the Agencies earlier in theplanning and budgeting phases in a cooperative manner.Nothing is being done about debris that is imderground unless there is a release ofhazardous substances, which is difficult to prove.There is a FUD site at Gambell which includes a lot of buried debris. Some ofthis debris has surfaced due to erosion and is posing a safety problem There isalso concern that new homes are being built on top of the debris and it is notknown if this debris contains hazardous substances.The Bering Straits Regional Housing Authority built several houses on top of theFUD site at Gambell, and is continuing to buUd more houses in the same area.During soil excavation for placement of water and sewer lines, a large amount ofdebris was imcovered, and the Village of Gambell was left with the responsibilityof disposal. There is concern that this debris may contain hazardous substances.The Tribal governments would Uke to see the area investigated before anyadditional houses are buUt. Any debris that is uncovered should be removed bythe ACOE, at ACOE expense.The ACOE has been unable to locate unexploded ordinance deposited by themilitary in Troutman Lake, at GambeU. The Tribes believe a more thoroughinvestigation of Troutman Lake is necessary.The Tribal governments want the ACOE to provide an inventory of militarymaterials that were buried at the NE Cape and Gambell sites.The Tribal governments want to understand the big picture regarding cleanupauthorities. Tliey specifically would Uke to know the difference in cleanupauthorities and responsibiUties amount the various agencies involved - the AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the ACOE and EPA - andhow the agencies interact. The Tribal governments also want to know about thetribal policies of each individual agency.•The Tribal governments would like the federal agencies to consult with the fullBoard of the Tribal Councils rather than just the Tribal President.In response to these concerns, EPA has agreed to review the ACOE’s work to date todetermine whether EPA generally agrees with ACOE’s approach Because of the limits of ourauthority, our review and evaluation will focus on the adequacy and time line of ACOE’shazardous waste cleanup activities, not debris removal, health evaluations or petroleumcontamination. As part of our review, EPA will review ACOE’s existing reports and plans forthe NE Cape site, and wiU discuss the ongoing cleanup activities with the ACOE, focusing on theschedule for site cleanup. As a preliminary step, EPA contacted the ACOE and conveyed someof concerns raised at the meeting and EPA’s plan to review the investigation and cleanupactivities at the NE Cape site to date. EPA also informed the ACOE of the Tribal governments’desire to have the NE Cape site placed on the NPL. The ACOE was receptive to EPA’s plan fora review the NE Cape project and was interested in hearing EPA’s evaluation. EPA will alsocoordinate with ADEC, the current agency overseeing the ACOE, to gain their perspective onthe ACOE’s activities at the NE Cape site. We estimate that this review wiU'take about threemontlis. Once this review is complete, EPA will provide a written evaluation to the Villages ofGambell and Savoonga, and discuss our findings with the Tribal governments.With regard to your inquiry about listing the NE Cape site on the National Priorities List(NPL), EPA has taken the first step to determine whether the site is eligible for the NPL. To dothis, EPA has reevaluated the NE Cape site using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). While thenumerical score did indicate that this site could qualify for the NPL, EPA will need to consideradditional factors to determine whether placement on the NPL is the best approach for cleaningup the site. For the NE Cape site, it wiU be necessary to determine if EPA involvement willimprove the current activities at the site and promote a quicker cleanup. As was mentionedduring the meeting, even if EPA were to hst the site on the NPL, EPA could not provideadditional funding for site investigation and cleanup. The ACOE must continue to provide thefunding for cleanup. The main effect of NPL listing is that EPA, with ADEC, would oversee theACOE’s cleanup work at NE Cape.Like EPA, the ACOE also has a federal trust responsibility to consult with Tribalgovernments. EPA understands that the Tribes have had the opportunity to interact with theACOE through the RAB meetings. During oiu meeting with you, we agreed that the RABmeetings are not a substitute for Tribal consultation. EPA views consultation as respectful,meaningful, and effective two-way communication that works toward a consensus reflecting theconcerns of the affected federally recognized tribe(s) before a decision is made. We encourageyou to pursue formal govemment-to-govemment consultations with the ACOE.Again, we appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. Should you have any additionalquestions or concerns regarding consultation or the site please do not hesitate to call me at (206)553-1234, or Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Office of Environmental Cleanup, at(206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assigned to the site, can be reached at (206)553-2594. Richard Porter, the Tribal Coordinator assigned to coordinate future consultations, canbe reached at (907) 271-1270.Sincerely,i.on KreiZenbeckActing Deputy Regional Administratorcc:Scott Sufficool, EPA Tribal OfficeMarcia Combes, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Jackson, U.S. ACOE, Alaska DistrictJerald M. Reichlin, Fortier & Mikko -
ACAT FOIA Repository 63
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 63, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 3
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook (President of Gambell) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). Identical to ACAT FOIA Repository 62.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 63, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 3
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook (President of Gambell) with a summary of an earlier meeting. EPA listed the RAB's concerns and noted that EPA was in the process of determining whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). Identical to ACAT FOIA Repository 62.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-63SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 63," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
/JJMtpr Primed on Recycled PaperUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101Reply ToAttn Of: ECL-115Gerald Soonagrook Sr., PresidentNative Village of GambellP.O. Box 90Gambell, Alaska 99742RE:Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation for the NE Cape Air Force Facility,St. Lawrence IslandDear President Soonagrook:We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you in Anchorage on August 8, 2001. Thismeeting provided a good opportunity for EPA to gain a better understanding of your concernsover the NE Cape site as well as the other Formally Used Defense (FUD) site at Gambell. Wefound this meeting to play a valuable role in our govemment-to-govemment consultationconcerning the NE Cape site. The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge many of the concernsyou raised and to outline the next steps EPA will take concerning the NE Cape site.The Villages raised many concerns about the current work being conducted by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). These concerns include:•The site clean up at the NE Cape site needs to occur much more quickly. Whilethere are many studies being done on the NE Cape site, little is being done toactually clean up the site.•The cancer rates among the native people on St. Lawrence are quite high. Thereis concern that these cancer rates are associated with the NE Cape site.•There is concern that the food supply is contaminated. Of particular concern isthat the fish collected from the Suqi River were contaminated with PCBs, and thatthey might migrate to other areas and be consumed by marine mammals where thePCBs would bioaccumulate. Marine mammals make up a large part of the nativepeople’s diet.•The Native Villages do not have adequate input to the ACOE’s planning for theNE Cape site. Sample plans are almost in their final version when they are madeavailable for comments.•The technical reports produced by the ACOE are difficult for the Villagersunderstand. Without that understanding, the Villagers cannot participate fully in discussions wUSEPA 8F1687171•The Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings are quite long and atinconvenient times. It is also questionable if the ACOE is really trying to addressconcerns.•Nothing is being done about debris that is underground unless there is a release ofhazardous substances, which is difficult to prove.•There is a FUD site at Gambell which includes a lot of buried debris. Some ofthis debris is now at the surface and is posing a safety problem. There is alsoconcern that new homes are being built on top of the debris and it is not known ifthis debris contains hazardous substances.•The ACOE has been unable to locate unexploded ordinance deposited by themilitary in Troutman Lake, at Gambell.In response to these concerns, ERA has agreed to review and evaluate existing reportsand plans on the NE Cape site that were prepared by the ACOE. Because of the limits of ourauthority, our review and evaluation will focus the ACOE’s hazardous waste cleanup activities,not debris removal, health evaluations or petroleum contamination. Once this review iscomplete, EPA will provide a written evaluation to the Villages of Gambell and Savoonga. It isestimated that this will take two to three months. EPA will discuss the ongoing cleanupactivities with the ACOE to determine the schedule for site clean up. EPA will also inquire withthe Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), the current agency overseeingthe ACOE, to learn their perspective on the ACOE’s activities at the NE Cape site.EPA has reevaluated the NE Cape site using the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Whilethe numerical score did indicate that this site could qualify for the NPL, EPA will need toconsider additional factors to determine whether placement on the NPL is the best approach forcleaning up the site. For the NE Cape site, it will be necessary to determine if EPA involvementwill improve the current activities at the site and promote a quicker cleanup. As was mentionedduring the meeting, even if EPA were to list the site on the NPL, EPA could not provideadditional funding for site investigation and cleanup. The ACOE must continue to provide thefunding for cleanup. The effect of NPL listing is that EPA, with ADEC, would oversee theACOE’s cleanup work at NE Cape.As a federal agency, like EPA, the ACOE also has a unique legal relationship withTribal governments. While EPA is encouraged that the Villages of Gambell and Savoonga havehad the opportunity to interact with the ACOE through the RAB meetings, we encourage theVillages to pursue formal Government to Government Consultations with the ACOE.Again, we appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. Should you have any additionalquestions or concerns regarding consultation or the site please do not hesitate to call me at (206)553-1234, or Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Office of Environmental Cleanup, at(206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assigned to the site, can be reached at (206)553-2594.Sincerely,-▼Ron KreizenbeckDeputy Regional Administratorcc:Scott Sufficool, EPAMarcia Combes, EPA, Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeJerald M. Reichlin, Fortier & Mikko -
ACAT FOIA Repository 64
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 64, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) to ask for formal government-to-government meetings in advance of deciding whether or not to list the Northeast Cap on the NPL.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 64, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) to ask for formal government-to-government meetings in advance of deciding whether or not to list the Northeast Cap on the NPL.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-64SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 64," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
t.fj*UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, Washington 98101JUN I 4 2001Reply toAttn Of; ECL-115Fritz Waghiyi, PresidentNative Village of SavoongaP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769RE:Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation for the NE Cape Air Force Facility,St. Lawrence IslandDear President Waghiyi:I am writing to you in an effort to ensure that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)conducts formal, govemment-to-govemment consultation with the Native Village of Savoongaregarding the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation at the former military sites located at NECape on St. Lawrence Island. The Tribe has requested EPA’s involvement to determine if thesite is eligible for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL).EPA recognizes its unique legal relationship with Tribal governments as set forth in theUnited States Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and court decisions. Federalpolicies instruct EPA to have regular and meaningful consultation with Indian Tribalgovernments when developing policies and regulatory decisions on matters effecting theircommunities and resources. We are writing you now to ensure that a formal govemment-togovemment consultation process has been estabhshed with you prior to the important decisionwe plan to make. The decision EPA wiU make concerns whether the site should be placed on theNPL. EPA envisions govemment-to-govemment consultation as a process of two-waycommunication that works toward a consensus reflecting tribal concerns. We are interested intailoring the consultation process to the needs and preferences of your Tribe. We want to workwith you now to ensure that when we need to make these decisions, EPA has consulted with youregarding themSpecifically, we want to consult with you regarding your views on completing the siteassessment activities at the site, and ultimately consulting on whether the site should be placedon the NPL, if the site qualifies for Usting. EPA has had our contractor. Ecology andEnvironment, Inc., review all existing information generated by the Corps of Engineers andothers, and calculate a preliminary Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score for the site. Aprehminary score has now been determined. Based on this preliminary score, EPA inconsultation with the tribe, will decide the next steps for the site. This portion of the process ^’ap*rshould be completed in the next two to three months. EPA wants to fully consider the rights andconcerns of the Native Village of Savoonga before making this decision. We recognize thatthere are many sub-issues to this topic, and we are open to consulting with you on any of thosethat you would like to discuss, as well as any other issues related to the site.I have designated Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Environmental CleanupOffice to consult with you about this site. I believe Michelle is the most appropriate official tomeet with the Tribal council because she has a strong understanding of the Superfund process,and has been following developments at the site.Ron Kreizenbeck, the Deputy Regional Administrator or I would also be available tomeet with the Tribal council if a mutually agreeable meeting date is found. Please call DanaBraden, at (206) 553-1234 to discuss opportunities on our calendars.Based on conversations with your staff, we have proposed a way to formally consult withyour Tribe on a govemment-to-govemment basis about the NE Cape site. If this approach needsfurther refinement to better address your needs, please let us know what changes we can make.In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns regarding consultation or the site, pleasedo not hesitate to call me at (206) 553-1234, or Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of theOffice of Environmental Cleanup, at (206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assignedto the site, can be reached at (206) 553-2594.Sincerely,^^harles ElFindley/^^^^Acting Regional Administratorcc:Scott Sufficool, EPA -
ACAT FOIA Repository 65
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 65, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook, Sr (President of Gambell) to ask for formal government-to-government meetings in advance of deciding whether or not to list the Northeast Cap on the NPL.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 65, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2001
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook, Sr (President of Gambell) to ask for formal government-to-government meetings in advance of deciding whether or not to list the Northeast Cap on the NPL.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-65SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 65," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
l.LlUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, Washington 98101JUN I 4 200!Reply toAttaOf: ECL-115Gerald Soonagrook Sr., PresidentNative Village of GambellP.O. Box 90Gambell, Alaska 99742RE:Govemment-to-Govemment Consultation for the NE Cape Air Force Facility,St. Lawrence IslandDear President Soonagrook:I am writing to you in an effort to ensme that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)conducts formal, govemment-to-govemment consultation with the Native Village of Gambellregarding the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation at the former military sites located at NECape on St. Lawrence Island. The Tribe has requested EPA’s involvement to determine, if thesite is eligible for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL).EPA recognizes its unique legal relationship with Tribal governments as set forth in theUnited States Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, and court decisions. Federalpolicies instruct EPA to have regular and meaningful consultation with Indian Tribalgovernments when developing pohcies and regulatory decisions on matters effecting theircommunities and resources. We are writing you now to ensure that a formal govemment-togovemment consultation process has been established with you prior to the important decisionwe plan to make. The decision EPA will make concerns whether the site should be placed on theNPL. EPA envisions govemment-to-govemment consultation as a process of two-waycommunication that works toward a consensus reflecting tribal concerns. We are interested intailoring the consultation process to the needs and preferences of your Tribe. We want to workwith you now to ensure that when we need to make these decisions, EPA has consulted with youregarding themSpecifically, we want to consult with you regarding your views on completing the siteassessment activities at the site, and ultimately consulting on whether the site should be placedon the NPL, if the site qualifies for hsting. EPA has had our contractor. Ecology andEnvironment, Inc., review all existing information,generated by the Corps of Engineers andothers, and calculate a preliminary Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score for the site. Apreliminary score has now been determined. Based on this preliminary score, EPA inconsultation with the tribe, will decide the next steps for the site. Tliis portion of the processUSEPAI‘70^3'('113334'apushould be completed in the next two to three months. EPA wants to fully consider the rights andconcerns of the Native Village of Gambell before making this decision. We recognize that thereare many sub-issues to this topic, and we are open to consulting with you on any of those thatyou would like to discuss, as well as any other issues related to the site.I have designated Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Environmental CleanupOffice to consult with you about this site. I believe Michelle is the most appropriate official tomeet with the Tnbal council because she has a strong understanding of the Superfund processand has been following developments at the site.’Ron Kreizenbeck, the Deputy Regional Administrator or I would also be available tomeet with the Tnbal council if a mutually agreeable meeting date is found. Please call DanaBraden, at (206) 553-1234 to discuss opportunities on our calendars.Based on conversations with your staff, we have proposed a way to formally consult withyour Tnbe on a govemment-to-govemment basis about the NE Cape site. If this approach needsfurther refinement to better address your needs, please let us know what changes we can make.In the meantime, if you have any questions or concerns regarding consultation or the site, pleasedo not hesitate to call me at (206) 553-1234, or Michelle Pirzadeh, Associate Director of theOffice of Environmental Cleanup, at (206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assignedto the site, can be reached at (206) 553-2594.Sincerely,^^Charles E. FindleyRegional Administratorcc:Scott Sufficool, EPA -
ACAT FOIA Repository 66
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 66, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) with a brief update regarding EPA's assessment of whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the NPL.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 66, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 2
Document Title: Correspondence from EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) with a brief update regarding EPA's assessment of whether or not to list the Northeast Cape on the NPL.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-66SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 66," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
i.ijUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101January 29, 2002Reply ToAttnOf:ECL-115Fritz Waghiyi, PresidentNative Village of SavoongaP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769Dear President Waghiyi:Thank you for your invitation to your Annual Membership Meeting to discuss theNortheast Cape site and potential hsting on the National Priorities List (NPL). I appreciate yourinvitation, however, I will be unable to attend the meeting. This letter is intended to provide anupdate of EPA’s activities concerning possible hsting of the NE Cape Site on the NPL.As you know, EPA is in the process of reviewing the existing reports and plans for theNE Cape site that were prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Once thisreview is complete, EPA will provide a written evaluation to the Villages of Savoonga andGambeU and discuss our findings with the Tribal governments. We expect that tliis review willbe completed sometime in February, 2002. The ACOE has been receptive to EPA’s plan for areview of the NE Cape project and was interested in hearing EPA’s evaluation If EPA doesfind any serious problem with the ACOE’s remedial work at the NE Cape site, we wih raise it tothe ACOE’s attention. EPA will also coordinate with Alaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation (ADEC), the current agency overseeing the ACOE, to gam their perspective oncurrent activities at the NE Cape site.EPA wih consider several factors in determining whether placement on the NPL is thebest approach for cleaning up the site. For the NE Cape site, it will be necessary to detennine ifEPA involvement wih improve the current activities at the site and promote a quicker cleanup. Itis important to recognize that, even if EPA were to hst the site on the NPL, EPA could notprovide additional funding for site investigation and cleanup. Tire ACOE must continue toprovide the fundmg for cleanup. Tlie main result of NPL hsting is that EPA, with ADEC, wouldoversee the ACOE’s cleanup work at NE Cape.Once EPA detennines whether the ACOE’s work at the site is consistent with EPArequirements, a decision whl be made as to whether or not to hst the site on the NPL. If theACOE’s work is found to be consistent with what EPA would do at the site, then we beheve thatit would not be necessary to oversee the project and therefore, it would not be necessary to placetills site on the NPL.USEPA 8F11687239perI hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions orconcerns regarding this site please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 553-2594.Sincerely,Joanne LaBawSite Assessment Managercc:Gerald Soonagrook, Sr., Native Village of GainbeUScott Sufficool, EPA Tribal OfficeMarcia Combes, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeJerald M. Reichlin, Fortier & Mikko -
ACAT FOIA Repository 67
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 67, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Data Entry Form Corrections for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Data entry form corrections to more clearly identify the location and nearest community of Savoonga.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 67, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 1
Document Title: Data Entry Form Corrections for Northeast Cape
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
Data entry form corrections to more clearly identify the location and nearest community of Savoonga.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-67SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 67," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
WASTELAN/CERCLISDATA ENTRY FORMDate:EPA ID#Lat/LongPage _5_ of _5_Date Entered ìn WasteLP05/20/02Name & AddressCntyCode/Cnty/Cong Dist/SAM/OSCFedFacActionLeadPlannedStartcompiActionQualifierActualStartComplPLEASE NOTE:The following city names (ln bold) for site listings in CERCLIS are the correct listings. Where the current city names ir CERCLIS are incorrect, please make theSee Comments for details.ALASKA:AK6170000164changes.COMMENTS:USNAVY NORTHEAST CAPE ST.LAWRENCE ISL70 Ml E OF SAVOONGA AT NE CAPESAVOONGA, AK 99769180 NOME C.A.Do not change the CITY NAME of SAVOONGA in the CERCLIS Location Screen.Change ADDRESS NAME to read as shown, to better identify the site location.Change COUNTY NAME from BERING STRAITS to NOME C.A. in CERCLIS Locatlon(USGS National Atlas, on-line)Until January 2002 the CITY NAME was NORTHEAST CAPE, 99763. in CERCLIS.Add to Comment Fleld in CERCLIS Location Screen:(CERCLIS printouts, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, January2002).ON 05/20/02 THE CITY NAME FOR THE SITE WAS CHANGEDFROM NE CAPE, AK 99763, TO SAVOONGA TO BETTER IDENTIFY Currently the CITY NAME is NE CAPE in the CERCLIS Discovery Screen and SAVOONGNEAREST CITY TO THE SITE LOCATION.Location Screen, which is acceptable.in the CERCLISSince 1998 the COUNTY NAME was changed from NOME C.A. to BERING STRAITS, wh h is in error.(CERCLIS printouts, 2000, 2001, January 2002) (USGS National Atlas, on-line).Currently the COUNTY NAME is in NOME (correct) in the CERCLIS Discovery Screen, and(incorrect) in CERCLIS Location Screen, The incorrect change may inadvertently have besite reassessment process, but needs to be correct as listed above.:RING STRAITSmade during theUSEPASFflI lIII lFlIll lllIII1624644 -
ACAT FOIA Repository 68
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 68, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence and Decision from EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) explaining the EPA decision to not list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). The decision reflects EPA's assessment that the clean-up process and final result would not be significantly different from what the Corps was doing to remediate the site.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 68, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence and Decision from EPA R10 to Waghiyi
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Fritz Waghiyi (President of Savoonga) explaining the EPA decision to not list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). The decision reflects EPA's assessment that the clean-up process and final result would not be significantly different from what the Corps was doing to remediate the site.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-68SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 68," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101I'"AUG ! 5 2002Reply ToAttn Of: ECL-115Fritz Waghiyi, PresidentNative Village of SavoongaP.O. Box 120Savoonga, Alaska 99769Dear President Waghiyi:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering the request of the NativeVillages of Savoonga and Gambell to determine if the N.E. Cape site is eligible for placement onthe National Priorities List (NPL). We appreciated the opportunity to meet with Jeanette lya andMorris Toolie on June 11, 2002, at the EPA office in Seattle. During this meeting, as well as atthe govemment-to-govemment consultation EPA held with representatives of the Villages ofSavoonga and Gambell last August, EPA learned more about the Tribe’s concerns over the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) work at the N.E. Cape site.In responding to the Tribes’ request to place this site on the NPL, EPA conducted anextensive review of the Corps’ work conducted at the N.E. Cape Site. This included review ofthe Corps’ existing reports and plans for the N.E. Cape site as well as interviews with the Corpsand Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The purpose of this review isto determine whether the Corps’ work at the site is consistent with EPA requirements. Becauseof the limits of our authority, our review and evaluation focused on the adequacy and time line ofthe Corps’ hazardous waste cleanup activities, not debris removal, health evaluations, orpetroleum contamination.EPA’s review is now complete and a copy of this evaluation is enclosed. EPA hasconcluded the following:•The Corps is proceeding with work at N.E. Cape in a manner that is consistent withEPA expectations for hazardous waste sites. Tltis mcludes development and executionof teclmicaUy sound work plans; following sampling and analysis protocols to gather Ihghquality data; analysis of site conditions and data to identify data gaps; publislting draftdocuments for review, soliciting comments, holding comment resolution meetings,providing written responses to comments, and publishing revised documents that reflectchanges based on comments.USEPA 8F•The Corps is expending considerable resources and effort on the N.E. Cape FormallyUsed Defense Site (FUDS) project. Funding in FY 2001 reportedly was one third of theentire Alaska District FUDS budget. Over the past few years the N.E. Cape site has beena high priority project for the Corps, as weU as for the State of Alaska. In the currentDepartment of Defense State Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) between the Corpsand ADEC, the N.E. Cape site is projected to have $10M work performed over the nexttwo years. This includes additional site investigations, development of the final humanhealth and ecological risk assessments, development of a feasibility study for the N.E.Cape waste sites, cleanup of Polyclilorinated Biphenyls (PCB) source ai’eas; andadditional building demolition and debris removal. Tliese are aU indications thatenvironmental cleanup and building demolition/debris removal work at N.E. Cape arehigh priorities for the Corps and for ADEC.•Community input has been sought through the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) andother forums. The Corps has made efforts to respond to concerns raised by the RAB andcommunity members. The Corps has funded a Technical Assistance for PublicParticipation (TAPP) grant to the St. Lawrence Island RAB since March 12, 2001, toprovide for independent technical assistance to the RAB. While efforts are being made toimprove communication among the Corps, ADEC, community members, the RAB andother stakeholders, the Tribes believe that additional effort is still necessary. In addition,EPA recognizes that the RAB meetings are not a substitute for govemment-togovemment consultations.•The remote location of the N.F. Cape site and short field season that is typically threeto four months long presents significant logistical challenges for conducting site work.Tlae remote location of the N.E. Cape site requires substantial advance planning formobilization and demobilization of equipment and personnel. A combination of fieldscreening and fixed lab chemical analysis has been required to offset the distance fromthe site to labs and holding times for certain organic compounds. Even so, siteconditions can make it difficult to operate equipment and take samples due totemperatures, wind, rain, and soil moisture. These have resulted in delays in the executionand completion of planned work by the Corps.•The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has had a substantialregulatory role in overseeing The Corps’s work at this site. In addition, many of thefinal cleanup levels most likely wUl be based on State of Alaska requirements and willrequire enforcement by the State if they are not met. It appears, however, that the NativeVillages of Savoonga and GambeU have not been fuUy informed of the State’s activitiesand recommendations, and the rationale supporting these recommendations, concerningthis site.In determining whether this site should be included on the NPL, it is important toconsider a number of factors. Regardless of NPL listing, the Department of Defense (DoD)would remain responsible for cleaning up the site. Executive Order 12580 states that DoD isresponsible for cleaning up contamination at its facilities, wherever and whenever it is found.Within DoD, these cleanup responsibilities have been delegated to the Corps at sites that are nolonger owned or operated by the military services. If this site were to be proposed for the NPL,the oversight lead could change from the ADEC to EPA, or it could remain with ADEC. NPLlisting for federal facilities requires the responsible agency (e.g., the Corps) to enter anenforceable agreement with EPA to ensure the timely completion of remedial actions at thefacility. This transition would require some time and could potentially impact the rate of the siteinvestigation and cleanup. It typically takes at least six months to propose a site to the NPL andat least another six months to actually hst the site on the NPL. It is possible that this transitiontime may give rise to uncertainties on the part of the Corps and cleanup activities may be delayedas a result of these uncertainties. Finally, EPA can not provide funding for any site investigationor cleanup activities at a FUD site, regardless of whether this site is included on the NPL.Like EPA, the Corps has a federal trust responsibility to consult with Tribal governments.During our meetings, it was noted that the RAB meetings are not a substitute for Tribalconsultation. EPA views consultation as respectful, meaningful, and effective two-waycommunication that works toward a consensus reflecting the concerns of the affected federallyrecognized tribes before a decision is made. We encourage you to continue to pursue formalgovemment-to-govemment consultations with the Corps and we will encourage the Corp to dolikewise.In addition, EPA wiU encourage the State to directly communicate with the Tribes on thisproject. One of the attachments to EPA’s review of the Corps’ cleanup activities is a copy of theCorps and ADEC’s Department of Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA)cleanup plan. This agreement states that ADEC wiQ be the lead agency for oversight. This workplan includes a schedule for activities from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2004.Taking aU of these factors into account, EPA does not believe that placing the N.E. Capesite on the NPL wiU significantly improve conditions at the site. Therefore, EPA is not planningto propose this site for the NPL at this time. EPA is, however, willing to assist in working toimprove communications between the Tribes, the Corps, and ADEC. EPA wUl send a letter tothe Corps reiterating the Tribes’ concerns with the cleanup activities and encouraging the Corpsto initiate formal govemment-to-govemment consultations with the Native VUlages of Savoongaand GambeU. In addition, EPA wUl point out specific concerns the Tribe has expressedconcerning the Corps’ activities at the site. EPA wUl also encourage ADEC to communicatedirectly with the Tribe concerning their oversight activities and to better understand the tribalissues.We appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. Should you have any additionalquestions or concerns regarding consultation or the site please do not hesitate to caU me at (206)553-1234, or MicheUe Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Office of Environmental Cleanup, at(206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assigned to the site, can be reached at (206)553-2594.Sincerely,John laniRegional AdministratorEnclosurecc:Sandra Johnson, ERAMarcia Combes, EPA, Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeJerald M. Reichlin, Fortier & MikkoGerald Soonagrook Sr., Native Village of GambellCarey Cossaboom, U.S. ACOE, Alaska DistrictJeff Brownly, ADEC -
ACAT FOIA Repository 69
UPLOADED 29 December 2023Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 69, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence and Decision from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook Sr (President of Gambell) explaining the EPA decision to not list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). The decision reflects EPA's assessment that the clean-up process and final result would not be significantly different from what the Corps was doing to remediate the site.Document: ACAT FOIA Repository 69, Date Received November 2023
Year: 2002
Page(s): 4
Document Title: Correspondence and Decision from EPA R10 to Soonagrook
Agency/Organization: EPA Region 10
Document Summary:
EPA correspondence to Gerald Soonagrook Sr (President of Gambell) explaining the EPA decision to not list the Northeast Cape on the National Priorities List (NPL). The decision reflects EPA's assessment that the clean-up process and final result would not be significantly different from what the Corps was doing to remediate the site.LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/acat-foia-repository-69SOURCE
ACAT/EDGI FOIA, November 2023
CITATION
Chambers, Mark, Gretchen Gehrke, Pam Miller, Chris Sellers, Jessica Varner, and Vi Waghiyi, "ACAT FOIA Repository 69," ACAT/EDGI FOIA Repository, Alaska: Environmental Data & Governance Initiative and Community Against Toxics, 2023. https://apeoplesepa.org/panel/pages/home+acat-foia-repository
RELATED TAGS
pt>/e/.;UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION 101200 Sixth AvenueSeattle, WA 98101AUG I 5 2002Reply ToAttn Of: ECL-115Gerald Soonagrook, Sr., PresidentNative VUlage of GambellP.O. Box 90Gambell, Alaska 99742Dear President Soonagrook:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering the request of the NativeVillages of Gambell and Savoonga to determine if the N.E. Cape site is eligible for placement onthe National Priorities List (NPL). During the govemment-to-govemment consultation EPA heldwith representatives of the Villages of Gambell and Savoonga in August 2001, EPA learnedmore about the Tribe’s concerns over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) work at theN.E. Cape site.In responding to the Tribes’ request to place this site on the NPL, EPA conducted anextensive review of the Corps’ work conducted at the N.E. Cape site. Tliis included review ofthe Corps’ existing reports and plans for the N.E. Cape site as well as interviews with the Corpsand Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The purpose of this review isto determine whether the Corps’ work at the site is consistent with EPA requirements. Becauseof the limits of our authority, our review and evaluation focused on the adequacy and time line ofthe Corps’ hazardous waste cleanup activities, not debris removal, health evaluations, orpetroleum contamination.EPA’s review is now complete and a copy of this evaluation is enclosed. EPA hasconcluded the following:•The Corps is proceeding with work at N.E. Cape in a manner that is consistent withEPA expectations for hazardous waste sites. This includes development and executionof technically sound work plans; following sampling and analysis protocols to gather highquality data; analysis of site conditions and data to identify data gaps; publishing draftdocuments for review, soliciting comments, holding comment resolution meetings,providing written responses to comments, and publishing revised documents that reflectchanges based on comments.U8EPA_ 8F1173275'Paper•The Corps is expending considerable resources and effort on the N.E. Cape FormallyUsed Defense Site (FUDS) project. Funding in FY 2001 reportedly was one third of theentire Alaska District FUDS budget. Over the past few years the N.E. Cape site has beena high priority project for the Corps, as weU as for the State of Alaska. In the currentDepartment of Defense State Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) between the Corpsand ADEC, the N.E. Cape site is projected to have $10M work performed over the nexttwo years. This includes additional site investigations, development of the final humanhealth and ecological risk assessments, development of a feasibility study for the N.E.Cape waste sites, cleanup of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) source areas; andadditional building demohtion and debris removal. These are all indications thatenvironmental cleanup and buMiag demoHtion/debris removal work at N.E. Cape arehigh priorities for the Corps and for ADEC.•Community input has been sought through the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) andother forums. The Corps has made efforts to respond to concerns raised by the RAB andcommunity members. The Corps has funded a Technical Assistance for PublicParticipation (TAPP) grant to the St. Lawrence Island RAB since March 12, 2001, toprovide for iudependent technical assistance to the RAB. While efforts are beiug made toimprove communication among the Corps, ADEC, community members, the RAB, andother stakeholders, the Tribes beheve that additional effort is stiU necessary. In addition,EPA recognizes that the RAB meetings are not a substitute for govemment-togovemment consultations.•The remote location of the N.F. Cape site and short field season that is typically threeto four months long, presents significant logistical challenges for conducting site work.The remote location of the N.E. Cape site requires substantial advance planning formobilization and demobilization of equipment and personnel. A combination of fieldscreening and fixed lab chemical analysis has been required to offset the distance fromthe site to labs and holding times for certain organic compounds. Even so, siteconditions can make it difficult to operate equipment and take samples due totemperatures, wind, rain, and soil moisture. These have resulted in delays in the executionand completion of planned work by the Corps.•The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has had a substantialregulatory role in overseeing The Corps’s work at this site. In addition, many of thefinal cleanup levels most likely will be based on State of Alaska requirements and willrequire enforcement by the State if they are not met. It appears, however, that the NativeVillages of Savoonga and GambeU have not been fuUy informed of the State’s activitiesand recommendations, and the rationale supporting these recommendations, concerningthis site.In determining whether this site should be included on the NPL, it is important toconsider a number of factors. Regardless of NPL hsting, the Department of Defense (DoD)would remain responsible for cleaning up the site. Executive Order 12580 states that DoD isresponsible for cleaning up contamination at its facilities, wherever and whenever it is found.Within DoD, these cleanup responsibilities have been delegated to the Corps at sites that are nolonger owned or operated by the military services. If this site were to be proposed for the NPL,the oversight lead could change from the ADEC to EPA, or it could remain with ADEC. NPLlisting for federal facilities requires the responsible agency (e.g., the Corps) to enter anenforceable agreement with EPA to ensure the timely completion of remedial actions at thefacility. This transition would require some time and could potentially impact the rate of the siteinvestigation and cleanup. It typically takes at least six months to propose a site to the NPL andat least another six months to actually hst the site on the NPL. It is possible that this transitiontime may give rise to uncertainties on the part of the Corps and cleanup activities may be delayedas a result of these uncertainties. Finally, EPA can not provide funding for any site investigationor cleanup activities at a FUD site, regardless of whether this site is mcluded on the NPL.Like EPA, the Corps has a federal trust responsibility to consult with Tribal governments.During our meetings, it was noted that the RAB meetings are not a substitute for Tribalconsultation. EPA views consultation as respectful, meaningful, and effective two-waycommunication that works toward a consensus reflecting the concerns of the affected federallyrecognized tribes before a decision is made. We encourage you to continue to pursue formalgovemment-to-govemment consultations with the Corps and we will encourage the Corp to dolikewise.In addition, EPA will encourage the State to directly communicate with the Tribes on thisproject. One of the attachments to EPA’s review of the Corps’ cleanup activities is a copy of theCorps and ADEC’s Department of Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA)cleanup plan. This agreement states that ADEC wiU be the lead agency for oversight. This workplan includes a schedule for activities from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004.Taking aU of these factors into account, EPA does not believe that placing the N.E. Capesite on the NPL wiU significantly improve conditions at the site. Therefore, EPA is not planningto propose this site for the NPL at this time. EPA is, however, willing to assist in working toimprove communications between the Tribes, the Corps, and ADEC. EPA wiU send a letter tothe Corps reiteratkig the Tribes’ concerns with the cleanup activities and encouraging the Corpsto initiate formal govemment-to-govemment consultations with the Native VUlages of Savoongaand GambeU. In addition, EPA wUl point out specific concerns the Tribe has expressedconcerning the Corps’ activities at the site. EPA wUl also encourage ADEC to communicatedirectly with the Tribe concerning their oversight activities and to better understand the tribalissues.EPA appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. Should you have any additionalquestions or concerns regarding consultation or the site please do not hesitate to caU me at (206)553-1234, or MicheUe Pirzadeh, Associate Director of the Office of Environmental Cleanup, at(206) 553-1272. Joanne LaBaw, the staff person assigned to the site, can be reached at (206)553-2594.Sincerely,L. John laniRegional AdministratorEnclosurecc:Sandra Johnson, EPAMarcia Combes, EPA, Alaska Operations OfficeRichard Porter, EPA Alaska Operations OfficeJerald M. ReicWin, Fortier & MikkoGerald Soonagrook Sr., Native Village of GambeUCarey Cossaboom, U.S. ACOE, Alaska DistrictJeff Brownly, ADEC -
November 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 November 2021A People's EPA (APE)
November Newsfeed
-
-
November 30, 2021
EPA Funds Research Key to Environmental Justice Mapping Tool (E&E News, November 30, 2021).
PFAS Drinking Water Issues get $10 Billion in Funding (The National Law Review, November 30, 2021).
November 29, 2021
EPA Announces Legally Mandated Changes to TSCA Fees (JD Supra, November 29, 2021).
Environmental Justice, Climate Change Enforcement is Ramping Up (Bloomberg Law, November 29, 2021).
November 28, 2021
‘Cancer has decimated our community.’ EPA’s Regan vows to help hard-hit areas, but residents have doubts. (The Washington Post, November 28, 2021).
Montana’s Change in Water Quality Standards Draw EPA Scrutiny (Independent Record, November 28, 2021).
November 27, 2021
Elizabeth Mine Cleanup Cost $103M, More than 4 times Initial Estimate (Valley News, November 27, 2021).
November 26, 2021
Automakers Have Miles to go to Reach Biden’s Fuel Economy Goals (Ohio News Times, November 26, 2021).
November 24, 2021
The EPA Administrator Visited Cancer-Causing Air Pollution Hot Spots Highlighted by ProPublica and Promised Reforms (ProPublica, November 24, 2021).
EPA Indefinitely Extends COVID-19 Emerging Viral Pathogen Guidance (JD Supra, November 24, 2021).
Biden’s EJ promises Might Not Cover Other Countries (E&E News, November 24, 2021).
November 23, 2021
EPA Forces Natural Gas Plants to Make Pollution Data Public (E&E News, November 23, 2021).
November 20, 2021
EPA, Corps, Announce Proposed WOTUS Rule (The Waterways Journal, November 20, 2021).
November 19, 2021
Biden appoints Blackman to regional EPA post after he fell short in PSC bid (The Current, November 19, 2021).
November 18, 2021
Biden Administration Takes Step Toward Reversing Trump Water Regulations Rollback (The Hill, November 18, 2021).
Biden Administration Acts to Restore Clean-Water Safeguards (PBS, November 18, 2021).
EPA Sets Timeline to Weigh Next Steps Related to Pebble Mine (AP News, November 18, 2021).
November 17, 2021
EPA, Biden Administration Block Yazoo Pumps Project (The Vicksburg Post, November 17, 2021).
Residents of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley Hopeful for Action After EPA Head’s Visits (The Guardian, November 17, 2021).
November 16, 2021
Biden Administration Signals it will Keep Trump-Era Aircraft Emissions Rule (The Hill, November 16, 2021).
EPA Finds PFAS are More Toxic than Previously Thought (EWG, November 16, 2021).
EPA Fines MSC and Bulker Over Ballast Water Violations (The Maritime Executive, November 16, 2021).
November 15, 2021
EPA Unveils New Recycling Push Pegged to Climate, Justice (E&E News, November 15, 2021).
EPA FInes Gas Facility in Kapolei over Clean Air Act Violations (KHON2, November 15, 2021).
EPA Finalizes First National Recycling Strategy (The Washington Post, November 15, 2021).
November 14, 2021
CDC Again Tightens Blood Lead Standard for Young Children: EPA’s Action Levels for Lead in Butte Soil Now Even More Outdated (Montana Standard, November 14, 2021).
November 13, 2021
EPA Finds Herbicide May Harm Endangered Species, Angering AG Groups (AgriPulse, November 13, 2021).
November 11, 2021
EPA Fines Hawaii County for Missing Sewage Plan Deadline (AP News, November 11, 2021).
Infrastructure Bill Contains More than $350M for Recycling, but Local Effects are still Years Away (Waste Dive, November 11, 2021).
EPA Plans ‘Even More Ambitious’ Methane Rules (E&E News, November 11, 2021).
November 11, 2021
EPA Fines Pesticide Applicator for Alleged Violations of Federal Pesticide Law on Kansas Farms (EPA, November 11, 2021).
November 10, 2021
EPA Air Reg’s Price Tag: Huge, Politically Toxic, and Wrong (E&E News, November 10, 2021).
November 9, 2021
EPA Rules May Spark Legal War Over Social Cost of Methane (E&E News, November 9, 2021).
EPA to Review Public Comments on Lower Neponset Superfund Designation (WBUR News, November 9, 2021).
Waste Not, Want Not: EPA’s Impending National Recycling Strategy (The National Law Review, November 9, 2021).
‘Drinking Through a Lead Straw’ — $15B Approved to Fix Dangerous Water Pipes (US News, November 9, 2021).
November 8, 2021
Supreme Court’s Unusual Decision to Hear a Coal Case Could Deal President Biden’s Climate Plans Another Setback (InsideClimate News, November 8, 2021).
EPA Outlines $630M Vision for Curbing Tijuana Sewage Pollution in San Diego (The San Diego Union Tribune, November 8, 2021).
November 7, 2021
Climate Pledges Built on Flawed Data, Post Investigation Finds (The Washington Post, November 7, 2021).
EPA to Begin Testing Water at 300 Benton Harbor Homes (US. News, November 7, 2021).
November 6, 2021
Advocates: EPA’s Proposed Methane Rule will Complement New Mexico's Efforts to Curb Pollution (Santa Fe New Mexican, November 6, 2021).
House Passes Massive Infrastructure Bill with Big Boost for Chesapeake Bay Program, Governor Hogan issues statement (NottinghamMD.com, November 6, 2021).
November 5, 2021
ProPublica Report Highlights Philadelphia-area Locations where Industrial Air Pollution Exceeds EPA ‘Cancer Risk’ (The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 5, 2021).
EPA Fines Iowa Fertilizer Distributor for Alleged Clean Air Act Violations (EPA, November 5, 2021).
November 4, 2021
With New Settlements, EPA May Finally Protect Americans from Asbestos (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, November 4, 2021).
Environmentalists Call on EPA to Take Lead in Carson Stench Investigation (LA Times, November 4, 2021).
EPA Cites Republic Steel for Lead Air Pollution in Canton, Ohio (EPA, November 4, 2021).
November 3, 2021
How Methane Rule Hits Energy, from Pipeline to Politics (E&E News, November 3, 2021).
EPA Pressed on ‘Toxic Cocktail’ in Tap Water (E&E News, November 3, 2021).
November 2, 2021
Biden EPA Unveils New Rules to Curb Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas, from Oil and Gas Operations (The Washington Post, November 2, 2021).
EPA Region 7 Responding to Mercury Spill at Residences in Wentzville, Missouri, Area (EPA, November 2, 2021).
EPA Orders Benton Harbor Take 'Immediate Actions' to Fix Lead-tainted Drinking Water (Detroit Free Press, November 2, 2021).
Poison in the Air (Propublica, November 2, 2021)
November 1, 2021
EPA to help schools in Oregon and Washington become Community Cleaner Air and Cooling Centers (EPA, November 1, 2021).
October 31, 2021EPA Asks DC Cir. to Pause States’ Ozone Standards Challenge While it Reconsiders Rule Extension (Law Street, October 31, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
November Newsfeed
-
-
November 30, 2021
EPA Funds Research Key to Environmental Justice Mapping Tool (E&E News, November 30, 2021).
PFAS Drinking Water Issues get $10 Billion in Funding (The National Law Review, November 30, 2021).
November 29, 2021
EPA Announces Legally Mandated Changes to TSCA Fees (JD Supra, November 29, 2021).
Environmental Justice, Climate Change Enforcement is Ramping Up (Bloomberg Law, November 29, 2021).
November 28, 2021
‘Cancer has decimated our community.’ EPA’s Regan vows to help hard-hit areas, but residents have doubts. (The Washington Post, November 28, 2021).
Montana’s Change in Water Quality Standards Draw EPA Scrutiny (Independent Record, November 28, 2021).
November 27, 2021
Elizabeth Mine Cleanup Cost $103M, More than 4 times Initial Estimate (Valley News, November 27, 2021).
November 26, 2021
Automakers Have Miles to go to Reach Biden’s Fuel Economy Goals (Ohio News Times, November 26, 2021).
November 24, 2021
The EPA Administrator Visited Cancer-Causing Air Pollution Hot Spots Highlighted by ProPublica and Promised Reforms (ProPublica, November 24, 2021).
EPA Indefinitely Extends COVID-19 Emerging Viral Pathogen Guidance (JD Supra, November 24, 2021).
Biden’s EJ promises Might Not Cover Other Countries (E&E News, November 24, 2021).
November 23, 2021
EPA Forces Natural Gas Plants to Make Pollution Data Public (E&E News, November 23, 2021).
November 20, 2021
EPA, Corps, Announce Proposed WOTUS Rule (The Waterways Journal, November 20, 2021).
November 19, 2021
Biden appoints Blackman to regional EPA post after he fell short in PSC bid (The Current, November 19, 2021).
November 18, 2021
Biden Administration Takes Step Toward Reversing Trump Water Regulations Rollback (The Hill, November 18, 2021).
Biden Administration Acts to Restore Clean-Water Safeguards (PBS, November 18, 2021).
EPA Sets Timeline to Weigh Next Steps Related to Pebble Mine (AP News, November 18, 2021).
November 17, 2021
EPA, Biden Administration Block Yazoo Pumps Project (The Vicksburg Post, November 17, 2021).
Residents of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley Hopeful for Action After EPA Head’s Visits (The Guardian, November 17, 2021).
November 16, 2021
Biden Administration Signals it will Keep Trump-Era Aircraft Emissions Rule (The Hill, November 16, 2021).
EPA Finds PFAS are More Toxic than Previously Thought (EWG, November 16, 2021).
EPA Fines MSC and Bulker Over Ballast Water Violations (The Maritime Executive, November 16, 2021).
November 15, 2021
EPA Unveils New Recycling Push Pegged to Climate, Justice (E&E News, November 15, 2021).
EPA FInes Gas Facility in Kapolei over Clean Air Act Violations (KHON2, November 15, 2021).
EPA Finalizes First National Recycling Strategy (The Washington Post, November 15, 2021).
November 14, 2021
CDC Again Tightens Blood Lead Standard for Young Children: EPA’s Action Levels for Lead in Butte Soil Now Even More Outdated (Montana Standard, November 14, 2021).
November 13, 2021
EPA Finds Herbicide May Harm Endangered Species, Angering AG Groups (AgriPulse, November 13, 2021).
November 11, 2021
EPA Fines Hawaii County for Missing Sewage Plan Deadline (AP News, November 11, 2021).
Infrastructure Bill Contains More than $350M for Recycling, but Local Effects are still Years Away (Waste Dive, November 11, 2021).
EPA Plans ‘Even More Ambitious’ Methane Rules (E&E News, November 11, 2021).
November 11, 2021
EPA Fines Pesticide Applicator for Alleged Violations of Federal Pesticide Law on Kansas Farms (EPA, November 11, 2021).
November 10, 2021
EPA Air Reg’s Price Tag: Huge, Politically Toxic, and Wrong (E&E News, November 10, 2021).
November 9, 2021
EPA Rules May Spark Legal War Over Social Cost of Methane (E&E News, November 9, 2021).
EPA to Review Public Comments on Lower Neponset Superfund Designation (WBUR News, November 9, 2021).
Waste Not, Want Not: EPA’s Impending National Recycling Strategy (The National Law Review, November 9, 2021).
‘Drinking Through a Lead Straw’ — $15B Approved to Fix Dangerous Water Pipes (US News, November 9, 2021).
November 8, 2021
Supreme Court’s Unusual Decision to Hear a Coal Case Could Deal President Biden’s Climate Plans Another Setback (InsideClimate News, November 8, 2021).
EPA Outlines $630M Vision for Curbing Tijuana Sewage Pollution in San Diego (The San Diego Union Tribune, November 8, 2021).
November 7, 2021
Climate Pledges Built on Flawed Data, Post Investigation Finds (The Washington Post, November 7, 2021).
EPA to Begin Testing Water at 300 Benton Harbor Homes (US. News, November 7, 2021).
November 6, 2021
Advocates: EPA’s Proposed Methane Rule will Complement New Mexico's Efforts to Curb Pollution (Santa Fe New Mexican, November 6, 2021).
House Passes Massive Infrastructure Bill with Big Boost for Chesapeake Bay Program, Governor Hogan issues statement (NottinghamMD.com, November 6, 2021).
November 5, 2021
ProPublica Report Highlights Philadelphia-area Locations where Industrial Air Pollution Exceeds EPA ‘Cancer Risk’ (The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 5, 2021).
EPA Fines Iowa Fertilizer Distributor for Alleged Clean Air Act Violations (EPA, November 5, 2021).
November 4, 2021
With New Settlements, EPA May Finally Protect Americans from Asbestos (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, November 4, 2021).
Environmentalists Call on EPA to Take Lead in Carson Stench Investigation (LA Times, November 4, 2021).
EPA Cites Republic Steel for Lead Air Pollution in Canton, Ohio (EPA, November 4, 2021).
November 3, 2021
How Methane Rule Hits Energy, from Pipeline to Politics (E&E News, November 3, 2021).
EPA Pressed on ‘Toxic Cocktail’ in Tap Water (E&E News, November 3, 2021).
November 2, 2021
Biden EPA Unveils New Rules to Curb Methane, a Potent Greenhouse Gas, from Oil and Gas Operations (The Washington Post, November 2, 2021).
EPA Region 7 Responding to Mercury Spill at Residences in Wentzville, Missouri, Area (EPA, November 2, 2021).
EPA Orders Benton Harbor Take 'Immediate Actions' to Fix Lead-tainted Drinking Water (Detroit Free Press, November 2, 2021).
Poison in the Air (Propublica, November 2, 2021)
November 1, 2021
EPA to help schools in Oregon and Washington become Community Cleaner Air and Cooling Centers (EPA, November 1, 2021).
October 31, 2021EPA Asks DC Cir. to Pause States’ Ozone Standards Challenge While it Reconsiders Rule Extension (Law Street, October 31, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/november-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
June 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 14 June 2021A People's EPA (APE)
June Newsfeed
-
-
July 2, 2021
EPA Withdraws Rule Allowing Use of Radioactive Material in Road Construction (The Hill, July 2, 2021).
-
July 1, 2021
House Democrats Unite to Send Firm Climate Signal to Biden (Politico, July 1, 2021).
Biden EPA to Reassess Trump-Era Chemical Health Findings (The Hill, July 1, 2021).
EPA Employees Fight for Contract That Will Protect Them Against Future Administrations (The Hill, July 1, 2021)
-
June 30, 2021
The EPA Must Follow Canada's Lead and Issue New Rules for Ballast Water to Protect the Great Lakes (The Hill, June 30, 2021).
The Department of Yes (The Intercept, June 30, 2021).
U.S. EPA Weighs Taseko Copper Mining Process Akin To Fracking (Nasdaq, June 30, 2021).
-
June 29, 2021
Study: EPA Underestimated Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Development (The Hill, June 29, 2021)
EPA Detects Toxic Levels of Pollution from Pearl Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (Hawaii News Now, June 29, 2021).
Here's How Biden Is Spending His First Big Environmental Justice Investment (Grist, June 29, 2021).
Groups Urge EPA to Spell Out RFS Waiver Rules (Successful Farming, June 29, 2021).
-
June 28, 2021
White House Delays Agency Changes to Environmental Law Procedures Under Trump Rule by Two Years (The Hill, June 28, 2021)
U.S. EPA Issues Warnings Over Caribbean Refinery Shutdown Plan (Reuters, June 28, 2021)
EPA Announces Plan to Strengthen Environmental Justice Through Criminal Enforcement (Lexology, June 28, 2021)
Dolton Plant Owner to Pay $350,000 After Hazardous Waste Citations (Chicago Sun Times, June 28, 2021).
-
June 25, 2021
As Democrats Spar Over Advancing Biden's Climate Agenda, They Move to Cut Methane (The Washington Post, June 25, 2021).
-
June 24, 2021
Acting United States Attorney Jacquelyn M. Kasulis Announces Formation of Environmental Justice Team in the Office's Civil Division (US Department of Justice, June 24, 2021).
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Omits Big Climate Measures (The New York Times, June 24, 2021).
-
June 23, 2021
EPA Orders Cleanup After Tons of Sand Washes into Sandhill Stream (Omaha World-Herald, June 23, 2021).
Governor Petitions EPA to List PFAS as Hazardous Waste (NM Political Report, June 23, 2021).
EPA's Environmental Justice Boss Touts Early Actions for Biden (Bloomberg Law, June 23, 2021).
-
June 22, 2021
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Protecting the Air We Breathe (Open Access Government, June 22, 2021)
Judge Rejects Challenge to Trump Environmental Review Rule Rewrite (The Hill, June 22, 2021).
What if American Democracy Fails the Climate Crisis? (The New York Times Magazine, June 22, 2021).
EPA Reaches Settlement to Close Asbestos Reporting Loopholes (EHS Daily Advisor, June 22, 2021).
-
June 21, 2021
Obama BLM Director: Biden Needs a New Nominee (E&E News, June 21, 2021).
Boulder Continues to Work Toward Greater Climate Equity as EPA Bestows No. 8 Ranking (Boulder Daily Camera, June 21, 2021)
US Senators Urge Biden to Support Biomass Industry (Bioenergy Insight, June 21, 2021).
-
June 20, 2021
EPA Coordinator Shares the Process of Air Quality Tests in Rockton (mystateline.com, June 20, 2021)
-
June 17, 2021
Biden EPA May Offer Refiners Small Biofuel Concession (Rigzone, June 17, 2021).
-
June 16, 2021
Federal Judge Overturns Leasing Freeze in Blow to Biden (E&E News, June 16, 2021).
Public Schools Help Des Moines, Sioux City Rank Near Top Nationally for Number of Energy Efficient Buildings (Des Moines Register, June 16, 2021).
Senate Confirms Radhika Fox to Lead EPA's Water Office (The Hill, June 16, 2021).
Biden EPA Delays Trump-Era Lead and Copper Rule Again (NRDC, June 16, 2021).
-
June 15, 2021
EPA Budget to Increase for FY 2022 (EHS Daily Advisor, June 15, 2021).
EPA to Repeal Controversial Water Rule Impacting New Mexico (Santa Fe New Mexican, June 15, 2021).
Federal Judge Says Biden Cannot Pause New Leases for Drilling on Public Lands (The New York Times, June 15, 2021).
EPA Refers Chemical Plant Owner to Attorney General for Violations After Fire (WISN, June 15, 2021).
-
June 14, 2021
EPA to Reinstate Air Pollution Panel Disbanded Under Trump (The Hill, June 14, 2021).
EPA & Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of Waters of the United States (Water and Wastes Digest, June 14, 2021).
Haaland Urges Biden to Fully Protect Three National Monuments Weakened by Donald Trump (The Washington Post, June 14, 2021).
Fire at Illinois Chemical Plant Could Cause "Environmental Nightmare," Fire Chief Says (NBC News, June 14, 2021).
-
June 13, 2021
13 Refineries Emit Dangerous Benzene Emissions that Exceed the EPA's 'Action Level,' A Study Finds (Inside Climate News, June 13, 2021).
G7 Nations Take Aggressive Climate Action but Hold Back on Coal (The New York Times, June 13, 2021).
-
June 10, 2021
E.P.A to Review Rules on Soot Linked to Deaths, Which Trump Declined to Tighten (The New York Times, June 10, 2021).
Volkswagen U.S. CEO Meets with EPA Administrator on EVs (WTVB, June 10, 2021).
EPA Yanking Toms River Reich Farm from Superfund List (Ashbury Park Press, June 10, 2021).
-
June 9, 2021EPA Fines Honolulu-Based Home Remodeler for Lead Safety Violations (Honolulu Star Advertiser, June 9, 2021).
Keystone XL Pipeline Developer Pulls Plug on Controversial Project (The Washington Post, June 9, 2021).
Rebuilding EPA Through Its Climate Programs (The Hill, June 9, 2021).
EPA Budget Request Emphasizes Recycling (Plastics Recycling Update, June 9, 2021).
Court Blocks Trump-era, Toxic Citrus Pesticide, Defended by Biden EPA (Beyond Pesticide, June 9, 2021).
Biden Administration to Restore Clean-Water Protections Ended by Trump (The New York Times, June 9, 2021).
-
June 8, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency Fines 2 Hawaii Companies Over Jet Fuel Release (Honolulu Star Advertiser, June 8, 2021).
FMC’s Fluindapyr Fun Fungicide Gets EPA Registration (FMC Corporation, June 8, 2021).
EPA Agrees to Disclose Data on Products Containing Asbestos, Reversing Trump Protocol (San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, 2021).
‘Energy Justice’ Nominee Brings Activist Voice to Biden’s Climate Plans (NPR, June 8, 2021).
-
June 7, 2021Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere Hits Record High Despite Pandemic Dip (The New York Times, June 7, 2021).
-
June 6, 2021
Ohio EPA: Trumbull Drinking Water has Small Amounts of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (Mahoning Matters, June 6, 2021).
-
June 4, 2021
EPA Awards $388 Million Loan for East County Water Purification System (NBC 7 San Diego, June 4, 2021).
EPA Releases 2022 Construction General Permit for Public Comment (The National law Review, June 4, 2021).
President Biden’s FY 2022 Budget Request Includes $11.2 Billion for EPA (The National Law Review, June 4, 2021).
EPA Alerts Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Band that PolyMet Mine “May Affect” Their Waters (MPR News, June 4, 2021).
-
June 3, 2021
California Urges EPA to Let State Set Car-Emissions Standard (The Times Leader, June 3, 2021).
Local Leaders Press EPA on Lead Water Needs and Fixes (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 3, 2021).
Justice Department, EPA and the State of Indiana Reach Clean Air Act Settlement with Lone Star Industries (The Department of Justice, June 3, 2021).
EPA Plans Superfund Cleanup for Bear Creek Near Baltimore (Bay Journal, June 3, 2021).
Brownfields/Arkansas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Announces Chicot County and Western Arkansas Planning & Development District Grants (JDSUPRA, June 3, 2021).
-
June 2, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency to Conduct Listening Sessions on Chemical Accident Prevention (Environmental Protection, June 2, 2021)
Biden Aims to End Arctic Drilling. A Trump-Era Law Could Foil His Plans (The New York Times, June 2, 2021).
EDF Calls for Restoration of California’s Clean Car Waiver at EPA Hearing (Environmental Defense Fund, June 2, 2021).
-
June 1, 2021
Biden Suspends Drilling Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (The New York Times, June 1, 2021).
Bristol Bay Tribes to EPA: Veto Pebble Mine Now and Forever (NRDC, June 1, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
June Newsfeed
-
-
July 2, 2021
EPA Withdraws Rule Allowing Use of Radioactive Material in Road Construction (The Hill, July 2, 2021).
-
July 1, 2021
House Democrats Unite to Send Firm Climate Signal to Biden (Politico, July 1, 2021).
Biden EPA to Reassess Trump-Era Chemical Health Findings (The Hill, July 1, 2021).
EPA Employees Fight for Contract That Will Protect Them Against Future Administrations (The Hill, July 1, 2021)
-
June 30, 2021
The EPA Must Follow Canada's Lead and Issue New Rules for Ballast Water to Protect the Great Lakes (The Hill, June 30, 2021).
The Department of Yes (The Intercept, June 30, 2021).
U.S. EPA Weighs Taseko Copper Mining Process Akin To Fracking (Nasdaq, June 30, 2021).
-
June 29, 2021
Study: EPA Underestimated Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Development (The Hill, June 29, 2021)
EPA Detects Toxic Levels of Pollution from Pearl Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (Hawaii News Now, June 29, 2021).
Here's How Biden Is Spending His First Big Environmental Justice Investment (Grist, June 29, 2021).
Groups Urge EPA to Spell Out RFS Waiver Rules (Successful Farming, June 29, 2021).
-
June 28, 2021
White House Delays Agency Changes to Environmental Law Procedures Under Trump Rule by Two Years (The Hill, June 28, 2021)
U.S. EPA Issues Warnings Over Caribbean Refinery Shutdown Plan (Reuters, June 28, 2021)
EPA Announces Plan to Strengthen Environmental Justice Through Criminal Enforcement (Lexology, June 28, 2021)
Dolton Plant Owner to Pay $350,000 After Hazardous Waste Citations (Chicago Sun Times, June 28, 2021).
-
June 25, 2021
As Democrats Spar Over Advancing Biden's Climate Agenda, They Move to Cut Methane (The Washington Post, June 25, 2021).
-
June 24, 2021
Acting United States Attorney Jacquelyn M. Kasulis Announces Formation of Environmental Justice Team in the Office's Civil Division (US Department of Justice, June 24, 2021).
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal Omits Big Climate Measures (The New York Times, June 24, 2021).
-
June 23, 2021
EPA Orders Cleanup After Tons of Sand Washes into Sandhill Stream (Omaha World-Herald, June 23, 2021).
Governor Petitions EPA to List PFAS as Hazardous Waste (NM Political Report, June 23, 2021).
EPA's Environmental Justice Boss Touts Early Actions for Biden (Bloomberg Law, June 23, 2021).
-
June 22, 2021
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Protecting the Air We Breathe (Open Access Government, June 22, 2021)
Judge Rejects Challenge to Trump Environmental Review Rule Rewrite (The Hill, June 22, 2021).
What if American Democracy Fails the Climate Crisis? (The New York Times Magazine, June 22, 2021).
EPA Reaches Settlement to Close Asbestos Reporting Loopholes (EHS Daily Advisor, June 22, 2021).
-
June 21, 2021
Obama BLM Director: Biden Needs a New Nominee (E&E News, June 21, 2021).
Boulder Continues to Work Toward Greater Climate Equity as EPA Bestows No. 8 Ranking (Boulder Daily Camera, June 21, 2021)
US Senators Urge Biden to Support Biomass Industry (Bioenergy Insight, June 21, 2021).
-
June 20, 2021
EPA Coordinator Shares the Process of Air Quality Tests in Rockton (mystateline.com, June 20, 2021)
-
June 17, 2021
Biden EPA May Offer Refiners Small Biofuel Concession (Rigzone, June 17, 2021).
-
June 16, 2021
Federal Judge Overturns Leasing Freeze in Blow to Biden (E&E News, June 16, 2021).
Public Schools Help Des Moines, Sioux City Rank Near Top Nationally for Number of Energy Efficient Buildings (Des Moines Register, June 16, 2021).
Senate Confirms Radhika Fox to Lead EPA's Water Office (The Hill, June 16, 2021).
Biden EPA Delays Trump-Era Lead and Copper Rule Again (NRDC, June 16, 2021).
-
June 15, 2021
EPA Budget to Increase for FY 2022 (EHS Daily Advisor, June 15, 2021).
EPA to Repeal Controversial Water Rule Impacting New Mexico (Santa Fe New Mexican, June 15, 2021).
Federal Judge Says Biden Cannot Pause New Leases for Drilling on Public Lands (The New York Times, June 15, 2021).
EPA Refers Chemical Plant Owner to Attorney General for Violations After Fire (WISN, June 15, 2021).
-
June 14, 2021
EPA to Reinstate Air Pollution Panel Disbanded Under Trump (The Hill, June 14, 2021).
EPA & Army Announce Intent to Revise Definition of Waters of the United States (Water and Wastes Digest, June 14, 2021).
Haaland Urges Biden to Fully Protect Three National Monuments Weakened by Donald Trump (The Washington Post, June 14, 2021).
Fire at Illinois Chemical Plant Could Cause "Environmental Nightmare," Fire Chief Says (NBC News, June 14, 2021).
-
June 13, 2021
13 Refineries Emit Dangerous Benzene Emissions that Exceed the EPA's 'Action Level,' A Study Finds (Inside Climate News, June 13, 2021).
G7 Nations Take Aggressive Climate Action but Hold Back on Coal (The New York Times, June 13, 2021).
-
June 10, 2021
E.P.A to Review Rules on Soot Linked to Deaths, Which Trump Declined to Tighten (The New York Times, June 10, 2021).
Volkswagen U.S. CEO Meets with EPA Administrator on EVs (WTVB, June 10, 2021).
EPA Yanking Toms River Reich Farm from Superfund List (Ashbury Park Press, June 10, 2021).
-
June 9, 2021EPA Fines Honolulu-Based Home Remodeler for Lead Safety Violations (Honolulu Star Advertiser, June 9, 2021).
Keystone XL Pipeline Developer Pulls Plug on Controversial Project (The Washington Post, June 9, 2021).
Rebuilding EPA Through Its Climate Programs (The Hill, June 9, 2021).
EPA Budget Request Emphasizes Recycling (Plastics Recycling Update, June 9, 2021).
Court Blocks Trump-era, Toxic Citrus Pesticide, Defended by Biden EPA (Beyond Pesticide, June 9, 2021).
Biden Administration to Restore Clean-Water Protections Ended by Trump (The New York Times, June 9, 2021).
-
June 8, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency Fines 2 Hawaii Companies Over Jet Fuel Release (Honolulu Star Advertiser, June 8, 2021).
FMC’s Fluindapyr Fun Fungicide Gets EPA Registration (FMC Corporation, June 8, 2021).
EPA Agrees to Disclose Data on Products Containing Asbestos, Reversing Trump Protocol (San Francisco Chronicle, June 8, 2021).
‘Energy Justice’ Nominee Brings Activist Voice to Biden’s Climate Plans (NPR, June 8, 2021).
-
June 7, 2021Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere Hits Record High Despite Pandemic Dip (The New York Times, June 7, 2021).
-
June 6, 2021
Ohio EPA: Trumbull Drinking Water has Small Amounts of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (Mahoning Matters, June 6, 2021).
-
June 4, 2021
EPA Awards $388 Million Loan for East County Water Purification System (NBC 7 San Diego, June 4, 2021).
EPA Releases 2022 Construction General Permit for Public Comment (The National law Review, June 4, 2021).
President Biden’s FY 2022 Budget Request Includes $11.2 Billion for EPA (The National Law Review, June 4, 2021).
EPA Alerts Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Band that PolyMet Mine “May Affect” Their Waters (MPR News, June 4, 2021).
-
June 3, 2021
California Urges EPA to Let State Set Car-Emissions Standard (The Times Leader, June 3, 2021).
Local Leaders Press EPA on Lead Water Needs and Fixes (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 3, 2021).
Justice Department, EPA and the State of Indiana Reach Clean Air Act Settlement with Lone Star Industries (The Department of Justice, June 3, 2021).
EPA Plans Superfund Cleanup for Bear Creek Near Baltimore (Bay Journal, June 3, 2021).
Brownfields/Arkansas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Announces Chicot County and Western Arkansas Planning & Development District Grants (JDSUPRA, June 3, 2021).
-
June 2, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency to Conduct Listening Sessions on Chemical Accident Prevention (Environmental Protection, June 2, 2021)
Biden Aims to End Arctic Drilling. A Trump-Era Law Could Foil His Plans (The New York Times, June 2, 2021).
EDF Calls for Restoration of California’s Clean Car Waiver at EPA Hearing (Environmental Defense Fund, June 2, 2021).
-
June 1, 2021
Biden Suspends Drilling Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (The New York Times, June 1, 2021).
Bristol Bay Tribes to EPA: Veto Pebble Mine Now and Forever (NRDC, June 1, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/june-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
May 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 14 May 2021A People's EPA (APE)
May Newsfeed
-
-
May 31, 2021
Dane County Joins EPA Green Power Program (DeForest Times-Tribune, May 31, 2021).
-
May 28, 2021:Biden’s Fossil Fuel Moves Clash With Pledges on Climate Change (The New York Times, May 28, 2021).
-
May 27, 2021:
E.P.A. to Modify Trump-Era Limits on States’ Ability to Oppose Energy Projects (The New York TImes, May 27, 2021).
-
May 26, 2021
Biden Administration Defends Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project (The New York Times, May 26, 2021).
EPA Officially Nixes Trump “Secret Science” Rule (The Hill, May 26, 2021).
-
May 25, 2021
Why is the House Taking So Long to Undo Trump Methane Rule? (E&E News, May 25, 2021).
Biden Looks to California for Next Phase of Offshore Wind (The Washington Post, May 25, 2021).
Addressing Environmental Justice Through EPA Enforcement Tools (JDSUPRA, May 25, 2021).
EPA Considering Creek on Former Bethlehem Steel Site in Sparrows Point for National Pollution Priority List (The Baltimore Sun, May 25, 2021).
EPA Discusses Project to Clean Up Former Allied Paper Landfill (News Channel 3, May 25, 2021).
For the Second Time in Four Years, the Ninth Circuit Has Ordered the EPA to Set New Lead Paint and Dust Standards (InsideClimate News, May 25, 2021).
-
May 24, 2021
Scranton Manufacturing Fined $50K BY EPA (Carroll Times Herald, May 24, 2021).
Trump EPA Dodged Science Policy for Weedkiller (E&E News, May 24, 2021).
-
May 23, 2021
EPA Approves Fungicide to Combat Coffee Leaf Rust (Hawai’i Public Radio, May 23, 2021)
-
May 21, 2021
Biden Requires Climate Considerations in Budget Process (Government Executive, May 21, 2021).
-
May 20th:
U.S. EPA to Keep Biofuel Mandates Steady in 2021-22 Due to Coronavirus - Sources (May 20, 2021).
-
May 19th:
White House Brings Back Climate Scientist Forced Out by Trump Administration (The Washington Post, May 19, 2021).
-
May 18th:
What to Save? Climate Change Forces Brutal Choices at National Parks (The New York Times, May 18, 2021).
EPA Watchdog Audits Cite Agency Enforcement Falloff in Recent Years (ENR, Engineering News-Record, May 18, 2021).
EPA to End Week-Long Suspension of Emissions Regulations After Pipeline Hack (Foreign Brief Geopolitical Risk Analysis, May 18, 2021).
EPA Expands Zone of Potential Lead Contamination in West Atlanta (Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 18, 2021).
EPA Shuts Polluting Caribbean Refinery Reopened Under Trump (The Guardian, May 18, 2021).
EPA Cracks Down on Landfill Methane Emissions (E&E News, May 18, 2021).
-
May 17th:
EPA Urging Communities, Stakeholders to Participate as Scrutiny of Natural Gas, Oil Industry Methane Emissions Begins (Natural Gas Intel, May 17, 2021).
EPA Will Rescind Final Rule Establishing Administrative Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents (The National Law Review, May 17, 2021).
Supreme Court Gives Big Oil a Win in Climate Fight with Cities (The New York Times, May 17, 2021).
EPA Proposes to Remove Barrels Inc. Site in Lansing from Superfund List (WILX, May 17, 2021).
EPA Grants to Allow Monitoring of Beach Water Quality in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington (EP Magazine, May 17, 2021).
-
May 16th:For the EPA, A Moment of Reckoning (Salon, May 16, 2021).
John Kerry: US Climate Envoy Criticised for Optimism on Clean Tech (BBC, May 16, 2021).
-
May 14th:EPA Orders Virgin Islands Refinery to Shut Down, Citing “Imminent” Health Threat (The Washington Post, May 14, 2021).
-
May 13th:
In a Report Suppressed Under Trump, the EPA Has Said for the First Time that Humans Caused the Climate Crisis (Business Insider, May 13, 2021)
Biden Administration to Repeal Trump Rule Aimed at Curbing E.P.A’s Power (The New York Times, May 13, 2021)
EPA Begins Environmental Justice Consultations on Risk Management Rulemakings for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos and PV29 (The National Law Review, May 13, 2021).
-
May 12th:EPA Relaunches Website Tracking Climate Change Indicators (The Hill, May 12, 2021).
U.S. Has Entered Unprecedented Climate Territory, EPA Warns (The Washington Post, May 12, 2021)
Hill Democrats May Have More Time to Scrap Trump Rules (E&E News, May 12, 2021).
EPA, DOT Move to Boost Gasoline Availability after Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack (May 11, 2021, Politico).
-
May 11th:
EPA Grants Will Fund Cleanups in Western Montana (Montana Public Radio, May 11, 2021).
Wisconsin’s Attorney General Calls for Federal Regulation of “Forever Chemicals” (Wisconsin State Journal, May 11, 2021).
Biden Administration Approves Nation’s First Major Offshore Wind Farm (The New York Times, May 11, 2021).
U.S. Waives Environmental Rule to Ease Mid-Atlantic Fuel Shortages (Reuters, May 11, 2021).
EPA to Jackson, Mississippi: Water Safe to Drink Despite Numerous Problems with System (Clarion Ledger, May 11, 2021).
-
May 10th
Biden’s Climate Bet Rests on a Clean Electricity Standard (E&E News, May 10, 2021).
EPA Enforcement Policies Prioritize Environmental Justice and Embrace ‘NextGen’ Compliance Tools (The National Law Review, May 10, 2021).
-
May 7th:
New EPA Coolant Rule is a No-Brainer for Addressing the Climate Crisis (The Hill, May 7, 2021).
Interior Department Withdraws Trump Rule Loosening Arctic Drilling Regulations (The Hill, May 7, 2021).
-
May 6th:
Inspector General Rebukes EPA For Failing to Protect Communities from Carcinogenic Air Pollution (The Intercept, May 6, 2021).
Meet 5 Republican AGs Fighting Biden on Climate (E&E News, May 6, 2021).
-
May 5th:
How to Fast-Track Climate Action? EPA Cutting Super Pollutant HFCs (The Hill, May 5, 2021).
Early Messaging from USEPA Enforcement HQ (Micahel Best & Friedrich LLP via Lexology, May 5, 2021)
-
May 4th:
EPA and Des Moines Move to Rehab Polluted Eyesore (San Francisco Gate May 4, 2021).
EPA Wants To Retract Three Last-Minute RFS Waivers (Agriculture.com, May 4, 2021).
Federal Officials to Address Issues with Water System at Council Meeting (The Northside Sun, May 4, 2021).
EPA Official Directs Agency to Ramp Up Enforcement in Communities Hit Hard by Pollution (The Hill, May 4, 2021).
-
May 3rd:
EPA to Announce Sharp Limits on Powerful Greenhouse Gases (The New York Times, May 3, 2021).
EPA May Craft Groundwater Rule to Pass Supreme Court Test (E&E News, May 3, 2021).
Congress on Track to Reject Trump EPA Revisions to Oil and Gas Methane Standards (Gibson Dunn, May 3, 2021).A People's EPA (APE)
May Newsfeed
-
-
May 31, 2021
Dane County Joins EPA Green Power Program (DeForest Times-Tribune, May 31, 2021).
-
May 28, 2021:Biden’s Fossil Fuel Moves Clash With Pledges on Climate Change (The New York Times, May 28, 2021).
-
May 27, 2021:
E.P.A. to Modify Trump-Era Limits on States’ Ability to Oppose Energy Projects (The New York TImes, May 27, 2021).
-
May 26, 2021
Biden Administration Defends Huge Alaska Oil Drilling Project (The New York Times, May 26, 2021).
EPA Officially Nixes Trump “Secret Science” Rule (The Hill, May 26, 2021).
-
May 25, 2021
Why is the House Taking So Long to Undo Trump Methane Rule? (E&E News, May 25, 2021).
Biden Looks to California for Next Phase of Offshore Wind (The Washington Post, May 25, 2021).
Addressing Environmental Justice Through EPA Enforcement Tools (JDSUPRA, May 25, 2021).
EPA Considering Creek on Former Bethlehem Steel Site in Sparrows Point for National Pollution Priority List (The Baltimore Sun, May 25, 2021).
EPA Discusses Project to Clean Up Former Allied Paper Landfill (News Channel 3, May 25, 2021).
For the Second Time in Four Years, the Ninth Circuit Has Ordered the EPA to Set New Lead Paint and Dust Standards (InsideClimate News, May 25, 2021).
-
May 24, 2021
Scranton Manufacturing Fined $50K BY EPA (Carroll Times Herald, May 24, 2021).
Trump EPA Dodged Science Policy for Weedkiller (E&E News, May 24, 2021).
-
May 23, 2021
EPA Approves Fungicide to Combat Coffee Leaf Rust (Hawai’i Public Radio, May 23, 2021)
-
May 21, 2021
Biden Requires Climate Considerations in Budget Process (Government Executive, May 21, 2021).
-
May 20th:
U.S. EPA to Keep Biofuel Mandates Steady in 2021-22 Due to Coronavirus - Sources (May 20, 2021).
-
May 19th:
White House Brings Back Climate Scientist Forced Out by Trump Administration (The Washington Post, May 19, 2021).
-
May 18th:
What to Save? Climate Change Forces Brutal Choices at National Parks (The New York Times, May 18, 2021).
EPA Watchdog Audits Cite Agency Enforcement Falloff in Recent Years (ENR, Engineering News-Record, May 18, 2021).
EPA to End Week-Long Suspension of Emissions Regulations After Pipeline Hack (Foreign Brief Geopolitical Risk Analysis, May 18, 2021).
EPA Expands Zone of Potential Lead Contamination in West Atlanta (Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 18, 2021).
EPA Shuts Polluting Caribbean Refinery Reopened Under Trump (The Guardian, May 18, 2021).
EPA Cracks Down on Landfill Methane Emissions (E&E News, May 18, 2021).
-
May 17th:
EPA Urging Communities, Stakeholders to Participate as Scrutiny of Natural Gas, Oil Industry Methane Emissions Begins (Natural Gas Intel, May 17, 2021).
EPA Will Rescind Final Rule Establishing Administrative Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents (The National Law Review, May 17, 2021).
Supreme Court Gives Big Oil a Win in Climate Fight with Cities (The New York Times, May 17, 2021).
EPA Proposes to Remove Barrels Inc. Site in Lansing from Superfund List (WILX, May 17, 2021).
EPA Grants to Allow Monitoring of Beach Water Quality in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington (EP Magazine, May 17, 2021).
-
May 16th:For the EPA, A Moment of Reckoning (Salon, May 16, 2021).
John Kerry: US Climate Envoy Criticised for Optimism on Clean Tech (BBC, May 16, 2021).
-
May 14th:EPA Orders Virgin Islands Refinery to Shut Down, Citing “Imminent” Health Threat (The Washington Post, May 14, 2021).
-
May 13th:
In a Report Suppressed Under Trump, the EPA Has Said for the First Time that Humans Caused the Climate Crisis (Business Insider, May 13, 2021)
Biden Administration to Repeal Trump Rule Aimed at Curbing E.P.A’s Power (The New York Times, May 13, 2021)
EPA Begins Environmental Justice Consultations on Risk Management Rulemakings for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos and PV29 (The National Law Review, May 13, 2021).
-
May 12th:EPA Relaunches Website Tracking Climate Change Indicators (The Hill, May 12, 2021).
U.S. Has Entered Unprecedented Climate Territory, EPA Warns (The Washington Post, May 12, 2021)
Hill Democrats May Have More Time to Scrap Trump Rules (E&E News, May 12, 2021).
EPA, DOT Move to Boost Gasoline Availability after Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack (May 11, 2021, Politico).
-
May 11th:
EPA Grants Will Fund Cleanups in Western Montana (Montana Public Radio, May 11, 2021).
Wisconsin’s Attorney General Calls for Federal Regulation of “Forever Chemicals” (Wisconsin State Journal, May 11, 2021).
Biden Administration Approves Nation’s First Major Offshore Wind Farm (The New York Times, May 11, 2021).
U.S. Waives Environmental Rule to Ease Mid-Atlantic Fuel Shortages (Reuters, May 11, 2021).
EPA to Jackson, Mississippi: Water Safe to Drink Despite Numerous Problems with System (Clarion Ledger, May 11, 2021).
-
May 10th
Biden’s Climate Bet Rests on a Clean Electricity Standard (E&E News, May 10, 2021).
EPA Enforcement Policies Prioritize Environmental Justice and Embrace ‘NextGen’ Compliance Tools (The National Law Review, May 10, 2021).
-
May 7th:
New EPA Coolant Rule is a No-Brainer for Addressing the Climate Crisis (The Hill, May 7, 2021).
Interior Department Withdraws Trump Rule Loosening Arctic Drilling Regulations (The Hill, May 7, 2021).
-
May 6th:
Inspector General Rebukes EPA For Failing to Protect Communities from Carcinogenic Air Pollution (The Intercept, May 6, 2021).
Meet 5 Republican AGs Fighting Biden on Climate (E&E News, May 6, 2021).
-
May 5th:
How to Fast-Track Climate Action? EPA Cutting Super Pollutant HFCs (The Hill, May 5, 2021).
Early Messaging from USEPA Enforcement HQ (Micahel Best & Friedrich LLP via Lexology, May 5, 2021)
-
May 4th:
EPA and Des Moines Move to Rehab Polluted Eyesore (San Francisco Gate May 4, 2021).
EPA Wants To Retract Three Last-Minute RFS Waivers (Agriculture.com, May 4, 2021).
Federal Officials to Address Issues with Water System at Council Meeting (The Northside Sun, May 4, 2021).
EPA Official Directs Agency to Ramp Up Enforcement in Communities Hit Hard by Pollution (The Hill, May 4, 2021).
-
May 3rd:
EPA to Announce Sharp Limits on Powerful Greenhouse Gases (The New York Times, May 3, 2021).
EPA May Craft Groundwater Rule to Pass Supreme Court Test (E&E News, May 3, 2021).
Congress on Track to Reject Trump EPA Revisions to Oil and Gas Methane Standards (Gibson Dunn, May 3, 2021).LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/may-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
April 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 30 April 2021A People's EPA (APE)
April Newsfeed
-
-
April 30
EPA to Expand Scope of TRI Reporting Requirements (The National Law Review, April 30, 2021)
-
April 29
9th Circuit to EPA: Find Pesticide Safe or Ban It (Courthouse News Service, April 29, 2021)
EPA Staff Warned of Factual, Legal Issues in Trump Vehicle Climate Rollback, Watchdog Says (The Hill, April 29, 2021)
-
April 28
PFAS Exemptions Eliminated by EPA (April 28, 2021, The National Law Review)
Senate Reinstates Obama-Era Regulations on Methane - The New … (The New York Times, April 28, 2021)
Biden Races Courts for Chance to Torpedo Trump Water Rule (E&E News, April 28, 2021)
Eastern Kentucky Oil Refinery Exceeds EPA Emissions Limit for Cancer-Causing Chemical (Lexington Herald Leader, April 28, 2021)
-
April 27
EPA Releases 28th Annual GHG Inventory (EHS Daily Advisor April 27, 2021)
Kilmer Pushes for EPA to Invest in Puget Sound Restoration and Recovery (The Suburban Times, April 27, 2021)
Regan's Contentious Bid to Reset EPA Scientific (E&E News, April 27, 2021)
EPA, U.S. Virgin Islands Officials Launch Probe after Second St. Croix Refinery Accident (Washington Post, April 27, 2021)
Senate Confirms Janet McCabe as Deputy EPA Chief (The Hill, April 27, 2021)
-
April 26, 2021
EPA Moves to Scrap Trump Rule Preventing N.J. from requiring cars to get better gas mileage (NJ.com, April 26, 2021)
Biden Infrastructure Proposal Prioritizes Equity and Environmental Justice (The National Law Review, April 26, 2021)
EPA Moves to Give California Right to Set Climate Limits on Cars, SUVs (Washington Post, April 26, 2021)
The Fight to Clean Up the EPA(The Intercept, April 26, 2021)
-
April 12, 2021
Scientists Fear Trump Wood-Burn Stance to Stay Under Regan EPA (Bloomberg Law, April 12, 2021)
-
April 11, 2021
Schumer calls on EPA to address Rockland PFAS issue ASAP (Mid Hudson News, April 11, 2021)
Biden’s EPA set to take up Issue of Dangerous "Forever" Poisons (Salon, April 11, 2021)
-
April 10, 2021
Our View: New EPA Head Shows Promise (Winston-Salem Journal, April 10, 2021)
-
April 9, 2021
Biden Budget's $14 bln Hike for Climate includes Big Boosts for EPA (Reuters, April 9, 2021)
Biden EPA, Climate Budget Ask Starts Debate: Jobs Vs. Deficits (Bloomberg Law, April 9, 2021)
-
April 8, 2021
New EPA chief Michael Regan Relishes ‘Clean Slate’ after Chaos of Trump Era (The Guardian, April 8, 2021)
EPA Awards $100K to Ann Arbor-based PFAS Remediation Business (Michigan Live, April 8, 2021)
-
April 7, 2021
EPA Reverses Trump Stance in Push to Tackle Environmental Racism (The Guardian, April 7, 2021)
Petition Calls for EPA Regulation of Large Dairy and Hog Farms (Successful Farming, April 7, 2021)
EPA’s New Chief Gets to Work on Climate Goals—and Hiring Scientists (Bloomberg Green, April 7, 2021)
-
April 6, 2021
EPA Announces $400,000 in Funding to Small Businesses in Alaska and Washington to Develop Innovative Environmental Technologies (EPA Press Release, April 6, 2021)
Environmental Justice makes Return to EPA (Arizona Capitol Times, April 6, 2021)
-
April 5, 2021
EPA to Outline Proposed Cleanup for Groundwater, Soil Contamination in York (Nebraska TV, April 5, 2021)
-
April 1, 2021
Clean Slate for EPA Scientific Advisory Committees (C&E News, April 1, 2021)
Dismissing Trump’s EPA Science Advisors, Regan Says the Agency Will Return to a ‘Fair and Transparent Process’ (Inside Climate News, April 1, 2021)
A People's EPA (APE)
April Newsfeed
-
-
April 30
EPA to Expand Scope of TRI Reporting Requirements (The National Law Review, April 30, 2021)
-
April 29
9th Circuit to EPA: Find Pesticide Safe or Ban It (Courthouse News Service, April 29, 2021)
EPA Staff Warned of Factual, Legal Issues in Trump Vehicle Climate Rollback, Watchdog Says (The Hill, April 29, 2021)
-
April 28
PFAS Exemptions Eliminated by EPA (April 28, 2021, The National Law Review)
Senate Reinstates Obama-Era Regulations on Methane - The New … (The New York Times, April 28, 2021)
Biden Races Courts for Chance to Torpedo Trump Water Rule (E&E News, April 28, 2021)
Eastern Kentucky Oil Refinery Exceeds EPA Emissions Limit for Cancer-Causing Chemical (Lexington Herald Leader, April 28, 2021)
-
April 27
EPA Releases 28th Annual GHG Inventory (EHS Daily Advisor April 27, 2021)
Kilmer Pushes for EPA to Invest in Puget Sound Restoration and Recovery (The Suburban Times, April 27, 2021)
Regan's Contentious Bid to Reset EPA Scientific (E&E News, April 27, 2021)
EPA, U.S. Virgin Islands Officials Launch Probe after Second St. Croix Refinery Accident (Washington Post, April 27, 2021)
Senate Confirms Janet McCabe as Deputy EPA Chief (The Hill, April 27, 2021)
-
April 26, 2021
EPA Moves to Scrap Trump Rule Preventing N.J. from requiring cars to get better gas mileage (NJ.com, April 26, 2021)
Biden Infrastructure Proposal Prioritizes Equity and Environmental Justice (The National Law Review, April 26, 2021)
EPA Moves to Give California Right to Set Climate Limits on Cars, SUVs (Washington Post, April 26, 2021)
The Fight to Clean Up the EPA(The Intercept, April 26, 2021)
-
April 12, 2021
Scientists Fear Trump Wood-Burn Stance to Stay Under Regan EPA (Bloomberg Law, April 12, 2021)
-
April 11, 2021
Schumer calls on EPA to address Rockland PFAS issue ASAP (Mid Hudson News, April 11, 2021)
Biden’s EPA set to take up Issue of Dangerous "Forever" Poisons (Salon, April 11, 2021)
-
April 10, 2021
Our View: New EPA Head Shows Promise (Winston-Salem Journal, April 10, 2021)
-
April 9, 2021
Biden Budget's $14 bln Hike for Climate includes Big Boosts for EPA (Reuters, April 9, 2021)
Biden EPA, Climate Budget Ask Starts Debate: Jobs Vs. Deficits (Bloomberg Law, April 9, 2021)
-
April 8, 2021
New EPA chief Michael Regan Relishes ‘Clean Slate’ after Chaos of Trump Era (The Guardian, April 8, 2021)
EPA Awards $100K to Ann Arbor-based PFAS Remediation Business (Michigan Live, April 8, 2021)
-
April 7, 2021
EPA Reverses Trump Stance in Push to Tackle Environmental Racism (The Guardian, April 7, 2021)
Petition Calls for EPA Regulation of Large Dairy and Hog Farms (Successful Farming, April 7, 2021)
EPA’s New Chief Gets to Work on Climate Goals—and Hiring Scientists (Bloomberg Green, April 7, 2021)
-
April 6, 2021
EPA Announces $400,000 in Funding to Small Businesses in Alaska and Washington to Develop Innovative Environmental Technologies (EPA Press Release, April 6, 2021)
Environmental Justice makes Return to EPA (Arizona Capitol Times, April 6, 2021)
-
April 5, 2021
EPA to Outline Proposed Cleanup for Groundwater, Soil Contamination in York (Nebraska TV, April 5, 2021)
-
April 1, 2021
Clean Slate for EPA Scientific Advisory Committees (C&E News, April 1, 2021)
Dismissing Trump’s EPA Science Advisors, Regan Says the Agency Will Return to a ‘Fair and Transparent Process’ (Inside Climate News, April 1, 2021)
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/april-2021-newfeedRELATED TAGS
-
March 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 30 March 2021A People's EPA (APE)
March Newsfeed
-
-
March 31, 2021
EPA to start Environmental Justice Training Program in Dayton (WDTN Dayton, March 31, 2021)
EPA Dismisses Dozens of Key Science Advisers Picked under Trump (Washington Post, March 31, 2021)
-
March 30, 2021
EPA Far Underestimates Methane Emissions (E&E News March 30, 2021)
-
March 29, 2021
US EPA to issue more Orders for TSCA new Chemical Reviews (Chemical Watch, March 29, 2021)
White House Announces Environmental Justice Advisory Council Members (White House Briefing Room, March 29, 2021)
-
March 26, 2021
Federal Action is Needed to Protect Citizens from Lead in Water (Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2021)
-
March 22, 2021
Years of Workforce Losses at Federal Scientific Agencies Spark Bipartisan Concern (Federal News Network, March 22, 2021)
-
March 24, 2021
EPA's Regan Stresses Importance of Biofuels, Calls for Ag Input (Agri, March 24, 2021)
-
March 19, 2021
The EPA’s Website Makes Climate Change a Priority Again (The Verge, March 19, 2021)
-
March 11, 2021
The Mess that Biden’s EPA Chief Michael Regan will Inherit, Explained (Vox News, March 11, 2021)
-
March 10, 2021
Senate Confirms Biden’s Pick to Lead E.P.A. (New York Times, March 10, 2021)
-
March 4, 2021
EPA, CEQ Nominees Set for Senate Grilling (Politico, March 4, 2021)
-
March 3, 2021
EPA Announces Availability of up to $6 million in Annual Environmental Justice Grants (Niagara Frontier, March 3, 2021)
-
March 2, 2021
EPA Awards Contracts to Clean Abandoned Uranium Mines on the Navajo Nation (Navajo Hopi Observer, March 2, 2021)
GAO Report States EPA Has Completed Some Regulatory-Related Actions for PFAS (The National Law Review, March 2, 2021)
A People's EPA (APE)
March Newsfeed
-
-
March 31, 2021
EPA to start Environmental Justice Training Program in Dayton (WDTN Dayton, March 31, 2021)
EPA Dismisses Dozens of Key Science Advisers Picked under Trump (Washington Post, March 31, 2021)
-
March 30, 2021
EPA Far Underestimates Methane Emissions (E&E News March 30, 2021)
-
March 29, 2021
US EPA to issue more Orders for TSCA new Chemical Reviews (Chemical Watch, March 29, 2021)
White House Announces Environmental Justice Advisory Council Members (White House Briefing Room, March 29, 2021)
-
March 26, 2021
Federal Action is Needed to Protect Citizens from Lead in Water (Chicago Tribune, March 26, 2021)
-
March 22, 2021
Years of Workforce Losses at Federal Scientific Agencies Spark Bipartisan Concern (Federal News Network, March 22, 2021)
-
March 24, 2021
EPA's Regan Stresses Importance of Biofuels, Calls for Ag Input (Agri, March 24, 2021)
-
March 19, 2021
The EPA’s Website Makes Climate Change a Priority Again (The Verge, March 19, 2021)
-
March 11, 2021
The Mess that Biden’s EPA Chief Michael Regan will Inherit, Explained (Vox News, March 11, 2021)
-
March 10, 2021
Senate Confirms Biden’s Pick to Lead E.P.A. (New York Times, March 10, 2021)
-
March 4, 2021
EPA, CEQ Nominees Set for Senate Grilling (Politico, March 4, 2021)
-
March 3, 2021
EPA Announces Availability of up to $6 million in Annual Environmental Justice Grants (Niagara Frontier, March 3, 2021)
-
March 2, 2021
EPA Awards Contracts to Clean Abandoned Uranium Mines on the Navajo Nation (Navajo Hopi Observer, March 2, 2021)
GAO Report States EPA Has Completed Some Regulatory-Related Actions for PFAS (The National Law Review, March 2, 2021)
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/march-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
January 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 30 January 2021A People's EPA (APE)
January Newsfeed
-
-
January 29, 2021
Biden's Climate Order Moves the Spotlight Away from the EPA (E&E News, January 29, 2021)
Biden's Climate Order Moves the Spotlight Away from EPA (E&E News, January 29, 2021)
-
January 28, 2021
Lawyer Who Repped Chevron in Climate Cases among EPA's New Top Hires (Reuters, January 28, 2021)
-
January 27, 2021
Industry Braces for Tougher Toxic Chemical Rules Under Biden EPA (Bloomberg Law, January 27, 2021)
-
January 26, 2021
Feds Investigating State EPA For Approving Permit For Southeast Side Scrapper Planned By General Iron Owner (Block Club Chicago, January 26, 2021)
The Battle Lines Are Forming in Biden’s Climate Push (New York Times, January 26, 2021)
-
January 25, 2021
Pingree Elected as Chair of House Subcommittee that Oversees Interior, EPA (News Center Maine, January 25, 2021)
-
January 23, 2021
Biden Leans on Obama-era Appointees on Climate (The Hill, January 23, 2021)
-
January 22, 2021
Radhika Fox appointed to lead EPA’s Office of Water (Water & Finance Management, January 22, 2021)
Overnight Energy: Biden EPA asks Justice Dept. to Pause Defense of Trump-era Rules (The Hill, January 22, 2021)
-
January 21, 2021
Biden Could use TSCA to Meet Environmental Justice Goals (E&E News, January 21, 2021)
-
January 20, 2021
Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review (The White House Briefing Room, January 20, 2021)
A People's EPA (APE)
January Newsfeed
-
-
January 29, 2021
Biden's Climate Order Moves the Spotlight Away from the EPA (E&E News, January 29, 2021)
Biden's Climate Order Moves the Spotlight Away from EPA (E&E News, January 29, 2021)
-
January 28, 2021
Lawyer Who Repped Chevron in Climate Cases among EPA's New Top Hires (Reuters, January 28, 2021)
-
January 27, 2021
Industry Braces for Tougher Toxic Chemical Rules Under Biden EPA (Bloomberg Law, January 27, 2021)
-
January 26, 2021
Feds Investigating State EPA For Approving Permit For Southeast Side Scrapper Planned By General Iron Owner (Block Club Chicago, January 26, 2021)
The Battle Lines Are Forming in Biden’s Climate Push (New York Times, January 26, 2021)
-
January 25, 2021
Pingree Elected as Chair of House Subcommittee that Oversees Interior, EPA (News Center Maine, January 25, 2021)
-
January 23, 2021
Biden Leans on Obama-era Appointees on Climate (The Hill, January 23, 2021)
-
January 22, 2021
Radhika Fox appointed to lead EPA’s Office of Water (Water & Finance Management, January 22, 2021)
Overnight Energy: Biden EPA asks Justice Dept. to Pause Defense of Trump-era Rules (The Hill, January 22, 2021)
-
January 21, 2021
Biden Could use TSCA to Meet Environmental Justice Goals (E&E News, January 21, 2021)
-
January 20, 2021
Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review (The White House Briefing Room, January 20, 2021)
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/january-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
FOIA Environmental Repository at Toxic Docs
UPLOADED 04 January 2021EDGI and Toxic Docs are collecting thousands of internal government documents on the environment obtained by public interest groups through the Freedom of Information Act. Search the repository at the link below.
EDGI and Toxic Docs are collecting thousands of internal government documents on the environment obtained by public interest groups through the Freedom of Information Act. Search the repository at the link below.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/foia-environmental-repository-at-toxic-docsSOURCE
CITATION
https://edgifoia.toxicdocs.org/
RELATED TAGS
-
Federal Organization for Environmental Protection
UPLOADED 02 December 2020This memo from the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization (PACEO), better known as the "Ash Council,” recommended that "key anti-pollution programs be merged into an Environmental Protection Administration, a new independent agency of the Executive Branch." This new agency would be the "principal instrument" for fulfilling the president’s pledge to "repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future."
The memo claimed that the "environmental crisis" was the result of "vastly increased per capita consumption, intensified by population growth, urbanization, and changing industrial processes." The rationale presented for an independent EPA was that: 1) There was a need to consider environmental protection in a unified way; 2) There should be a separate agency for setting key standards for other agencies so that the interests of those other agencies would not affect the standards. Consolidating these functions in a single agency would also have the benefit of simplifying intergovernmental and business relationships.
The Ash Council proposed that the key functions of the agency should be: scientific research, standard-setting, monitoring, and enforcement. It also proposed reorganizing the agency around those functions as opposed to organizing offices by the source, media, location, or effects of pollution. Doing the latter would mean not recognizing the interrelated aspects of pollution and environmental problems. The memo outlined why it rejected alternative organizational plans: A combined Department of Natural Resources and Environment would, the memo said, subject standard-setting to pressures of resource development. Putting the agency in any existing department would result in one department regulating others, which would not be ideal. Nor would creating a small, strictly standard-setting agency. This would leave monitoring and enforcement fragmented across departments.
Follow the link below to read the full text.
This memo from the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization (PACEO), better known as the "Ash Council,” recommended that "key anti-pollution programs be merged into an Environmental Protection Administration, a new independent agency of the Executive Branch." This new agency would be the "principal instrument" for fulfilling the president’s pledge to "repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future."
The memo claimed that the "environmental crisis" was the result of "vastly increased per capita consumption, intensified by population growth, urbanization, and changing industrial processes." The rationale presented for an independent EPA was that: 1) There was a need to consider environmental protection in a unified way; 2) There should be a separate agency for setting key standards for other agencies so that the interests of those other agencies would not affect the standards. Consolidating these functions in a single agency would also have the benefit of simplifying intergovernmental and business relationships.
The Ash Council proposed that the key functions of the agency should be: scientific research, standard-setting, monitoring, and enforcement. It also proposed reorganizing the agency around those functions as opposed to organizing offices by the source, media, location, or effects of pollution. Doing the latter would mean not recognizing the interrelated aspects of pollution and environmental problems. The memo outlined why it rejected alternative organizational plans: A combined Department of Natural Resources and Environment would, the memo said, subject standard-setting to pressures of resource development. Putting the agency in any existing department would result in one department regulating others, which would not be ideal. Nor would creating a small, strictly standard-setting agency. This would leave monitoring and enforcement fragmented across departments.
Follow the link below to read the full text.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/federal-organization-for-environmental-protectionSOURCE
CITATION
Ash Council (PACEO), "Federal Organization for Environmental Protection," [Memo], April 29, 1970
RELATED TAGS
-
Reorganization Plans To Establish the Environmental Protection Agency
UPLOADED 02 December 2020President Nixon's message, which drew substantially on the Ash Council memo from April 29, 1970, noted that the government's approach to the environment had grown up piecemeal over the years. It was necessary to reorganize the federal government to effectively ensure environmental protection. To that end, the federal government needed an agency that could take a coordinated approach to pollution. That would mean abandoning anti-pollution approaches that were designed primarily along lines of media (air, water, land) or types of pollutants. The proposed new agency, the EPA, could do this, provided it had sufficient support for research, monitoring, standard-setting, enforcement and aid to states.
In proposing this new agency, the president said he was "making an exception to one of my own principles: "new independent agencies normally should not be created." There was a compelling reason for doing this for the EPA, according to Nixon however, because putting these functions in a department with other goals could unduly influence the anti-pollution functions. It would require that department to constantly make decisions affecting other departments. Nixon also noted the difference between the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality: "the Council focuses on what our broad policies in the environmental field should be; the EPA would focus on setting and enforcing pollution control standards."
Follow the link below to read the full text.
President Nixon's message, which drew substantially on the Ash Council memo from April 29, 1970, noted that the government's approach to the environment had grown up piecemeal over the years. It was necessary to reorganize the federal government to effectively ensure environmental protection. To that end, the federal government needed an agency that could take a coordinated approach to pollution. That would mean abandoning anti-pollution approaches that were designed primarily along lines of media (air, water, land) or types of pollutants. The proposed new agency, the EPA, could do this, provided it had sufficient support for research, monitoring, standard-setting, enforcement and aid to states.
In proposing this new agency, the president said he was "making an exception to one of my own principles: "new independent agencies normally should not be created." There was a compelling reason for doing this for the EPA, according to Nixon however, because putting these functions in a department with other goals could unduly influence the anti-pollution functions. It would require that department to constantly make decisions affecting other departments. Nixon also noted the difference between the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality: "the Council focuses on what our broad policies in the environmental field should be; the EPA would focus on setting and enforcing pollution control standards."
Follow the link below to read the full text.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/reorganization-plansSOURCE
American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara
CITATION
Richard Nixon, "Special Message to the Congress About Reorganization Plans To Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," July 9, 1970
RELATED TAGS
-
Special Message to the Congress on Environmental Quality
UPLOADED 02 December 2020In this speech to Congress, President Nixon argued that abuse of the natural environment had gone on too long. He called for, among other things, "stricter regulations," "expanded government action," "greater citizen involvement," and "new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals" do their jobs and pay their share of costs. He laid out a 37-point program that would comprehensively consider pollution, waste and recreation, rather than treating these in isolation. Under the subject of "Organizing for Action," he argued that deep, widespread environmental problems could only be solved through a "full national effort embracing not only sound, coordinated planning, but also an effective follow-through that reaches into every community." He announced he had directed the Ash Council to study how best to organize the executive to deal with environmental issues.
Follow the link below to read the full text.
In this speech to Congress, President Nixon argued that abuse of the natural environment had gone on too long. He called for, among other things, "stricter regulations," "expanded government action," "greater citizen involvement," and "new programs to ensure that government, industry and individuals" do their jobs and pay their share of costs. He laid out a 37-point program that would comprehensively consider pollution, waste and recreation, rather than treating these in isolation. Under the subject of "Organizing for Action," he argued that deep, widespread environmental problems could only be solved through a "full national effort embracing not only sound, coordinated planning, but also an effective follow-through that reaches into every community." He announced he had directed the Ash Council to study how best to organize the executive to deal with environmental issues.
Follow the link below to read the full text.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/special-message-environmental-qualitySOURCE
American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara
CITATION
Richard Nixon, "Special Message to the Congress on Environmental Quality," February 10, 1970
-
February 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 02 February 2022A People's EPA (APE)
February Newsfeed
-
-
February 22, 2021
EPA Changes Stand, Sides with Ethanol Industry in Court Cases (Iowa AP, February 22, 2021)
-
February 16, 2021
EPA Awards $220M Contracts for Uranium Mine Cleanup (Albuquerque Journal, February 16, 2021)
-
February 12, 2021
Biden EPA Asks D.C. Circuit to Freeze Mandate on Clean Power Plan (Bloomberg Law, February 12, 2021)
-
February 9, 2021
Biden won't Revive Obama's Clean Power Plan. So Now What? (E&E News, February 9, 2021)
EPA Alleges Political Interference by Trump Officials over Toxic Chemical (The Hill, February 9, 2021)
Mary Nichols was the Early Favorite to Run Biden’s EPA, Before She Became a ‘Casualty’(Inside Climate News, February 9, 2021)
-
February 8, 2021
EPA Nominee Regan Touts Collaboration during Senate Confirmation Hearing (The Great Lakes Now, February 8, 2021)
-
February 5, 2021
Biden’s EPA Ends Appeal, Cementing DTE Energy-Sierra Club Settlement (The Detroit News, February 5, 2021)
-
February 3, 2021
Biden’s EPA Nominee Vows ‘Urgency’ on Climate Change (Washington Post, February 3, 2021)
Sen. Duckworth Wants EPA To Install Metal Emission Monitors At Sauget Incinerator (St. Louis Public Radio, February 3, 2021)
-
February 1, 2021
Judge Throws Out Trump Rule Limiting What Science EPA Can Use (Washington Post, February 1, 2021)
A People's EPA (APE)
February Newsfeed
-
-
February 22, 2021
EPA Changes Stand, Sides with Ethanol Industry in Court Cases (Iowa AP, February 22, 2021)
-
February 16, 2021
EPA Awards $220M Contracts for Uranium Mine Cleanup (Albuquerque Journal, February 16, 2021)
-
February 12, 2021
Biden EPA Asks D.C. Circuit to Freeze Mandate on Clean Power Plan (Bloomberg Law, February 12, 2021)
-
February 9, 2021
Biden won't Revive Obama's Clean Power Plan. So Now What? (E&E News, February 9, 2021)
EPA Alleges Political Interference by Trump Officials over Toxic Chemical (The Hill, February 9, 2021)
Mary Nichols was the Early Favorite to Run Biden’s EPA, Before She Became a ‘Casualty’(Inside Climate News, February 9, 2021)
-
February 8, 2021
EPA Nominee Regan Touts Collaboration during Senate Confirmation Hearing (The Great Lakes Now, February 8, 2021)
-
February 5, 2021
Biden’s EPA Ends Appeal, Cementing DTE Energy-Sierra Club Settlement (The Detroit News, February 5, 2021)
-
February 3, 2021
Biden’s EPA Nominee Vows ‘Urgency’ on Climate Change (Washington Post, February 3, 2021)
Sen. Duckworth Wants EPA To Install Metal Emission Monitors At Sauget Incinerator (St. Louis Public Radio, February 3, 2021)
-
February 1, 2021
Judge Throws Out Trump Rule Limiting What Science EPA Can Use (Washington Post, February 1, 2021)
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/february-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, "10 Ways Biden Should Fix the EPA"
UPLOADED 13 April 2021This article argues for the need to remake, not just restore, the EPA in order to tackle growing problems with climate exchange, environmental justice, and toxic pollutants, among other things. It offers ten fixes: 1) take quick action on climate by rejoining the Paris Climate agreement and reversing regulatory rollbacks; 2) restore EPA staff and budget; 3) keep industry out of EPA decision-making; 4) make environmental justice a priority; 5) strengthen safeguards for toxic like lead and vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children; 6) reinvigorate science by funding research, attracting scientists, and incorporating more into decision-making; 7) enforce the law vigorously; 8) better collect, integrate and make accessible data on enforcement and monitoring; 9) steward educational information better; 10) partner with the public on citizen science and public communication and education programs.
This article argues for the need to remake, not just restore, the EPA in order to tackle growing problems with climate exchange, environmental justice, and toxic pollutants, among other things. It offers ten fixes: 1) take quick action on climate by rejoining the Paris Climate agreement and reversing regulatory rollbacks; 2) restore EPA staff and budget; 3) keep industry out of EPA decision-making; 4) make environmental justice a priority; 5) strengthen safeguards for toxic like lead and vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children; 6) reinvigorate science by funding research, attracting scientists, and incorporating more into decision-making; 7) enforce the law vigorously; 8) better collect, integrate and make accessible data on enforcement and monitoring; 9) steward educational information better; 10) partner with the public on citizen science and public communication and education programs.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/environmental-data-governance-initiative-10-ways-biden-should-fix-the-epaSOURCE
CITATION
Marianne Sullivan and Christopher Sellers, “10 Ways Biden Should Fix the EPA,” Vox, December 17, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, "Recommendations to Strengthen EPA and its Mission to Protect Public Health"
UPLOADED 05 March 2021The PRHE collaborated with scientists and chemical policy experts to develop recommendations to improve hazard and risk assessment, and prevent harms from chemicals and pollutants. Its key recommendations were: 1) Assessing hazards and risks of chemicals using more representative definitions of susceptible populations and quantification of risks for all health effects, both cancer and noncancer, at all anticipated levels of exposure. 2) Adoption of a “science-based, validated systemic review” method for evaluation of chemical harms. 3) Ensure outcomes of environmental laws and policies result in equal protection, not environmental disparities. 4) Laws to make science free from financial conflicts of interest from industry. 5) Invest in up-to-date research and data infrastructure to better identify and prioritize harms, risks and interventions.
The PRHE collaborated with scientists and chemical policy experts to develop recommendations to improve hazard and risk assessment, and prevent harms from chemicals and pollutants. Its key recommendations were: 1) Assessing hazards and risks of chemicals using more representative definitions of susceptible populations and quantification of risks for all health effects, both cancer and noncancer, at all anticipated levels of exposure. 2) Adoption of a “science-based, validated systemic review” method for evaluation of chemical harms. 3) Ensure outcomes of environmental laws and policies result in equal protection, not environmental disparities. 4) Laws to make science free from financial conflicts of interest from industry. 5) Invest in up-to-date research and data infrastructure to better identify and prioritize harms, risks and interventions.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/recommendations-to-strengthen-epa-and-its-mission-to-protect-public-healthSOURCE
Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco
CITATION
Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, "Recommendations to Strengthen EPA and its Mission to Protect Public Health," PRHE Blog, no date.
RELATED TAGS
-
Joe Biden for President, “The Biden Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity" (2020)
UPLOADED 13 April 2021Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign laid out a plan for environmental justice that would utilize an “All-of-Government” approach; use data and science to drive decisions; prioritize environmental justice in use of resources; and assess risks to communities from future public health emergencies. Among other things, the plan called for the creation of an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to pursue EJ-related cases in concert with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights. The plan also included an overhaul of the EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office to increase its effectiveness in mitigating impacts for frontline and fenceline communities. Along the same lines, the plan sought public input how the agency should handle Title VI (anti-discrimination) complaints. And it sought to reinstitute a private right of action to sue under Title VI. Regarding the use of data and science, the plan stated that the administration will resuscitate and expand the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, which would assist government agencies and communities in identifying threats to communities. Expansion of data collection and dissemination would include mandated monitoring of frontline and fenceline communities and requirements that industries directly notify communities, in real time, about releases of hazardous and toxic chemicals. The plan included several other policies and programs, some especially relevant to the EPA such as regulations relating to air pollution in disadvantaged communities and water pollution from PFAS.
Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign laid out a plan for environmental justice that would utilize an “All-of-Government” approach; use data and science to drive decisions; prioritize environmental justice in use of resources; and assess risks to communities from future public health emergencies. Among other things, the plan called for the creation of an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to pursue EJ-related cases in concert with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights. The plan also included an overhaul of the EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office to increase its effectiveness in mitigating impacts for frontline and fenceline communities. Along the same lines, the plan sought public input how the agency should handle Title VI (anti-discrimination) complaints. And it sought to reinstitute a private right of action to sue under Title VI. Regarding the use of data and science, the plan stated that the administration will resuscitate and expand the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, which would assist government agencies and communities in identifying threats to communities. Expansion of data collection and dissemination would include mandated monitoring of frontline and fenceline communities and requirements that industries directly notify communities, in real time, about releases of hazardous and toxic chemicals. The plan included several other policies and programs, some especially relevant to the EPA such as regulations relating to air pollution in disadvantaged communities and water pollution from PFAS.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/joe-biden-for-president-the-biden-plan-to-secure-environmental-justice-and-equitable-economic-opportunitySOURCE
CITATION
Joe Biden for President, “The Biden Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity,” Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Joe Biden for President, “The Biden Plan for A Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice" (2020)
UPLOADED 13 April 2021This plan emphasized the transition to a 100% clean energy economy; infrastructure investments to boost the economy and climate resilience; a recommitment to the Paris Agreement; action against fossil fuel polluters, especially in context of environmental justice; and not leaving workers and communities behind in the transition. The EPA’s role in this plan was noted in regard to action against fossil fuel polluters. The Biden plan stated that he would direct the DOJ to pursue criminal cases against violators, including holding corporate executive personally accountable.
This plan emphasized the transition to a 100% clean energy economy; infrastructure investments to boost the economy and climate resilience; a recommitment to the Paris Agreement; action against fossil fuel polluters, especially in context of environmental justice; and not leaving workers and communities behind in the transition. The EPA’s role in this plan was noted in regard to action against fossil fuel polluters. The Biden plan stated that he would direct the DOJ to pursue criminal cases against violators, including holding corporate executive personally accountable.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/joe-biden-for-president-the-biden-plan-for-a-clean-energy-revolution-and-environmental-justiceSOURCE
CITATION
Joe Biden for President, “The Biden Plan for A Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice,” Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Environmental Defense Fund, "With Biden declared the winner, a window opens for climate, equity and public health"
UPLOADED 05 March 2021The EDF called not only repairing, but rebuilding the federal government’s approach to the environment. The organization outlined three priorities: 1) Policies that will allow a fast shift toward renewable energy, including making electrical vehicles and their infrastructure more available. 2) Taking responsibility for climate change, including rejoining the Paris climate agreement and rebuilding scientific staff at the EPA. 3) Protecting communities from environmental health threats, including having the EPA “fulfill its commitment” to President Clinton’s executive order on environmental justice (EO 12898). “It’s not enough to make up for four lost years, we have to rebuild an America that’s healthier and more equitable than it has ever been,” the EDF concluded.
The EDF called not only repairing, but rebuilding the federal government’s approach to the environment. The organization outlined three priorities: 1) Policies that will allow a fast shift toward renewable energy, including making electrical vehicles and their infrastructure more available. 2) Taking responsibility for climate change, including rejoining the Paris climate agreement and rebuilding scientific staff at the EPA. 3) Protecting communities from environmental health threats, including having the EPA “fulfill its commitment” to President Clinton’s executive order on environmental justice (EO 12898). “It’s not enough to make up for four lost years, we have to rebuild an America that’s healthier and more equitable than it has ever been,” the EDF concluded.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/with-biden-declared-the-winner-a-window-opens-for-climate-equity-and-public-healthSOURCE
CITATION
Fred Krupp, "With Biden declared the winner, a window opens for climate, equity and public health," EDF Voices Blog, November 8, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Environmental Protection Network, “Resetting the Course of EPA Report”
UPLOADED 14 April 2021This extensive report, with several substantial supporting documents, from former EPA staff outlined six priorities for renewing the EPA: 1) a reaffirmation from the agency of its commitment to public health and the environment; 2) scientific and economic analysis free from political interference; 3) the incorporation of environmental justice into all aspects of the agency’s work; 4) a focus on the most significant and pervasive public health and environmental risks; 5) innovation and collaboration with other federal agencies, stakeholders and local, state and tribal governments; 6) re-establishment of public trust in the agency through demonstrated action and transparency.
This extensive report, with several substantial supporting documents, from former EPA staff outlined six priorities for renewing the EPA: 1) a reaffirmation from the agency of its commitment to public health and the environment; 2) scientific and economic analysis free from political interference; 3) the incorporation of environmental justice into all aspects of the agency’s work; 4) a focus on the most significant and pervasive public health and environmental risks; 5) innovation and collaboration with other federal agencies, stakeholders and local, state and tribal governments; 6) re-establishment of public trust in the agency through demonstrated action and transparency.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/environmental-protection-network-resetting-the-course-of-epa-reportSOURCE
CITATION
Environmental Protection Network, “Resetting the Course of EPA Report,” Environmental Protection Network, August 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Environment America & U.S. PIRG, “First Things to Fix”
UPLOADED 14 April 2021This report suggested five actions the Biden administration could take early on to protect the environment: 1) rejoin the Paris Climate agreement; 2) repeal the “Dirty Water Rule” (the Trump EPA’s CWA rule from 2020); 3) strengthen EPA fuel economy standards and affirm California’s authority to set emissions standards; 4) withdraw Trump draft 5-year plan on offshore drilling; and 5) restore DOE energy efficiency policy for appliances weakened by the Trump administration.
This report suggested five actions the Biden administration could take early on to protect the environment: 1) rejoin the Paris Climate agreement; 2) repeal the “Dirty Water Rule” (the Trump EPA’s CWA rule from 2020); 3) strengthen EPA fuel economy standards and affirm California’s authority to set emissions standards; 4) withdraw Trump draft 5-year plan on offshore drilling; and 5) restore DOE energy efficiency policy for appliances weakened by the Trump administration.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/environment-america-u-s-pirg-first-things-to-fixSOURCE
CITATION
Environment America & U.S. PIRG, “First Things to Fix,” Environment America Research & Policy Center and U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
EDGI, "Access Denied: Federal Web Governance Under the Trump Administration"
UPLOADED 14 April 2021This report analyzed the Trump administration’s management of federal websites related to environmental regulation and made recommendations for the Biden administration moving forward. The suggestions included: 1) Creating meaningful resources to expand civic and scientific literacy. This would include building ladders of information on websites, incorporating the scientific basis for regulations on websites, and providing mechanisms for public feedback about web resources. 2) Ensuring that resources are available, discoverable and navigable. And that the public is made aware of opportunities for civic engagement. 3) Preserving public web resources. This would include an accessible archive of web resources, requirements for notice and explanation of content removal, and a database describing changes to websites.
This report analyzed the Trump administration’s management of federal websites related to environmental regulation and made recommendations for the Biden administration moving forward. The suggestions included: 1) Creating meaningful resources to expand civic and scientific literacy. This would include building ladders of information on websites, incorporating the scientific basis for regulations on websites, and providing mechanisms for public feedback about web resources. 2) Ensuring that resources are available, discoverable and navigable. And that the public is made aware of opportunities for civic engagement. 3) Preserving public web resources. This would include an accessible archive of web resources, requirements for notice and explanation of content removal, and a database describing changes to websites.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/environmental-data-governance-association-access-denied-federal-web-governance-under-the-trump-administrationSOURCE
CITATION
Gretchen Gehrke, Marcy Beck, Alejandro Paz, Amy Wilson, Eric Nost, Grace Poudrier, EDGI, "Access Denied: Federal Web Governance Under the Trump Administration," Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, February, 2021
RELATED TAGS
-
World Resources Institute, “7 Ways the Biden Administration Can Reverse Climate Rollbacks"
UPLOADED 14 April 2021The World Resources Institute argued that it would not be enough to simply reverse the rollbacks of the Trump administration. The lost time for action during the Trump administration and looming threats meant that the administration needs to “roll forward.” The key ways to do this, the WRI, stated were: 1) return science to the center of decision-making and elevate frontline voices; 2) establish the U.S. as a global climate leader; 3) reinstate emission standards and advance zero-emissions vehicle performance standards; 4) rescind the replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan and develop new standards; 5) reinstate and strengthen methane rules for oil and gas; 6) repeal new methane rule for low-carbon steel and cementer and set new standards; 7) set stronger efficiency standards and encourage building electrification. The recommendations noted the role of the EPA in rescinding and developing regulations and the need to better include frontline community members in decision-making processes at the EPA.
The World Resources Institute argued that it would not be enough to simply reverse the rollbacks of the Trump administration. The lost time for action during the Trump administration and looming threats meant that the administration needs to “roll forward.” The key ways to do this, the WRI, stated were: 1) return science to the center of decision-making and elevate frontline voices; 2) establish the U.S. as a global climate leader; 3) reinstate emission standards and advance zero-emissions vehicle performance standards; 4) rescind the replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan and develop new standards; 5) reinstate and strengthen methane rules for oil and gas; 6) repeal new methane rule for low-carbon steel and cementer and set new standards; 7) set stronger efficiency standards and encourage building electrification. The recommendations noted the role of the EPA in rescinding and developing regulations and the need to better include frontline community members in decision-making processes at the EPA.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/world-resources-institute-7-ways-the-biden-administration-can-reverse-climate-rollbacksSOURCE
CITATION
Tyler Clevenger and Dan Lashof, “7 Ways the Biden Administration Can Reverse Climate Rollbacks,” World Resources Institute, January 19, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, “The First 3 Things Biden’s EPA Must Do to Protect Americans from Toxic Chemicals"
UPLOADED 14 April 2021Safer Chemicals, Health Families group was encouraged by President Biden’s initial executive orders directing EPA to review actions by the Trump administration related to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). They were also encouraged to see three items on Biden’s “Build Back Better” list that accorded with their priorities: 1) Develop a ban, or stronger protections, for methylene chloride; 2) revisit regulations related to persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals to comply with TSCA; 3) reconsider chemical risks to include all conditions of use when evaluating chemicals.
Safer Chemicals, Health Families group was encouraged by President Biden’s initial executive orders directing EPA to review actions by the Trump administration related to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). They were also encouraged to see three items on Biden’s “Build Back Better” list that accorded with their priorities: 1) Develop a ban, or stronger protections, for methylene chloride; 2) revisit regulations related to persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals to comply with TSCA; 3) reconsider chemical risks to include all conditions of use when evaluating chemicals.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/safer-chemicals-healthy-families-the-first-3-things-biden-s-epa-must-do-to-protect-americans-from-toxic-chemicalsSOURCE
CITATION
Liz Hitchcock, “The First 3 Things Biden’s EPA Must Do to Protect Americans from Toxic Chemicals,” Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (blog), February 1, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Moms Clean Air Force, “What President Biden Should Do about Climate Change and Air Pollution"
UPLOADED 14 April 2021Moms Clean Air Force argued that the “Biden administration must leap into the future with a bold, ambitious plan to cut climate and air pollution.” MCAF was encouraged by the early actions of the Biden administration including rejoining the Paris Climate Accord and issuing executive orders related to the restoration of the role of the federal government in environmental protection. Going forward, MCAF wanted “bold and ambitious action” from the EPA. The top priorities include: 1) restoration of science as the foundation guiding the CAA; 2) fix Trump rollbacks that threaten air quality; 3) cut pollution from cars, trucks and buses; 4) cut pollution from power generators; 5) cut methane emissions from oil and gas development; 6) properly implement the Toxic Substances Control Act; 7) reconsider regulation of the Chlorpyrifos pesticide; 8) tighten and enforce regulations of refiners and cracker plants.
Moms Clean Air Force argued that the “Biden administration must leap into the future with a bold, ambitious plan to cut climate and air pollution.” MCAF was encouraged by the early actions of the Biden administration including rejoining the Paris Climate Accord and issuing executive orders related to the restoration of the role of the federal government in environmental protection. Going forward, MCAF wanted “bold and ambitious action” from the EPA. The top priorities include: 1) restoration of science as the foundation guiding the CAA; 2) fix Trump rollbacks that threaten air quality; 3) cut pollution from cars, trucks and buses; 4) cut pollution from power generators; 5) cut methane emissions from oil and gas development; 6) properly implement the Toxic Substances Control Act; 7) reconsider regulation of the Chlorpyrifos pesticide; 8) tighten and enforce regulations of refiners and cracker plants.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/moms-clean-air-force-what-president-biden-should-do-about-climate-change-and-air-pollutionSOURCE
CITATION
Moms Clean Air Force, “What President Biden Should Do about Climate Change and Air Pollution,” Accessed March 3, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Union of Concerned Scientists, “Presidential Recommendations for 2020"
UPLOADED 14 April 2021The Union of Concerned Scientists argued that the next president after Trump needed to show leadership in restoring and strengthening the use of science in government. The UCS outlined four general areas of focus: 1) promoting science-based decision making; 2) strengthening scientific integrity; 3) enforcing transparency in decision making; 4) addressing conflicts of interest; 5) safeguarding government scientists; 6) fostering public participation in decision making; and 7) protecting democratic processes. Within these areas, the UCS identified dozens of specific policy recommendations, many of which targeted the EPA. These included ways to better include frontline communities in decision making; maintaining transparency in science at the EPA without obstructing or sidelining the use of good scientific data; and reducing the influence of industrial interests who undermine scientific decision making.
The Union of Concerned Scientists argued that the next president after Trump needed to show leadership in restoring and strengthening the use of science in government. The UCS outlined four general areas of focus: 1) promoting science-based decision making; 2) strengthening scientific integrity; 3) enforcing transparency in decision making; 4) addressing conflicts of interest; 5) safeguarding government scientists; 6) fostering public participation in decision making; and 7) protecting democratic processes. Within these areas, the UCS identified dozens of specific policy recommendations, many of which targeted the EPA. These included ways to better include frontline communities in decision making; maintaining transparency in science at the EPA without obstructing or sidelining the use of good scientific data; and reducing the influence of industrial interests who undermine scientific decision making.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/union-of-concerned-scientists-presidential-recommendations-for-2020SOURCE
CITATION
Jacob Carter, Taryn MacKinney, Genna Reed, and Gretchen Goldman, “Presidential Recommendations for 2020,” Union of Concerned Scientists, January 29, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
July 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 14 July 2021A People's EPA (APE)
July Newsfeed
-
-
July 31, 2021
Enbridge's Pipeline 3 Threatens an Endangered Species - Contact The EPA (CleanTechnica, July 31, 2021)
Agency Wrong to Stop Regulating Rosemont Mine Site's Streams, Washes, EPA Says (Tucson.com, July 31, 2021).
July 30, 2021
Is Kyrsten Sinema Going to Think About Arizona's (Scary) Future When It Comes to These Infrastructure Bills? (Esquire, July 30, 2021).
James Reaches Agreement with EPA to Crack Down on Air Pollution (WWTI, July 30, 2021).
-
July 29, 2021
EPA Requires Manufacturers to report PFAS Exposures and Hazards (National Law Review, July 29, 2021).
-
July 28, 2021
Momentum Builds for Permanent End to Pebble Mine (NRDC, July 28, 2021).
Defense Department Is Not Protecting Service Members From Toxic "Forever Chemicals" (US News, July 28, 2021).
EPA Fines Oelwein Company for Hazardous Waste Violation (Radio Iowa, July 28, 2021).
Helena Says Ten Mile Creek Was Much More Contaminated than EPA Reported (Helena Independent Record, July 28, 2021).
-
July 27, 2021
EPA: Elmira Heights Site That's Been on Superfund List Almost 40 Years Needs More Work (Star Gazette, July 27, 2021).
Biden Plan Would Tighten Mileage For New Cars Over the Next Four Years (Washington Post, July 27, 2021).
The EPA Will Revise a Trump-Era Rule on Toxic Wastewater From Coal Plants (The New York Times, July 27, 2021).
EPA Begins Hazardous Waste Cleanup in Rock Island (NPR wvik, July 27, 2021).
Nearly 140 Democrats Urge EPA to "Promptly" Allow California to Set Its Own Vehicle Standards (The Hill, July 27, 2021).
-
July 26, 2021
EPA Fine Sours Yakima Cold-Storage Owner (Capital Press, July 26, 2021).
-
July 24, 2021
Biden Administration's Environmental Justice Initiative Kicks Into Gear (Newsone, July 24, 2021).
-
July 23, 2021
EPA Orders $65,250 Penalty For Pesticide Company (Associate Press, July 23, 2021).
-
July 22, 2021
EPA Gives Jackson City Officials Timeline to Begin Addressing City's Water Issues (The Clarion-Ledger, July 22, 2021).
-
July 21, 2021
The Western Drought Is Worse Than You Think. Here's Why (E&E News, July 21, 2021).
US: Groups Sue Environmental Protection Agency Over Approval of Toxic Herbicide (hortidaily.com, July 21, 2021).
Residents Express Outrage at Republic Over Lead, EPA Promises More Measures (The Canton Repository, July 21, 2021).
House Passes Bill Requiring EPA to Regulate "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water (The Hill, July 21, 2021).
-
July 20, 2021
PFAS/RCRA: New Mexico Petitions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Initiate Hazardous Waste Listing (JDSUPRA, July 20, 2021).
Detection of Toxic PFAS Chemicals Increases to 2,790 Communities (EWG, July 20, 2021).
Biden Will Not Back Down on Climate Plans, EPA Chief Says (Financial Times, July 20, 2021).
The EPA Needs to Reject Louisiana's Regional Haze Plan Until It Complies With The Clean Air Act (CleanTechnica, July 20, 2021).
-
July 19, 2021
Trump Administration's Clean Water Rule to Remain as Agencies Seek Its Revision (JD Supra, July 19, 2021).
EPA Orders Clarksburg to Provide Clean Water Amidst Lead Cases (West Virginia Daily News, July 19, 2021).
EPA Takes Up Environmental Justice Complaint Against Philly's Permit for SEPTA Power Plant in Nicetown (WHYY PBS, July 19, 2021)
-
July 18, 2021
EPA to Squeeze on Aftermarket Car Part Sellers Hurts Classic Car Industry, Lankford Says (Yahoo News, July 18, 2021).
-
July 17, 2021
Milwaukee and Madison Receive $200,000 Each from EPA for Environmental Justice Initiatives (Milwaukee Courier, July 17, 2021).
-
July 15, 2021
Biden to Restore Protections for Tongass National Forest in Alaska (The New York Times, July 15, 2021).
New Data on "Forever Chemicals" Prompts Calls for More Transparency (The Hill, July 15, 2021).
-
July 14, 2021
EPA Considers Placing Limits on "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water (The Guardian, July 14, 2021).
Senate Committee Approves EPA, Commerce Nominees (E&E News, July 14, 2021).
-
July 13, 2021
EPA: Tenmile Creek Spill Poses No Environmental Impact (Helena Independent Record, July 13, 2021).
AP Interview: EPA Water Chief on Clean Water Protections (Associated Press, July 13, 2021).
White House Appoints New Director to Steer Key Climate Change Report (The Washington Post, July 13, 2021).
Biden Administration Taps EPA Scientist Allison Crimmins to Lead Key Climate Report (CNN, July 13, 2021).
Your Trash is Emitting Methane In The Landfill. Here's Why It Matters For The Climate (NPR, July 13, 2021).
EPA: 11,000 Facilities Illegally Discharged Pollutants Into Nearby Waters in 2018 (The Hill, July 13, 2021).
-
July 12, 2021
EPA Seeks Public Comments on Legal Petition to Cancel Seresto Flea Collars Linked to Deaths of Nearly 1,700 Pets (Center for Biological Diversity, July 12, 2021).
Documents Show EPA Staff Concerns Over PFAS in Fracking (E&E News, July 12, 2021).
EPA to Expand Groundwater Investigation at Landfill Superfund Site in Lapeer County (mlive.com, July 12, 2021).
EPA Agrees to Reevaluate Trump-Era Washington State Water Quality Rollbacks (Earthjustice, July 12, 2021).
E.P.A. Approved Toxic Chemicals for Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show (The New York Times, July 12, 2021).
-
July 9, 2021:
EPA Joins West Virginia DHHR in Assisting with Lead Water Lines in Clarksburg Water System (WVNews, July 9, 2021).
EPA Dumps Trump-Backed COVID-19 Disinfectant (E&E News, July 9, 2021).
SOCMA Asks EPA to Uphold Revisions Made in 2019 RMP Final Rule (Yahoo Finance, July 9, 2021).
-
July 8, 2021:
EPA Opposes Permit for Pipeline Crossings (WDBJ.com, July 8, 2021).
-
July 7, 2021:
"We Know That People Need Help" - EPA Administrator Visits Flint (ClickOn Detroit, July 7, 2021).
Use Radioactive Gypsum Waste for Road Construction? Never mind, EPA Says (nola.com, July 7, 2021).
War on Science Persists Within Biden EPA as Staffers Allege Chemical Reports Altered (Common Dreams, July 7, 2021).
-
July 6, 2021
EPA Chief Visits Milwaukee, Leaders Say Federal Funding Provides Opportunity to Replace Lead Lines (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 6, 2021).
Federal Court Reverses EPA Rule on Year-Round E15 (NorthDakota.com, July 6, 2021).
EPA Faces Challenges Addressing SIPs (EHS Daily Advisor, July 6, 2021).
EPA Planning a Public Meeting on the Cleanup of Exide Superfund Site in Berks (Reading Eagle, July 6, 2021).
-
July 5, 2021
Focus Shifts to EPA on Methane Regulation After Biden Action (The Hill, July 5, 2021).
-
July 4, 2021
Former Obama EPA Official: Biden Infrastructure Plan "Strips Out" Black and Brown Communities (MSNBC, July 4, 2021).
-
July 3, 2021
Court Strikes Trump EPA Rule for Full-Year 15 Percent Ethanol Sales (The Independent, July 3, 2021).
-
July 2, 2021
EPA Withdraws Rule Allowing Use of Radioactive Material in Road Construction (The Hill, July 2, 2021).
-
July 1, 2021
House Democrats Unite to Send Firm Climate Signal to Biden (Politico, July 1, 2021).
Biden EPA to Reassess Trump-Era Chemical Health Findings (The Hill, July 1, 2021).
EPA Employees Fight for Contract That Will Protect Them Against Future Administrations (The Hill, July 1, 2021)
A People's EPA (APE)
July Newsfeed
-
-
July 31, 2021
Enbridge's Pipeline 3 Threatens an Endangered Species - Contact The EPA (CleanTechnica, July 31, 2021)
Agency Wrong to Stop Regulating Rosemont Mine Site's Streams, Washes, EPA Says (Tucson.com, July 31, 2021).
July 30, 2021
Is Kyrsten Sinema Going to Think About Arizona's (Scary) Future When It Comes to These Infrastructure Bills? (Esquire, July 30, 2021).
James Reaches Agreement with EPA to Crack Down on Air Pollution (WWTI, July 30, 2021).
-
July 29, 2021
EPA Requires Manufacturers to report PFAS Exposures and Hazards (National Law Review, July 29, 2021).
-
July 28, 2021
Momentum Builds for Permanent End to Pebble Mine (NRDC, July 28, 2021).
Defense Department Is Not Protecting Service Members From Toxic "Forever Chemicals" (US News, July 28, 2021).
EPA Fines Oelwein Company for Hazardous Waste Violation (Radio Iowa, July 28, 2021).
Helena Says Ten Mile Creek Was Much More Contaminated than EPA Reported (Helena Independent Record, July 28, 2021).
-
July 27, 2021
EPA: Elmira Heights Site That's Been on Superfund List Almost 40 Years Needs More Work (Star Gazette, July 27, 2021).
Biden Plan Would Tighten Mileage For New Cars Over the Next Four Years (Washington Post, July 27, 2021).
The EPA Will Revise a Trump-Era Rule on Toxic Wastewater From Coal Plants (The New York Times, July 27, 2021).
EPA Begins Hazardous Waste Cleanup in Rock Island (NPR wvik, July 27, 2021).
Nearly 140 Democrats Urge EPA to "Promptly" Allow California to Set Its Own Vehicle Standards (The Hill, July 27, 2021).
-
July 26, 2021
EPA Fine Sours Yakima Cold-Storage Owner (Capital Press, July 26, 2021).
-
July 24, 2021
Biden Administration's Environmental Justice Initiative Kicks Into Gear (Newsone, July 24, 2021).
-
July 23, 2021
EPA Orders $65,250 Penalty For Pesticide Company (Associate Press, July 23, 2021).
-
July 22, 2021
EPA Gives Jackson City Officials Timeline to Begin Addressing City's Water Issues (The Clarion-Ledger, July 22, 2021).
-
July 21, 2021
The Western Drought Is Worse Than You Think. Here's Why (E&E News, July 21, 2021).
US: Groups Sue Environmental Protection Agency Over Approval of Toxic Herbicide (hortidaily.com, July 21, 2021).
Residents Express Outrage at Republic Over Lead, EPA Promises More Measures (The Canton Repository, July 21, 2021).
House Passes Bill Requiring EPA to Regulate "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water (The Hill, July 21, 2021).
-
July 20, 2021
PFAS/RCRA: New Mexico Petitions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Initiate Hazardous Waste Listing (JDSUPRA, July 20, 2021).
Detection of Toxic PFAS Chemicals Increases to 2,790 Communities (EWG, July 20, 2021).
Biden Will Not Back Down on Climate Plans, EPA Chief Says (Financial Times, July 20, 2021).
The EPA Needs to Reject Louisiana's Regional Haze Plan Until It Complies With The Clean Air Act (CleanTechnica, July 20, 2021).
-
July 19, 2021
Trump Administration's Clean Water Rule to Remain as Agencies Seek Its Revision (JD Supra, July 19, 2021).
EPA Orders Clarksburg to Provide Clean Water Amidst Lead Cases (West Virginia Daily News, July 19, 2021).
EPA Takes Up Environmental Justice Complaint Against Philly's Permit for SEPTA Power Plant in Nicetown (WHYY PBS, July 19, 2021)
-
July 18, 2021
EPA to Squeeze on Aftermarket Car Part Sellers Hurts Classic Car Industry, Lankford Says (Yahoo News, July 18, 2021).
-
July 17, 2021
Milwaukee and Madison Receive $200,000 Each from EPA for Environmental Justice Initiatives (Milwaukee Courier, July 17, 2021).
-
July 15, 2021
Biden to Restore Protections for Tongass National Forest in Alaska (The New York Times, July 15, 2021).
New Data on "Forever Chemicals" Prompts Calls for More Transparency (The Hill, July 15, 2021).
-
July 14, 2021
EPA Considers Placing Limits on "Forever Chemicals" in Drinking Water (The Guardian, July 14, 2021).
Senate Committee Approves EPA, Commerce Nominees (E&E News, July 14, 2021).
-
July 13, 2021
EPA: Tenmile Creek Spill Poses No Environmental Impact (Helena Independent Record, July 13, 2021).
AP Interview: EPA Water Chief on Clean Water Protections (Associated Press, July 13, 2021).
White House Appoints New Director to Steer Key Climate Change Report (The Washington Post, July 13, 2021).
Biden Administration Taps EPA Scientist Allison Crimmins to Lead Key Climate Report (CNN, July 13, 2021).
Your Trash is Emitting Methane In The Landfill. Here's Why It Matters For The Climate (NPR, July 13, 2021).
EPA: 11,000 Facilities Illegally Discharged Pollutants Into Nearby Waters in 2018 (The Hill, July 13, 2021).
-
July 12, 2021
EPA Seeks Public Comments on Legal Petition to Cancel Seresto Flea Collars Linked to Deaths of Nearly 1,700 Pets (Center for Biological Diversity, July 12, 2021).
Documents Show EPA Staff Concerns Over PFAS in Fracking (E&E News, July 12, 2021).
EPA to Expand Groundwater Investigation at Landfill Superfund Site in Lapeer County (mlive.com, July 12, 2021).
EPA Agrees to Reevaluate Trump-Era Washington State Water Quality Rollbacks (Earthjustice, July 12, 2021).
E.P.A. Approved Toxic Chemicals for Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show (The New York Times, July 12, 2021).
-
July 9, 2021:
EPA Joins West Virginia DHHR in Assisting with Lead Water Lines in Clarksburg Water System (WVNews, July 9, 2021).
EPA Dumps Trump-Backed COVID-19 Disinfectant (E&E News, July 9, 2021).
SOCMA Asks EPA to Uphold Revisions Made in 2019 RMP Final Rule (Yahoo Finance, July 9, 2021).
-
July 8, 2021:
EPA Opposes Permit for Pipeline Crossings (WDBJ.com, July 8, 2021).
-
July 7, 2021:
"We Know That People Need Help" - EPA Administrator Visits Flint (ClickOn Detroit, July 7, 2021).
Use Radioactive Gypsum Waste for Road Construction? Never mind, EPA Says (nola.com, July 7, 2021).
War on Science Persists Within Biden EPA as Staffers Allege Chemical Reports Altered (Common Dreams, July 7, 2021).
-
July 6, 2021
EPA Chief Visits Milwaukee, Leaders Say Federal Funding Provides Opportunity to Replace Lead Lines (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 6, 2021).
Federal Court Reverses EPA Rule on Year-Round E15 (NorthDakota.com, July 6, 2021).
EPA Faces Challenges Addressing SIPs (EHS Daily Advisor, July 6, 2021).
EPA Planning a Public Meeting on the Cleanup of Exide Superfund Site in Berks (Reading Eagle, July 6, 2021).
-
July 5, 2021
Focus Shifts to EPA on Methane Regulation After Biden Action (The Hill, July 5, 2021).
-
July 4, 2021
Former Obama EPA Official: Biden Infrastructure Plan "Strips Out" Black and Brown Communities (MSNBC, July 4, 2021).
-
July 3, 2021
Court Strikes Trump EPA Rule for Full-Year 15 Percent Ethanol Sales (The Independent, July 3, 2021).
-
July 2, 2021
EPA Withdraws Rule Allowing Use of Radioactive Material in Road Construction (The Hill, July 2, 2021).
-
July 1, 2021
House Democrats Unite to Send Firm Climate Signal to Biden (Politico, July 1, 2021).
Biden EPA to Reassess Trump-Era Chemical Health Findings (The Hill, July 1, 2021).
EPA Employees Fight for Contract That Will Protect Them Against Future Administrations (The Hill, July 1, 2021)
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/july-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
Joel Mintz, “Biden Can Restore the EPA, but It Will Require Steadfast Effort"
UPLOADED 15 July 2021In his article, Joel Mintz identifies that the work to restore the EPA must include the reinstitution of effective practices which were curtailed by the Trump administration, while simultaneously expanding the agency’s workforce and talent. Specifically, the EPA should 1) significantly increase its full-time equivalent workforce; 2) return to a model of scientifically-based policy to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis; 3) assign a team of agency scientists to identify the most harmful Trump administration policies for priority action and reversal; 4) restore the prior EPA model of deterrent enforcement; 5) recruit new personnel, especially criminal investigators, lawyers, and engineers; and 6) augment punitive deterrence by publicizing enforcement work.
In his article, Joel Mintz identifies that the work to restore the EPA must include the reinstitution of effective practices which were curtailed by the Trump administration, while simultaneously expanding the agency’s workforce and talent. Specifically, the EPA should 1) significantly increase its full-time equivalent workforce; 2) return to a model of scientifically-based policy to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis; 3) assign a team of agency scientists to identify the most harmful Trump administration policies for priority action and reversal; 4) restore the prior EPA model of deterrent enforcement; 5) recruit new personnel, especially criminal investigators, lawyers, and engineers; and 6) augment punitive deterrence by publicizing enforcement work.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/joel-mintz-biden-can-restore-the-epa-but-it-will-require-steadfast-effortSOURCE
Biden can restore the EPA, but it will require steadfast effort.
CITATION
Joel Mintz, “Biden Can Restore the EPA, but It Will Require Steadfast Effort.” Salon, December 27, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Steve Cohen, “Rebuilding America’s Environmental Agencies and Environmental Consensus”
UPLOADED 15 July 2021Cohen begins the article by reviewing that environmental policy emerged in the 1970s, around when the United States began to shift to a service economy. Although contemporary Americans are open to arguments that green policies kill jobs, most still desire healthy and safe communities. To restore the EPA after it was dismantled in the Trump era, President Biden must 1) restore competent nonpartisan management of the EPA, NOAA, and Department of the Interior; 2) draw mission-driven professionals to federal service; 3) replace weakened environmental regulations with more effective and tougher policies than those lost in the Trump era; 4) decarbonize the American energy system through an infrastructure program that offers tax incentives to industries; 5) re-start American leadership in climate diplomacy; 6) accommodate businesses who are making efforts in good faith to comply with environmental policy; 7) develop a hardline position against environmental poisons. Creativity is key in environmental policy, undertaken by both the government and corporations working in concert.
Cohen begins the article by reviewing that environmental policy emerged in the 1970s, around when the United States began to shift to a service economy. Although contemporary Americans are open to arguments that green policies kill jobs, most still desire healthy and safe communities. To restore the EPA after it was dismantled in the Trump era, President Biden must 1) restore competent nonpartisan management of the EPA, NOAA, and Department of the Interior; 2) draw mission-driven professionals to federal service; 3) replace weakened environmental regulations with more effective and tougher policies than those lost in the Trump era; 4) decarbonize the American energy system through an infrastructure program that offers tax incentives to industries; 5) re-start American leadership in climate diplomacy; 6) accommodate businesses who are making efforts in good faith to comply with environmental policy; 7) develop a hardline position against environmental poisons. Creativity is key in environmental policy, undertaken by both the government and corporations working in concert.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/steve-cohen-rebuilding-america-s-environmental-agencies-and-environmental-consensusSOURCE
Rebuilding America's Environmental Agencies and Environmental Consensus
CITATION
Steve Cohen, “Rebuilding America’s Environmental Agencies and Environmental Consensus.” State of the Planet, November 9, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Earthjustice “Until the Earth Thrives, We Will Never Rest”
UPLOADED 15 July 2021This blog post by Earthjustice highlights the organization’s courtroom battles—and victories—over the last four years. The page offers links to several court cases: 1) the prevention of a corporate ploy to weaken the Clean Water Act in Hawai’i; 2) the protection of the Arctic against industrial exploitation, especially dirty energy such as oil and gas drilling; 3) the revocation of the Dakota Access Pipeline’s permits at Standing Rock and requirement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the pipeline project’s environmental impact; 4) providing assistance to grassroots organizations to end and resist dirty energy companies from establishing oil or coal terminals in Washington state; 5) the protection of grizzly bears populations in Yellowstone from trophy hunting; 6) the prevention of the Pebble Mine project from being granted a permit in Bristol Bay, protecting its waters and wild salmon; 7) advancing the transition from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy; and 8) protecting endangered species and regional biodiversity by reducing fossil fuel development, deforestation, and industrial development.
This blog post by Earthjustice highlights the organization’s courtroom battles—and victories—over the last four years. The page offers links to several court cases: 1) the prevention of a corporate ploy to weaken the Clean Water Act in Hawai’i; 2) the protection of the Arctic against industrial exploitation, especially dirty energy such as oil and gas drilling; 3) the revocation of the Dakota Access Pipeline’s permits at Standing Rock and requirement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the pipeline project’s environmental impact; 4) providing assistance to grassroots organizations to end and resist dirty energy companies from establishing oil or coal terminals in Washington state; 5) the protection of grizzly bears populations in Yellowstone from trophy hunting; 6) the prevention of the Pebble Mine project from being granted a permit in Bristol Bay, protecting its waters and wild salmon; 7) advancing the transition from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy; and 8) protecting endangered species and regional biodiversity by reducing fossil fuel development, deforestation, and industrial development.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/earthjustice-until-the-earth-thrives-we-will-never-restSOURCE
CITATION
Earthjustice “Until the Earth Thrives, We Will Never Rest” Earthjustice, January 19, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Nature Editors, “How to Rebuild the US Environmental Protection Agency”
UPLOADED 15 July 2021This Nature editorial reviews the long attack, exacerbated by the Trump administration, on the EPA under the guise of economic growth. The authors argue for a return to science, competent leadership, and the construction of an administrative structure that can and will exist in perpetuity. To do so, President Biden must 1) strengthen the agency’s existing structure to prevent any future administrations from strangling science-based evidence and policy; 2) rebuild the EPA’s in-house science team, filling and strengthening positions such as the assistant administrator for the EPA’s research division (the Office of Research and Development), a separate chief scientist for the agency, and the scientific-integrity official; 3) structure staffing to promote honesty and transparency over obedience; 4) appoint competent staff in the White House Office of Science and Technology to oversee scientific integrity across federal agencies; 4) insulate the agency by codifying scientific integrity in congressional policy through legislation; and 5) appoint a competent, visionary, and dedicated EPA administrator to lead the EPA according to a long-term mission of environmental protection.
This Nature editorial reviews the long attack, exacerbated by the Trump administration, on the EPA under the guise of economic growth. The authors argue for a return to science, competent leadership, and the construction of an administrative structure that can and will exist in perpetuity. To do so, President Biden must 1) strengthen the agency’s existing structure to prevent any future administrations from strangling science-based evidence and policy; 2) rebuild the EPA’s in-house science team, filling and strengthening positions such as the assistant administrator for the EPA’s research division (the Office of Research and Development), a separate chief scientist for the agency, and the scientific-integrity official; 3) structure staffing to promote honesty and transparency over obedience; 4) appoint competent staff in the White House Office of Science and Technology to oversee scientific integrity across federal agencies; 4) insulate the agency by codifying scientific integrity in congressional policy through legislation; and 5) appoint a competent, visionary, and dedicated EPA administrator to lead the EPA according to a long-term mission of environmental protection.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/nature-editors-how-to-rebuild-the-us-environmental-protection-agencySOURCE
CITATION
Nature Editors, “How to Rebuild the US Environmental Protection Agency,” Nature, December 16, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Stan Meiburg, “Restoring the EPA: Lessons from the Past"
UPLOADED 15 July 2021In this article, Meiburg begins by reviewing the Trump administration’s unprecedented commitment to undermine the EPA. Not only did senior Trump officials, consumed by climate denial, use their understanding of the EPA’s regulatory structure to enact far-reaching changes to the agency, the challenges of climate change, environmental injustice, and chemical harm to the environment create a bureaucratic and environmental challenge for President Biden. Likewise, the Trump EPA worked to curtail state’s powers to legislate and enforce environmental policies through cutting operating grants, limiting the Clean Water Act, and opposing state climate initiatives. Rebuilding the EPA will require forward-looking businesses who recognize the threats of climate change, market systems that generate efficient environmental protection, and that the EPA re-embrace Ruckelshaus’s core values of science, law, and transparency to regenerate confidence in the agency both inside and out.
In this article, Meiburg begins by reviewing the Trump administration’s unprecedented commitment to undermine the EPA. Not only did senior Trump officials, consumed by climate denial, use their understanding of the EPA’s regulatory structure to enact far-reaching changes to the agency, the challenges of climate change, environmental injustice, and chemical harm to the environment create a bureaucratic and environmental challenge for President Biden. Likewise, the Trump EPA worked to curtail state’s powers to legislate and enforce environmental policies through cutting operating grants, limiting the Clean Water Act, and opposing state climate initiatives. Rebuilding the EPA will require forward-looking businesses who recognize the threats of climate change, market systems that generate efficient environmental protection, and that the EPA re-embrace Ruckelshaus’s core values of science, law, and transparency to regenerate confidence in the agency both inside and out.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/stan-meiburg-restoring-the-epa-lessons-from-the-pastSOURCE
CITATION
Stan Meiburg, “Restoring the EPA: Lessons from the Past,” The Hill, January 26, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Rebecca Hersher, “Hope and Skepticism as Biden Promises to Address Environmental Racism"
UPLOADED 15 July 2021Hersher’s article begins by reviewing how, historically, the U.S. government has been either involved in, or a perpetrator, or environmental racism, with race the strongest predictor of proximity to toxic sites and inequitable environmental regulation. To address both historic and Trump era damages, Hersher quotes academics, advocates, and government officials to provide a series of suggestions on how to strengthen human and environmental protection. 1) The EPA must listen to, and build relationships of trust with vulnerable communities, especially those disproportionately suffering from the effects of pollution; 2) Clinton’s 1994 executive order addressing environmental racism must be expanded and updated; 3) funds must be provided to assist communities afflicted by both the COVID19 pandemic and chronic pollution; 4) legislation must be enacted to allow low-income communities and communities of color to sue the government regarding disproportionate pollution.
Hersher’s article begins by reviewing how, historically, the U.S. government has been either involved in, or a perpetrator, or environmental racism, with race the strongest predictor of proximity to toxic sites and inequitable environmental regulation. To address both historic and Trump era damages, Hersher quotes academics, advocates, and government officials to provide a series of suggestions on how to strengthen human and environmental protection. 1) The EPA must listen to, and build relationships of trust with vulnerable communities, especially those disproportionately suffering from the effects of pollution; 2) Clinton’s 1994 executive order addressing environmental racism must be expanded and updated; 3) funds must be provided to assist communities afflicted by both the COVID19 pandemic and chronic pollution; 4) legislation must be enacted to allow low-income communities and communities of color to sue the government regarding disproportionate pollution.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/rebecca-hershey-hope-and-skepticism-as-biden-promises-to-address-environmental-racismSOURCE
Hope and Skepticism as Biden Promises to Address Environmental Racism.
CITATION
Rebecca Hersher, “Hope and Skepticism as Biden Promises to Address Environmental Racism,” NPR, January 29, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
August 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 08 August 2021A People's EPA (APE)
August Newsfeed
-
-
August 31, 2021
Interior Department Posts New Lease Sales a Week After Resumption Announcement (The Hill, August 31, 2021).
At a Fossil Fuels Summit, the Climate Crisis Is Totally Under Control (Jacobin, August 31, 2021).
To Save Lake Tahoe, They Spared No Expense. The Fire Came Over the Ridge Anyway (The New York Times, August 31, 2021)
EPA Expected to Act Soon on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (Environmental Defense Fund, August 31, 2021).
EPA Eyes Risk More People Face From Two Plastic Softeners (Bloomberg Law, August 31, 2021).
Judge Scraps Red State Lawsuit Over Biden Carbon Metric (E&E News, August 31, 2021).
August 30, 2021
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Rule Governing Water Pollution (The New York Times, August 30, 2021).
U.S. Regulator Tells White House it will Step Up Enforcement of Oil and Gas Conglomerates (The Washington Post, August 30, 2021).
U.S. EPA approves emergency fuel waivers for Louisiana, Mississippi during Hurricane Ida (Reuters, August 30, 2021).
EPA Reissues Temperature TMDLs in the Columbia and Lower Snake Rivers (National Law Review, August 30, 2021).
August 27, 2021
California's 'Cantaloupe Center' Struggles to Reign Supreme As Drought Pummels Agriculture Across the West (The Washington Post, August 27, 2021).
Trump EPA Ignored Scientists Warnings On Miss. Project: Docs (E&E News, August 27, 2021)
EPA: Bee-Killing Pesticide Harms Most Endangered Species (E&E News, August 27, 2021).
EPA is Falsifying Risk Assessments for Dangerous Chemicals, Says Whistleblowers (The Guardian, August 27, 2021).
-
August 26, 2021
EPA Takes Over Raritan Bay Superfund Study from Company Responsible for Cleanup (nj.com, August 26, 2021)
-
August 25, 2021
EPA Receives 50 New Requests for WIFIA Financing Totaling Over $8 Billion Dollars (Water & Wastes Digest, August 25, 2021).
EPA Takes Action to Protect Pacific Salmon from Pesticides (EcoWatch, August 25, 2021).
County of Santa Clara Files Petition Urging EPA to Initiate Nationwide Ban on Leaded Aviation Gasoline (County of Santa Clara Newsroom, August 25, 2021).
Interior Keeps Slashing Royalty Rates for Coal Companies (E&E News, August 25, 2021)
Interior Announces First Oil Drilling Sales of the Biden Era (E&E News, August 25, 2021).
-
August 24, 2021
Biden Aims to Remove All Lead Pipes. Will EPA Follow Suit? (E&E News, August 24, 2021)
Scientists Say the World Urgently Needs to Cut Methane Emissions. The Politics Aren't As Simple (Politico, August 24, 2021).
Groups Ask EPA to Regulate Lead Pollution Around Nation's Airports (Earthjustice, August 24, 2021).
Calls for Ninth Circuit to Revoke EPA CWA Delegation of NPDES Authority to the State of Washington (National Law Review, August 24, 2021).
White House Warned EPA Its Auto Emissions Plan Was Too Weak (Bloomberg Law, August 24, 2021).
-
August 23, 2021
As the West Bakes Utah Forges Ahead With Water Pipeline (E&E News, August 23, 2021).
EPA: 1.6 Billion RINs Generated in July (Ethanol Producer Magazine, August 23, 2021).
Bay Area Gets $168 Million EPA Water Investment Loans (ENR, August 23, 2021).
Historic Visit from EPA Chief Puts Spotlight on Environmental Disaster in South Bay (KUSI, August 23, 2021).
-
August 22, 2021
EPA Expected to Send Biofuel Quota Draft to White House (Oilprice.com, August 22, 2021).
-
August 20, 2021
Fracking linked to surface water quality for the first time (The Hill, August 20, 2021).
The EPA just ordered this Illinois city to fix its sewage problem again (Grist, August 20, 2021).
EPA Announces Electronic Process for Submitting Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements (JDSupra, August 20, 2021).
-
August 19, 2021
NPS Pick Has Never Managed a Park, But That May Not Matter (E&E News, August 19, 2021).
As Biden Urges Global Warming Action, Courts Shape Climate Policy at Home (Washington Post, August 19, 2021).
More fires, weather events cause strain on fire and smoke computers (KCRA2, August 19, 2021).
Formaldehyde causes leukemia, according to EPA assessment suppressed by Trump officials (The Intercept, August 19, 2021).
-
August 18, 2021
Court Blocks a Vast Alaskan Drilling Project, Citing Climate Dangers (The New York Times, August 18, 2021).
EPA to Block Pesticide Tied to Neurological Harm in Children (The New York Times, August 18, 2021).
-
August 17, 2021
Three Things Are Clear About Biden's Latest Move on Oil Leasing (E&E News, August 17, 2021).
House Environment and Commerce Leaders Request Information About New Chemical Review Progress from EPA (National Law Review, August 17, 2021).
The EPA and the City of Wapato settle over wastewater treatment discharge violations (Environmental Protection Online, August 17, 2021).
-
August 16, 2021
EPA Wants Property Owners of Erie Coke Corporation to Pay for Property Clean Up (YourErie.com, August 16, 2021).
Booker Aide Zach McCue is Contender for Top EPA Job (New Jersey Globe, August 16, 2021).
In A First, U.S. Declares Shortage On Colorado River, Forcing Water Cuts (The New York Times, August 16, 2021).
Course Rejects CWA Challenge, Tees Up Supreme Court Showdown (E&E News, August 16, 2021).
Biden Wants a National Efficiency Standard, Would it Work? (E&E News, August 16, 2021).
-
August 13, 2021
EPA New Mexico announces new air quality initiative (Sante Fe New Mexican, August 13, 2021).
-
August 12, 2021
Chemical supplier loses certification after nearly contaminating Michigan community water (Michigan Live, August 12, 2021).
After Review, EPA Keeps Three Coal Combustion Residue Rules in Place (National Law Review, August 12, 2021).
EPA Levies Penalties for Lead-Related Violations in L.A. Schools (Random Lengths News, August 12, 2021).
State-Level Permitting Primary May Boost Carbon Capture and Storage (JDSupra, August 12, 2021).
-
August 11, 2021
Environment Group Sue EPA for Failing to Address Sulfur Dioxide in Air In Maryland and Michigan (Baltimore Fishbowl, August 11, 2021).
EPA Adds 36 New Chemicals to the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (National Law Review, August 11, 2021).
-
August 10, 2021
EPA Asked to Stop Barring Employees From Sharing Scientific Finding With Each Other (Government Executive, August 10, 2021).
Will The Supreme Court Take On EPA'S Climate Rule (E&E News, August 10, 2021).
EPA Ordered to Update Rules on Oil Spill-Fighting Chemicals (Associated Press, August 10, 2021).
EPA Funds Research to Better Understand Exposure of Young Children to Chemicals in Soil and Dust (Lexology, August 10, 2021).
Pesticide Companies Should Pay Attention to Federal PFAS Activities (National Law Review, August 10, 2021).
-
August 9, 2021
Biden Rushes to Pick Judges, But One Major Opening Remains (E&E News, August 9, 2021).
Biden Administration Begins Process of Revising Waters of U.S. Rule (JDSupra, August 9, 2021).
Clean Up Settlement Reached on Hazardous Waste Site Near Arkansas River in Fort Smith (TB&P, August 9, 2021).
-
August 6, 2021
US EPA Shoots to push vehicle fuel efficiency to 52 mpg by 2026 (Reuters, August 6, 2021).
In Three Predominantly Black North Birmingham Neighborhoods, Residents Live Inside An Environmental Nightmare (Inside Climate News, August 6, 2021).
EPA Plans to Start Cleaning Up Soil With Lead and Arsenic in Garland Neighborhood by End of August (The Dallas Morning News, August 6, 2021).
-
August 5, 2021
Biden, in a Push to Phase Out Gas Cars, Will Tighten Pollution Rules (The New York Times, August 5, 2021).
-
August 4, 2021
White House Reviewing Revamp to Trump’s Power Plant Rule (E&E News, August 4, 2021).
Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in “Hair-On-Fire” Cases (The Intercept, August 4, 2021).
Cypress Creek Watershed Protection Plan Accepted by EPA (Houston Chronicle, August 4, 2021).
EPA Unveils Its Power Plants And Neighboring Communities Mapping Tool (JDSupra, August 4, 2021).
-
August 3, 2021
Biden Administration Kicks Off Second Look at Arctic Refuge Drilling (The Hill, August 3, 2021).
EPA Orders Cahokia Heights to Take “Immediate Actions” to Prevent Drinking Water Contamination (STLtoday.com, August 3, 2021).
EPA Backtracks on Aerial Pesticide Ban (E&E News, August 3, 2021).
In Reversal, EPA Won’t Allow Radioactive Fertilizer Byproducts in Roads (Tampa Bay Times, August 3, 2021).
Senate Votes Down NEPA Amendment to Bipartisan Bill (E&E News, August 3, 2021).
-
August 2, 2021
Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump (The New York Times, August 2, 2021).
EPA Announces New Members of Science Board After Firing Trump Appointees (The Hill, August 2, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
August Newsfeed
-
-
August 31, 2021
Interior Department Posts New Lease Sales a Week After Resumption Announcement (The Hill, August 31, 2021).
At a Fossil Fuels Summit, the Climate Crisis Is Totally Under Control (Jacobin, August 31, 2021).
To Save Lake Tahoe, They Spared No Expense. The Fire Came Over the Ridge Anyway (The New York Times, August 31, 2021)
EPA Expected to Act Soon on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (Environmental Defense Fund, August 31, 2021).
EPA Eyes Risk More People Face From Two Plastic Softeners (Bloomberg Law, August 31, 2021).
Judge Scraps Red State Lawsuit Over Biden Carbon Metric (E&E News, August 31, 2021).
August 30, 2021
Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Rule Governing Water Pollution (The New York Times, August 30, 2021).
U.S. Regulator Tells White House it will Step Up Enforcement of Oil and Gas Conglomerates (The Washington Post, August 30, 2021).
U.S. EPA approves emergency fuel waivers for Louisiana, Mississippi during Hurricane Ida (Reuters, August 30, 2021).
EPA Reissues Temperature TMDLs in the Columbia and Lower Snake Rivers (National Law Review, August 30, 2021).
August 27, 2021
California's 'Cantaloupe Center' Struggles to Reign Supreme As Drought Pummels Agriculture Across the West (The Washington Post, August 27, 2021).
Trump EPA Ignored Scientists Warnings On Miss. Project: Docs (E&E News, August 27, 2021)
EPA: Bee-Killing Pesticide Harms Most Endangered Species (E&E News, August 27, 2021).
EPA is Falsifying Risk Assessments for Dangerous Chemicals, Says Whistleblowers (The Guardian, August 27, 2021).
-
August 26, 2021
EPA Takes Over Raritan Bay Superfund Study from Company Responsible for Cleanup (nj.com, August 26, 2021)
-
August 25, 2021
EPA Receives 50 New Requests for WIFIA Financing Totaling Over $8 Billion Dollars (Water & Wastes Digest, August 25, 2021).
EPA Takes Action to Protect Pacific Salmon from Pesticides (EcoWatch, August 25, 2021).
County of Santa Clara Files Petition Urging EPA to Initiate Nationwide Ban on Leaded Aviation Gasoline (County of Santa Clara Newsroom, August 25, 2021).
Interior Keeps Slashing Royalty Rates for Coal Companies (E&E News, August 25, 2021)
Interior Announces First Oil Drilling Sales of the Biden Era (E&E News, August 25, 2021).
-
August 24, 2021
Biden Aims to Remove All Lead Pipes. Will EPA Follow Suit? (E&E News, August 24, 2021)
Scientists Say the World Urgently Needs to Cut Methane Emissions. The Politics Aren't As Simple (Politico, August 24, 2021).
Groups Ask EPA to Regulate Lead Pollution Around Nation's Airports (Earthjustice, August 24, 2021).
Calls for Ninth Circuit to Revoke EPA CWA Delegation of NPDES Authority to the State of Washington (National Law Review, August 24, 2021).
White House Warned EPA Its Auto Emissions Plan Was Too Weak (Bloomberg Law, August 24, 2021).
-
August 23, 2021
As the West Bakes Utah Forges Ahead With Water Pipeline (E&E News, August 23, 2021).
EPA: 1.6 Billion RINs Generated in July (Ethanol Producer Magazine, August 23, 2021).
Bay Area Gets $168 Million EPA Water Investment Loans (ENR, August 23, 2021).
Historic Visit from EPA Chief Puts Spotlight on Environmental Disaster in South Bay (KUSI, August 23, 2021).
-
August 22, 2021
EPA Expected to Send Biofuel Quota Draft to White House (Oilprice.com, August 22, 2021).
-
August 20, 2021
Fracking linked to surface water quality for the first time (The Hill, August 20, 2021).
The EPA just ordered this Illinois city to fix its sewage problem again (Grist, August 20, 2021).
EPA Announces Electronic Process for Submitting Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statements (JDSupra, August 20, 2021).
-
August 19, 2021
NPS Pick Has Never Managed a Park, But That May Not Matter (E&E News, August 19, 2021).
As Biden Urges Global Warming Action, Courts Shape Climate Policy at Home (Washington Post, August 19, 2021).
More fires, weather events cause strain on fire and smoke computers (KCRA2, August 19, 2021).
Formaldehyde causes leukemia, according to EPA assessment suppressed by Trump officials (The Intercept, August 19, 2021).
-
August 18, 2021
Court Blocks a Vast Alaskan Drilling Project, Citing Climate Dangers (The New York Times, August 18, 2021).
EPA to Block Pesticide Tied to Neurological Harm in Children (The New York Times, August 18, 2021).
-
August 17, 2021
Three Things Are Clear About Biden's Latest Move on Oil Leasing (E&E News, August 17, 2021).
House Environment and Commerce Leaders Request Information About New Chemical Review Progress from EPA (National Law Review, August 17, 2021).
The EPA and the City of Wapato settle over wastewater treatment discharge violations (Environmental Protection Online, August 17, 2021).
-
August 16, 2021
EPA Wants Property Owners of Erie Coke Corporation to Pay for Property Clean Up (YourErie.com, August 16, 2021).
Booker Aide Zach McCue is Contender for Top EPA Job (New Jersey Globe, August 16, 2021).
In A First, U.S. Declares Shortage On Colorado River, Forcing Water Cuts (The New York Times, August 16, 2021).
Course Rejects CWA Challenge, Tees Up Supreme Court Showdown (E&E News, August 16, 2021).
Biden Wants a National Efficiency Standard, Would it Work? (E&E News, August 16, 2021).
-
August 13, 2021
EPA New Mexico announces new air quality initiative (Sante Fe New Mexican, August 13, 2021).
-
August 12, 2021
Chemical supplier loses certification after nearly contaminating Michigan community water (Michigan Live, August 12, 2021).
After Review, EPA Keeps Three Coal Combustion Residue Rules in Place (National Law Review, August 12, 2021).
EPA Levies Penalties for Lead-Related Violations in L.A. Schools (Random Lengths News, August 12, 2021).
State-Level Permitting Primary May Boost Carbon Capture and Storage (JDSupra, August 12, 2021).
-
August 11, 2021
Environment Group Sue EPA for Failing to Address Sulfur Dioxide in Air In Maryland and Michigan (Baltimore Fishbowl, August 11, 2021).
EPA Adds 36 New Chemicals to the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (National Law Review, August 11, 2021).
-
August 10, 2021
EPA Asked to Stop Barring Employees From Sharing Scientific Finding With Each Other (Government Executive, August 10, 2021).
Will The Supreme Court Take On EPA'S Climate Rule (E&E News, August 10, 2021).
EPA Ordered to Update Rules on Oil Spill-Fighting Chemicals (Associated Press, August 10, 2021).
EPA Funds Research to Better Understand Exposure of Young Children to Chemicals in Soil and Dust (Lexology, August 10, 2021).
Pesticide Companies Should Pay Attention to Federal PFAS Activities (National Law Review, August 10, 2021).
-
August 9, 2021
Biden Rushes to Pick Judges, But One Major Opening Remains (E&E News, August 9, 2021).
Biden Administration Begins Process of Revising Waters of U.S. Rule (JDSupra, August 9, 2021).
Clean Up Settlement Reached on Hazardous Waste Site Near Arkansas River in Fort Smith (TB&P, August 9, 2021).
-
August 6, 2021
US EPA Shoots to push vehicle fuel efficiency to 52 mpg by 2026 (Reuters, August 6, 2021).
In Three Predominantly Black North Birmingham Neighborhoods, Residents Live Inside An Environmental Nightmare (Inside Climate News, August 6, 2021).
EPA Plans to Start Cleaning Up Soil With Lead and Arsenic in Garland Neighborhood by End of August (The Dallas Morning News, August 6, 2021).
-
August 5, 2021
Biden, in a Push to Phase Out Gas Cars, Will Tighten Pollution Rules (The New York Times, August 5, 2021).
-
August 4, 2021
White House Reviewing Revamp to Trump’s Power Plant Rule (E&E News, August 4, 2021).
Leaked Audio Shows Pressure to Overrule Scientists in “Hair-On-Fire” Cases (The Intercept, August 4, 2021).
Cypress Creek Watershed Protection Plan Accepted by EPA (Houston Chronicle, August 4, 2021).
EPA Unveils Its Power Plants And Neighboring Communities Mapping Tool (JDSupra, August 4, 2021).
-
August 3, 2021
Biden Administration Kicks Off Second Look at Arctic Refuge Drilling (The Hill, August 3, 2021).
EPA Orders Cahokia Heights to Take “Immediate Actions” to Prevent Drinking Water Contamination (STLtoday.com, August 3, 2021).
EPA Backtracks on Aerial Pesticide Ban (E&E News, August 3, 2021).
In Reversal, EPA Won’t Allow Radioactive Fertilizer Byproducts in Roads (Tampa Bay Times, August 3, 2021).
Senate Votes Down NEPA Amendment to Bipartisan Bill (E&E News, August 3, 2021).
-
August 2, 2021
Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump (The New York Times, August 2, 2021).
EPA Announces New Members of Science Board After Firing Trump Appointees (The Hill, August 2, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/august-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
John Rumpler, “Report maps hundreds of toxic waste sites in the path of 2020’s record- shattering Atlantic hurricane season"
UPLOADED 16 August 2021“A Perfect Storm: When Tropical Storms Meet Toxic Waste,” released by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and the Environment America Research & Policy Center, reports that, so far, only “dumb luck” has prevented Superfund toxic waste sites in the path of hurricanes from causing an environmental and public health catastrophe. Rumpler, echoing the report, calls for the EPA to reinstate the “Polluter Pays” tax to expand, improve, and expedite cleanup of these toxic sites. The report itself also recommends that: the effects of climate change should be considered when prioritizing cleanup; state and local governments should work more closely with the EPA; and individuals should find out if they live near a Superfund site to protect themselves.
“A Perfect Storm: When Tropical Storms Meet Toxic Waste,” released by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and the Environment America Research & Policy Center, reports that, so far, only “dumb luck” has prevented Superfund toxic waste sites in the path of hurricanes from causing an environmental and public health catastrophe. Rumpler, echoing the report, calls for the EPA to reinstate the “Polluter Pays” tax to expand, improve, and expedite cleanup of these toxic sites. The report itself also recommends that: the effects of climate change should be considered when prioritizing cleanup; state and local governments should work more closely with the EPA; and individuals should find out if they live near a Superfund site to protect themselves.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/john-rumpler-report-maps-hundreds-of-toxic-waste-sites-in-the-path-of-2020-s-record-shattering-atlantic-hurricane-seasonSOURCE
CITATION
John Rumpler, “Report maps hundreds of toxic waste sites in the path of 2020’s record-shattering Atlantic hurricane season: Hurricanes and tropical storms crossed over 800 toxic “Superfund” waste sites last year.” Environment America, May 13, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Miranda Green, “Can Biden’s Justice40 Plan Deliver a Fairer Environment for People of Color?”
UPLOADED 10 August 2021Biden’s Justice40 Plan promises to direct forty percent of federal environmental investments to people in need, potentially directing millions of dollars to disadvantaged communities if executed properly. The Plan itself comes from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which recommended investment in national energy efficiency, sustainable and affordable housing, training the national workforce to transition to green energy, and pollution reduction. However, the project can still fail if individual states mismanage the funds directed to them, or if slush-fund projects are prioritized over an active investment in communities in need. Though Green, a journalist, does no offer specific advice, she does note the potential pitfalls of the plan the Biden administration should be wary of: 1) Republican-led states may thwart federal plans for political reasons; 2) the current plan for Justice40 potentially pits communities in need against each other in the screening process for aid; 3) frontline advocates were not consulted in the planning process of Justice40; 4) the ‘forty percent’ part of the plan should serve as a baseline, not a limit for climate justice; and 5) funding may be limited due to a contentious congressional environment.
Biden’s Justice40 Plan promises to direct forty percent of federal environmental investments to people in need, potentially directing millions of dollars to disadvantaged communities if executed properly. The Plan itself comes from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which recommended investment in national energy efficiency, sustainable and affordable housing, training the national workforce to transition to green energy, and pollution reduction. However, the project can still fail if individual states mismanage the funds directed to them, or if slush-fund projects are prioritized over an active investment in communities in need. Though Green, a journalist, does no offer specific advice, she does note the potential pitfalls of the plan the Biden administration should be wary of: 1) Republican-led states may thwart federal plans for political reasons; 2) the current plan for Justice40 potentially pits communities in need against each other in the screening process for aid; 3) frontline advocates were not consulted in the planning process of Justice40; 4) the ‘forty percent’ part of the plan should serve as a baseline, not a limit for climate justice; and 5) funding may be limited due to a contentious congressional environment.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/miranda-green-can-biden-s-justice40-plan-deliver-a-fairer-environment-for-people-of-colorSOURCE
Can Biden’s Justice40 Plan Deliver a Fairer Environment for People of Color?
CITATION
Miranda Green, “Can Biden’s Justice40 Plan Deliver a Fairer Environment for People of Color?” The Guardian, June 2, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Terry Yosie, “Rebuilding the EPA"
UPLOADED 10 August 2021Terry Yosie, the former head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, begins this article with a warning: years of bipartisan neglect, anti-science and anti-regulation decisions have weakened public institutions leaving many lives susceptible to pollution and disease. After a historic reduction of the EPA’s resources in the Trump era, five investments must be made in the EPA to protect both the environment and public health. First, The EPA must be repopulated with talented staff to assess threats, perform cost-benefit analysis on regulatory actions, and achieve compliance with regulated entities. Second, public health must be directly linked to the detrimental and compounding effects of global climate change and domestic pollution at home. Third, cutting edge technology must be proactively implemented to track pollutants throughout America to prevent another health crisis such as the one in Flint, Michigan. Fourth, environmental action must meet the digital age by incorporating big data or analytical software. Finally, social justice must be integral to environmental protection, as communities of color and lower income neighborhoods still receive disproportionately lower governmental aid yet experience disproportionately greater exposure to industrial pollutants.
Terry Yosie, the former head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, begins this article with a warning: years of bipartisan neglect, anti-science and anti-regulation decisions have weakened public institutions leaving many lives susceptible to pollution and disease. After a historic reduction of the EPA’s resources in the Trump era, five investments must be made in the EPA to protect both the environment and public health. First, The EPA must be repopulated with talented staff to assess threats, perform cost-benefit analysis on regulatory actions, and achieve compliance with regulated entities. Second, public health must be directly linked to the detrimental and compounding effects of global climate change and domestic pollution at home. Third, cutting edge technology must be proactively implemented to track pollutants throughout America to prevent another health crisis such as the one in Flint, Michigan. Fourth, environmental action must meet the digital age by incorporating big data or analytical software. Finally, social justice must be integral to environmental protection, as communities of color and lower income neighborhoods still receive disproportionately lower governmental aid yet experience disproportionately greater exposure to industrial pollutants.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/terry-yosie-rebuilding-the-epaSOURCE
CITATION
Terry Yosie, “Rebuilding the EPA.” The Hill, September 14, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Cheryl Wasserman, “Biden Should Go Big on Infrastructure in the First 100 Days"
UPLOADED 16 August 2021Cheryl Wasserman, a former EPA employee and current president of the Environmental Governance Institute International, calls on the Biden administration to repeal Trump-era restrictions on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); invest in America’s infrastructure with green energy technology; and reinstate higher taxes on the wealthy for future Americans. The United State’s lack of investment in infrastructure has negatively affected the economy and public health, according to Wasserman. Lead-contaminated water systems are detrimental to brain development, for example, and dated wastewater treatment systems inflict gastrointestinal problems and pollute aquatic ecosystems. It is critical that NEPA’s original purpose—the requirement that federal agencies seek better alternatives to their missions, cooperate with each other along with tribal, local, and state governments, and conserve and optimize our limited natural resources—be reinstated to guide large investments in infrastructure.
Cheryl Wasserman, a former EPA employee and current president of the Environmental Governance Institute International, calls on the Biden administration to repeal Trump-era restrictions on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); invest in America’s infrastructure with green energy technology; and reinstate higher taxes on the wealthy for future Americans. The United State’s lack of investment in infrastructure has negatively affected the economy and public health, according to Wasserman. Lead-contaminated water systems are detrimental to brain development, for example, and dated wastewater treatment systems inflict gastrointestinal problems and pollute aquatic ecosystems. It is critical that NEPA’s original purpose—the requirement that federal agencies seek better alternatives to their missions, cooperate with each other along with tribal, local, and state governments, and conserve and optimize our limited natural resources—be reinstated to guide large investments in infrastructure.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/cheryl-wasserman-biden-should-go-big-on-infrastructure-in-the-first-100-daysSOURCE
CITATION
Cheryl Wasserman, “Biden Should Go Big on Infrastructure in the First 100 Days.” The Hill, January 19, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Wendy Wagner and Will Walker, “Our Chemical Regulatory Program Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It"
UPLOADED 16 August 2021Wagner and Walker propose that the federal government institute proactive regulation of potentially toxic chemicals and shift the responsibility of national chemical safety to chemical manufacturers and from the underfunded EPA and victims who file tort claims for damages. According to the authors, at this time, unanalyzed and ‘forever’ chemicals are freely pumped into the environment, with manufacturers having no responsibility to evaluate the effects of their products. Currently, manufacturers have the power to inhibit current EPA regulation by classifying their chemicals as “trade secrets'' to conceal chemical name and design, sue the EPA when criticized, manipulate internal studies in the absence of conflict-of-interest standards, hire compliant scientists to critique independent studies, and substitute known toxins with unknown—potentially more toxic—chemicals without testing. To amend this, the authors assert that manufacturers must be required to test their chemicals according to an established, mandatory set of guidelines before a product hits the market. Likewise, independent third-party analysts must be employed to assure that these tests are credible.
Wagner and Walker propose that the federal government institute proactive regulation of potentially toxic chemicals and shift the responsibility of national chemical safety to chemical manufacturers and from the underfunded EPA and victims who file tort claims for damages. According to the authors, at this time, unanalyzed and ‘forever’ chemicals are freely pumped into the environment, with manufacturers having no responsibility to evaluate the effects of their products. Currently, manufacturers have the power to inhibit current EPA regulation by classifying their chemicals as “trade secrets'' to conceal chemical name and design, sue the EPA when criticized, manipulate internal studies in the absence of conflict-of-interest standards, hire compliant scientists to critique independent studies, and substitute known toxins with unknown—potentially more toxic—chemicals without testing. To amend this, the authors assert that manufacturers must be required to test their chemicals according to an established, mandatory set of guidelines before a product hits the market. Likewise, independent third-party analysts must be employed to assure that these tests are credible.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/wendy-wagner-and-will-walker-our-chemical-regulatory-program-is-broken-here-s-how-to-fix-itSOURCE
Our Chemical Regulatory Program Is Broken. Here's How to Fix It.
CITATION
Wendy Wagner and Will Walker, “Our Chemical Regulatory Program Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It.” Undark, April 30, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
September 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 30 September 2021A People's EPA (APE)
September Newsfeed
-
-
September 29, 2021
After Alleged Violations of Clean Water Act at Jayhawk Club, EPA Reaches Settlement with Company Controlled by Thomas Fritzel (Lawrence-Journal World, September 29, 2021).
EPA to Hold Biweekly National Environmental Justice Calls (Coastal Review, September 29, 2021)
September 28, 2021
EPA’s ‘Scientific Integrity’ Program Lacks Teeth, Group Alleges (USRTK, September 28, 2021).
Environmentalists Urge Biden to Toughen Auto Emission Proposal (Yahoo Finance, September 28, 2021).
September 27, 2021
EPA Publishes Proposed Amendments to Aerosol Coatings Rule (EHS Daily Advisor, September 27, 2021).
Biden to Restore Legal Case for Mercury Limits Trump Discredited (Yahoo Finance, September 27, 2021).
Oil States Brace for Biden Methane Rule (E&E News, September 27, 2021).
U.S. Environment Agency Urged by 21 States to Toughen Vehicle Emissions Rewrite (Reuters, September 27, 2021).
EPA Tossed Trump-era Memo that Cuffed Watchdog (E&E News, September 27, 2021).
September 26, 2021
AgLines: Farm, Biofuel Leaders Concern About Possible EPA Actions Concerning Ethanol (The Grand Island Independent, September 26, 2021).
September 24, 2021
Defense Policy Bill Would Require ‘Forever Chemical’ Testing at Military Sites (The Hill, September 24, 2021).
What Will EPA Do with Its New Superfund Money? (JD Supra, September 24, 2021).
Coalition Sues Biden EPA Over Approval of ‘Highly Toxic’ Pesticide Linked to Parkinson’s (Common Dreams, September 24, 2021).
September 23, 2021
Biden Picks Trump Critic to Lead EPA Science Office (E&E News, September 23, 2021).
September 23, 2021
White House is Set to Announce New Limits on HFCs, a Powerful Driver of Climate Change (The New York Times, September 23, 2021).
September 22, 2021
Biden Announces New Cadre of Outside Science Advisers (E&E News, September 22, 2021).
EPA to Propose Cuts to Biofuel Blending Requirement: Report (The Hill, September 22, 2021).
September 21, 2021
Methane Fee Collides with EPA Rules. ‘It’s Very Unusual’ (E&E News, September 21, 2021).
Federal Court Strikes Down EPA Permits for Idaho Factory Farms (Boise State Public Radio, September 21, 2021).
Federal Court Rejects Idaho Pollution Permit for Dairies (AP News, September 17, 2021).
EPA Proposes Superfund Cleanup for Bear Creek (The Dundalk Eagle, September 21, 2021).
September 20, 2021
EPA Administrator Talks WOTUS, Dicamba, Plans to Appoint AG Adviser (Capital Press, September 20, 2021).
EPA Bringing Temporary Disinfectant Supply Chain Flexibilities to a Close (The National Law Review, September 20, 2021).
Biden Confronts Extreme Heat, A Silent Killer (The Washington Post, September 20, 2021).
EPA Removes PCB-laced Bloomington Sites from Superfund List (wlfi.com, September 20, 2021).
What to Expect from Interior and EPA this Fall (E&E News, September 20, 2021).
Back to the Drawing Board on WOTUS: Federal Court Vacates Trump Administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule (The National Law Review, September 20, 2021).
Doherty Steel Inc. in Paola, Kansas, Receives EPA Region 7 Pollution Prevention Award (EPA, September 20, 2021).
September 19, 2021
This Powerful Democrat Linked to Fossil Fuels Will Craft the U.S. Climate Plan (The New York Times, September 19, 2021).
September 17, 2021
EPA Rescinds Trump Guidance That Created Exceptions to Water Pollution Protections (The Hill, September 17, 2021).
Bureau of Land Management Headquarters to Return to D.C., Reversing Trump Decision (The Washington Post, September 17, 2021).
EPA Science Board “Reset” Renews Tensions Over Bias (E&E News, September 17, 2021).
September 16, 2021
EPA Removes 3 Bloomington Waste Sites from Superfund List. Why That Matters (Bloomington Herald Times, September 16, 2021).
Former EPA Chief to Chair Pro-Trump Think Tank’s Environmental Center (The Hill, September 17, 2021).
Allegations of Racism, Abuse Cloud EPA Whistleblower Hearing (E&E News, September 16, 2021).
EPA Recommends Further Study Before Genesee Township Asphalt Plant Gets Permit (mlive.com, September 16, 2021).
September 15, 2021
EPA Fines Oregon’s Largest Glass Container Recycler Nearly $39,000 (OregonLive.com, September 16, 2021).
Biden Calls for Climate Action Ahead of Historic Legislation (E&E News, September 15, 2021).
September 14, 2021
Carlton Waterhouse is Fighting For Environmental Justice At The EPA - And Getting Called A “Racist” (E&E News, September 14, 2021).
September 13, 2021
Biden’s EPA Finds a New Weapon in the War Against Alaska’s Pebble Mine (Post Alley The View from Seattle, September 13, 2021).
September 12, 2021
“The Harm to Children is Irreparable”: Ruth Etzel Speaks Out Ahead of EPA Whistleblower Hearing (The Guardian, September 12, 2021).
September 11, 2021
Denver Ozone in Violation of EPA Health Standards (9News, September 17, 2021).
Trump May Be Gone, But the Fight Against His Border Wall Goes On (The New York Times, September 11, 2021)
September 10, 2021
Groups Seek Federal Help with Lead in Michigan City's Water (AP News, September 10, 2021).
September 9, 2021
Democrats Want a "Climate Corps." They Just Can't Agree How to Create It (The New York Times, September 8, 2021)
CU Boulder Researchers Receive $1.1M EPA Grant to Study Wildfire Smoke (Boulder Daily Camera, September 9, 2021).
EPA Considers More Permanent Protection For Bristol Bay by Resuming Pebble "Veto" Process (Alaska Public Media, September 9, 2021).
EPA Recommends Superfund Status for Lower Neponset River (WBUR News, September 9, 2021).
EPA Wastewater Rules to Set First PFAS Limits (E&E News, September 9, 2021).
Biden Administration Moves to Protect Alaska's Bristol Bay (The New York Times, September 9, 2021).
EPA to Protect Alaska's Bristol Bay, Blocking Major Gold Mine (The Washington Post, September 9, 2021).
September 8, 2021
Lead Contamination Lands Atlanta Neighborhood on EPA's Superfund Priority List (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 8, 2021).
Interior Will Launch Review of Trump's Arctic Oil Plan (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
From 4% to 45%: Biden Releases an Ambitious Plan for Solar Energy (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
Methane Rule to Eclipse Past Regulations, Including Obama's (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
California Recall Vote Could Weaken the State's Aggressive Climate Policies (The New York Times, September 8, 2021).
September 7, 2021
Booming Utah's Weak Link: Surging Air Pollution (The New York Times, September 7, 2021)
More National Parks? Summer of Overcrowding Could Spur Push (E&E News, September 7, 2021).
September 5, 2021
Advocates Push White House to Nominate Energy Regulator (The Hill, September 5, 2021).
September 3, 2021
EPA sends surveillance aircraft to possible oil spill reported in wake of Ida (Reuters, September 3, 2021).
Flat rock odor still unknown as officials expand area of concern perimeter (FOX Detroit, September 3, 2021).
September 2, 2021
U.S. Reconciliation Energy Bill Slowed by Flurry of Republican Amendments (Reuters, September 2, 2021).
EPA Just Detailed All The Ways Climate Change Will Hit U.S. Racial Minorities the Hardest. It’s a Long List (The Washington Post, September 2, 2021).
Climate Change is Bankrupting America’s Small Towns (The New York Times, September 2, 2021).
District Court Vacates the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule as the EPA and Corps WOTUS Definition Rulemaking Continues (National Law Review, September 2, 2021).
People of color face disproportionate harm from climate change, EPA says (USA News, September 2, 2021).
September 1, 2021
Provincetown Town Manager Named to EPA Advisory Committee (Cape Cod Times, September 1, 2021).
U.S. EPA Asks Court to Allow it to Reconsider Some Biofuel Blending Waivers (Reuters, September 1, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
September Newsfeed
-
-
September 29, 2021
After Alleged Violations of Clean Water Act at Jayhawk Club, EPA Reaches Settlement with Company Controlled by Thomas Fritzel (Lawrence-Journal World, September 29, 2021).
EPA to Hold Biweekly National Environmental Justice Calls (Coastal Review, September 29, 2021)
September 28, 2021
EPA’s ‘Scientific Integrity’ Program Lacks Teeth, Group Alleges (USRTK, September 28, 2021).
Environmentalists Urge Biden to Toughen Auto Emission Proposal (Yahoo Finance, September 28, 2021).
September 27, 2021
EPA Publishes Proposed Amendments to Aerosol Coatings Rule (EHS Daily Advisor, September 27, 2021).
Biden to Restore Legal Case for Mercury Limits Trump Discredited (Yahoo Finance, September 27, 2021).
Oil States Brace for Biden Methane Rule (E&E News, September 27, 2021).
U.S. Environment Agency Urged by 21 States to Toughen Vehicle Emissions Rewrite (Reuters, September 27, 2021).
EPA Tossed Trump-era Memo that Cuffed Watchdog (E&E News, September 27, 2021).
September 26, 2021
AgLines: Farm, Biofuel Leaders Concern About Possible EPA Actions Concerning Ethanol (The Grand Island Independent, September 26, 2021).
September 24, 2021
Defense Policy Bill Would Require ‘Forever Chemical’ Testing at Military Sites (The Hill, September 24, 2021).
What Will EPA Do with Its New Superfund Money? (JD Supra, September 24, 2021).
Coalition Sues Biden EPA Over Approval of ‘Highly Toxic’ Pesticide Linked to Parkinson’s (Common Dreams, September 24, 2021).
September 23, 2021
Biden Picks Trump Critic to Lead EPA Science Office (E&E News, September 23, 2021).
September 23, 2021
White House is Set to Announce New Limits on HFCs, a Powerful Driver of Climate Change (The New York Times, September 23, 2021).
September 22, 2021
Biden Announces New Cadre of Outside Science Advisers (E&E News, September 22, 2021).
EPA to Propose Cuts to Biofuel Blending Requirement: Report (The Hill, September 22, 2021).
September 21, 2021
Methane Fee Collides with EPA Rules. ‘It’s Very Unusual’ (E&E News, September 21, 2021).
Federal Court Strikes Down EPA Permits for Idaho Factory Farms (Boise State Public Radio, September 21, 2021).
Federal Court Rejects Idaho Pollution Permit for Dairies (AP News, September 17, 2021).
EPA Proposes Superfund Cleanup for Bear Creek (The Dundalk Eagle, September 21, 2021).
September 20, 2021
EPA Administrator Talks WOTUS, Dicamba, Plans to Appoint AG Adviser (Capital Press, September 20, 2021).
EPA Bringing Temporary Disinfectant Supply Chain Flexibilities to a Close (The National Law Review, September 20, 2021).
Biden Confronts Extreme Heat, A Silent Killer (The Washington Post, September 20, 2021).
EPA Removes PCB-laced Bloomington Sites from Superfund List (wlfi.com, September 20, 2021).
What to Expect from Interior and EPA this Fall (E&E News, September 20, 2021).
Back to the Drawing Board on WOTUS: Federal Court Vacates Trump Administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule (The National Law Review, September 20, 2021).
Doherty Steel Inc. in Paola, Kansas, Receives EPA Region 7 Pollution Prevention Award (EPA, September 20, 2021).
September 19, 2021
This Powerful Democrat Linked to Fossil Fuels Will Craft the U.S. Climate Plan (The New York Times, September 19, 2021).
September 17, 2021
EPA Rescinds Trump Guidance That Created Exceptions to Water Pollution Protections (The Hill, September 17, 2021).
Bureau of Land Management Headquarters to Return to D.C., Reversing Trump Decision (The Washington Post, September 17, 2021).
EPA Science Board “Reset” Renews Tensions Over Bias (E&E News, September 17, 2021).
September 16, 2021
EPA Removes 3 Bloomington Waste Sites from Superfund List. Why That Matters (Bloomington Herald Times, September 16, 2021).
Former EPA Chief to Chair Pro-Trump Think Tank’s Environmental Center (The Hill, September 17, 2021).
Allegations of Racism, Abuse Cloud EPA Whistleblower Hearing (E&E News, September 16, 2021).
EPA Recommends Further Study Before Genesee Township Asphalt Plant Gets Permit (mlive.com, September 16, 2021).
September 15, 2021
EPA Fines Oregon’s Largest Glass Container Recycler Nearly $39,000 (OregonLive.com, September 16, 2021).
Biden Calls for Climate Action Ahead of Historic Legislation (E&E News, September 15, 2021).
September 14, 2021
Carlton Waterhouse is Fighting For Environmental Justice At The EPA - And Getting Called A “Racist” (E&E News, September 14, 2021).
September 13, 2021
Biden’s EPA Finds a New Weapon in the War Against Alaska’s Pebble Mine (Post Alley The View from Seattle, September 13, 2021).
September 12, 2021
“The Harm to Children is Irreparable”: Ruth Etzel Speaks Out Ahead of EPA Whistleblower Hearing (The Guardian, September 12, 2021).
September 11, 2021
Denver Ozone in Violation of EPA Health Standards (9News, September 17, 2021).
Trump May Be Gone, But the Fight Against His Border Wall Goes On (The New York Times, September 11, 2021)
September 10, 2021
Groups Seek Federal Help with Lead in Michigan City's Water (AP News, September 10, 2021).
September 9, 2021
Democrats Want a "Climate Corps." They Just Can't Agree How to Create It (The New York Times, September 8, 2021)
CU Boulder Researchers Receive $1.1M EPA Grant to Study Wildfire Smoke (Boulder Daily Camera, September 9, 2021).
EPA Considers More Permanent Protection For Bristol Bay by Resuming Pebble "Veto" Process (Alaska Public Media, September 9, 2021).
EPA Recommends Superfund Status for Lower Neponset River (WBUR News, September 9, 2021).
EPA Wastewater Rules to Set First PFAS Limits (E&E News, September 9, 2021).
Biden Administration Moves to Protect Alaska's Bristol Bay (The New York Times, September 9, 2021).
EPA to Protect Alaska's Bristol Bay, Blocking Major Gold Mine (The Washington Post, September 9, 2021).
September 8, 2021
Lead Contamination Lands Atlanta Neighborhood on EPA's Superfund Priority List (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 8, 2021).
Interior Will Launch Review of Trump's Arctic Oil Plan (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
From 4% to 45%: Biden Releases an Ambitious Plan for Solar Energy (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
Methane Rule to Eclipse Past Regulations, Including Obama's (E&E News, September 8, 2021).
California Recall Vote Could Weaken the State's Aggressive Climate Policies (The New York Times, September 8, 2021).
September 7, 2021
Booming Utah's Weak Link: Surging Air Pollution (The New York Times, September 7, 2021)
More National Parks? Summer of Overcrowding Could Spur Push (E&E News, September 7, 2021).
September 5, 2021
Advocates Push White House to Nominate Energy Regulator (The Hill, September 5, 2021).
September 3, 2021
EPA sends surveillance aircraft to possible oil spill reported in wake of Ida (Reuters, September 3, 2021).
Flat rock odor still unknown as officials expand area of concern perimeter (FOX Detroit, September 3, 2021).
September 2, 2021
U.S. Reconciliation Energy Bill Slowed by Flurry of Republican Amendments (Reuters, September 2, 2021).
EPA Just Detailed All The Ways Climate Change Will Hit U.S. Racial Minorities the Hardest. It’s a Long List (The Washington Post, September 2, 2021).
Climate Change is Bankrupting America’s Small Towns (The New York Times, September 2, 2021).
District Court Vacates the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule as the EPA and Corps WOTUS Definition Rulemaking Continues (National Law Review, September 2, 2021).
People of color face disproportionate harm from climate change, EPA says (USA News, September 2, 2021).
September 1, 2021
Provincetown Town Manager Named to EPA Advisory Committee (Cape Cod Times, September 1, 2021).
U.S. EPA Asks Court to Allow it to Reconsider Some Biofuel Blending Waivers (Reuters, September 1, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/september-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
October 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 08 October 2021A People's EPA (APE)
October Newsfeed
-
-
October 31, 2021
EPA Asks DC Cir. to Pause States’ Ozone Standards Challenge While it Reconsiders Rule Extension (Law Street, October 31, 2021).
October 30, 2021
What the EPA’s Plan to Regulate ‘Forever Chemicals’ Means for Minnesota (Faribault Daily News, October 30, 2021)
October 29, 2021
Supreme Court to Hear Case on E.P.A.’s Power to Limit Carbon Emissions (The New York Times, October 29, 2021).
October 28, 2021
Biden Should Declare a Climate Emergency, EPA Midwest Employees Say (Chicago Sun Times, October 28, 2021).
EPA Unveils New Strategy for Reducing Lead Exposure (The Hill, October 28, 2021).
October 27, 2021
Biden to Unveil Strategy that Triggered Trump Turmoil (E&E News, October 27, 2021).
Commission to Examine Extent, History of Illegal Maumee Sewer Discharge (WTOL, October 27, 2021).
October 26, 2021
Ohio EPA Reports Increase of Salt in Drinking Water (Springfield News-Sun, October 26, 2021).
EPA Again Monitoring Air in Response to Odor Complaints (Bristol Herald Courier, October 26, 2021).
EPA: GenX Far More Toxic that Originally Thought, Could Prompt NC to Significantly Reduce Health Advisory Goal (NC Policy Watch, October 26, 2021).
Biden EPA Decides to Keep a Trump EPA NSR Rule...For Now (JD Supra, October 26, 2021).
Los Angeles Receives $224 Million Loan from EPA for Water Recycling Project (CBSLA, October 26, 2021).
October 25, 2021
EPA Finally has an Action Plan to Improve Water Infrastructure and Sanitation for US Tribes (Grist, October 25, 2021).
The key for EPA rules? Inside the Methane Tech Revolution (E&E News, October 25, 2021).
EPA Reaches Settlements with 41 Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Home Renovators for Lead-based Paint Violations (U.S. EPA, October 25, 2021).
Tacoma Company must Pay $214k for Environmental Violations, Fire that Hospitalized Worker (The News Tribune, October 25, 2021).
October 24, 2021
EPA Seeks Input on Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (The National Law Review, October 24, 2021).
October 22, 2021
Biden EPA Starting to Make Environmental Justice Goals More Concrete (Mondaq, October 22, 2021).
Biden Crafts a Climate Plan B: Tax Credits, Regulation, and State Action (The New York Times, October 22, 2021).
October 21, 2021
AG Leaders Say Withdrawal of Chlorpyrifos by EPA Hurts American Farmers (Food Safety News, October 21, 2021).
October 20, 2021
Unchecked Growth of Industrial Animal Farms Spurs Long Fight Environmental Justice in Eastern NC (NC Health News, October 20, 2021).
EPA’s New PFAS Strategic Roadmap Could Present Potholes for the Unprepared (JD Supra, October 20, 2021).
In Benton Harbor, Residents’ Complaints of Lead-Tainted Water Carry Echoes (Circle of Blue, October 20, 2021).
How Chemical Companies Avoid Paying for Pollution (The New York Times, October 20, 2021).
October 19, 2021
People Exposed to PFAS Criticize EPA Action Plan as Too Little, Too Late (The Intercept, October 19, 2021).
Biden PFAS Plan Contains New Pathways for Litigators (E&E News, October 19, 2021).
October 18, 2021
Biden Administration Launches Roadmap to Tackle Pollution from Widely Used ‘Forever Chemicals’ (CNN, October 18, 2021).
Biden Administration Moves to Curtail Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (Washington Post, October 18, 2021).
U.S. EPA Wants Information on Toxic Gas from Cobb Sterigenics Facility (WABE, October 18, 2021).
New Equipment Allows Austin Water to Test for Cyanobacteria, Cyanotoxins in House (KXAN, October 18, 2021).
October 15, 2021
EPA Signs Off on Major Changes to Minnesota’s Water Quality Rules (Minn Post, October 15, 2021).
Michigan Acts on Lead Crisis, Urges EPA to ‘Jump In’ (E&E News, October 15, 2021).
LyondellBasell Companies Agree to Reduce Harmful Air Pollution at Six U.S. Chemical Plants (EPA, October 15, 2021).
October 14, 2021
Justice Department, EPA and Texas Settle with DuPont and PMNA and Require Action to Address Violations of Waste, Water and Air Environmental Laws at Texas Facility (U.S. Justice Department, October 14, 2021)
October 13, 2021
EPA Eyes Broader Oversight of Cancer-causing Gas (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
CEQ Chief Touts Climate Goals, Laments ‘Ping-ponging Policy’ (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
EPA May Increase Reporting Requirements for Carcinogen Used in Plastic Production (The Hill, October 13, 2021).
EPA Advances WOTUS Rewrite (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
EPA Fires Back in D.C. Circuit Appellate Brief on Coal Ash Rules (Law Street, October 13, 2021).
October 12, 2021
EPA to Give an Update on Butte Projects in Virtual Meeting Thursday (NBC Montana, October 12, 2021).
Biden Taps Montgomery County Environmental Chief Ortiz for Key EPA Post (Maryland Matters, October 12, 2021).
October 11, 2021
EPA Finds Evidence for Tightening Key Air Quality Standard (The Hill, October 11, 2021).
October 10, 2021
EPA Closer to Unveiling Plan for Tackling ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Hill, October 10, 2021)
October 8, 2021
EPA Agrees to Further Phase Down Superpollutant (E&E News, October 8, 2021).
EPA Announces Appointment of Rod Snyder as EPA Agricultural Advisor (NewsDakota.com, October 8, 2021).
EPA Challenges Decision on Water Clean Up Standards (Reuters, October 8, 2021).
Biden EPA to Tighten Soot Standards Trump Left Unchanged (E&E News, October 8, 2021).
EPA Grants Petitions to Stem Climate Pollutants in Future Rules (Bloomberg Law, October 8, 2021).
PFAS Comment by Michael Regan Show EPA’s Clear Intent (The National Law Review, October 8, 2021).
October 7, 2021
EPA Power Plant Rules Could be Part of Bigger Initiative (E&E News, October 7, 2021).
Biden Takes Big Step on Rules for Environmental Reviews (The Hill, October 7, 2021).
October 6, 2021
U.S. States Push to Surpass World Emissions Norms on Aviation (US News, October 6, 2021).
EPA Awards $335,000 for Pollution Prevention and Sustainability Projects in Pacific Northwest Communities (U.S. EPA, October 6, 2021).
October 4, 2021
EPA Targets Potent Greenhouse Gases, Putting a Louisville Company in its Crosshairs (Courier Journal, October 4, 2021).
Landmark EJ Ruling Sparks Legislative Reckoning in VA (E&E News, October 4, 2021).
EPA Strategic Plan Touts Climate, Environmental Justice Goals (E&E News, October 4, 2021).
EPA Announces Updates on its Efforts to Address PFAS in Pesticides Packaging (The National Law Review, October 4, 2021).
EPA Moves to Elevate Tribal Rights in Water Quality: Changes Could Modify CWA Implementation (Lexology, October 4, 2021).
October 3, 2021
Maryland to Resume Use of Pesticide after EPA Testing Doesn’t Detect PFAS (Capital Gazette, October 3, 2021).
October 2, 2021
Biden is Protecting the Land Where the Fat Bears Thrive (Mashable, October 2, 2021).
EPA Begins Five Year Review of Verona Pollution (The Monett Times, October 2, 2021).
EPA Fines Riverbend Landfill in McMinnville $104,482 for Air Pollution Violations (Statesman Journal, October 2, 2021).
October 1, 2021
EPA Will Reconsider Requiring Chemours to Fund PFAS Testing, a Petition Rejected by Outgoing Trump Administration (WHQR, October 1, 2021).
Texas Natural Gas Co. Settles with EPA After Worker Deaths (Reuters, October 1, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
October Newsfeed
-
-
October 31, 2021
EPA Asks DC Cir. to Pause States’ Ozone Standards Challenge While it Reconsiders Rule Extension (Law Street, October 31, 2021).
October 30, 2021
What the EPA’s Plan to Regulate ‘Forever Chemicals’ Means for Minnesota (Faribault Daily News, October 30, 2021)
October 29, 2021
Supreme Court to Hear Case on E.P.A.’s Power to Limit Carbon Emissions (The New York Times, October 29, 2021).
October 28, 2021
Biden Should Declare a Climate Emergency, EPA Midwest Employees Say (Chicago Sun Times, October 28, 2021).
EPA Unveils New Strategy for Reducing Lead Exposure (The Hill, October 28, 2021).
October 27, 2021
Biden to Unveil Strategy that Triggered Trump Turmoil (E&E News, October 27, 2021).
Commission to Examine Extent, History of Illegal Maumee Sewer Discharge (WTOL, October 27, 2021).
October 26, 2021
Ohio EPA Reports Increase of Salt in Drinking Water (Springfield News-Sun, October 26, 2021).
EPA Again Monitoring Air in Response to Odor Complaints (Bristol Herald Courier, October 26, 2021).
EPA: GenX Far More Toxic that Originally Thought, Could Prompt NC to Significantly Reduce Health Advisory Goal (NC Policy Watch, October 26, 2021).
Biden EPA Decides to Keep a Trump EPA NSR Rule...For Now (JD Supra, October 26, 2021).
Los Angeles Receives $224 Million Loan from EPA for Water Recycling Project (CBSLA, October 26, 2021).
October 25, 2021
EPA Finally has an Action Plan to Improve Water Infrastructure and Sanitation for US Tribes (Grist, October 25, 2021).
The key for EPA rules? Inside the Methane Tech Revolution (E&E News, October 25, 2021).
EPA Reaches Settlements with 41 Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Home Renovators for Lead-based Paint Violations (U.S. EPA, October 25, 2021).
Tacoma Company must Pay $214k for Environmental Violations, Fire that Hospitalized Worker (The News Tribune, October 25, 2021).
October 24, 2021
EPA Seeks Input on Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (The National Law Review, October 24, 2021).
October 22, 2021
Biden EPA Starting to Make Environmental Justice Goals More Concrete (Mondaq, October 22, 2021).
Biden Crafts a Climate Plan B: Tax Credits, Regulation, and State Action (The New York Times, October 22, 2021).
October 21, 2021
AG Leaders Say Withdrawal of Chlorpyrifos by EPA Hurts American Farmers (Food Safety News, October 21, 2021).
October 20, 2021
Unchecked Growth of Industrial Animal Farms Spurs Long Fight Environmental Justice in Eastern NC (NC Health News, October 20, 2021).
EPA’s New PFAS Strategic Roadmap Could Present Potholes for the Unprepared (JD Supra, October 20, 2021).
In Benton Harbor, Residents’ Complaints of Lead-Tainted Water Carry Echoes (Circle of Blue, October 20, 2021).
How Chemical Companies Avoid Paying for Pollution (The New York Times, October 20, 2021).
October 19, 2021
People Exposed to PFAS Criticize EPA Action Plan as Too Little, Too Late (The Intercept, October 19, 2021).
Biden PFAS Plan Contains New Pathways for Litigators (E&E News, October 19, 2021).
October 18, 2021
Biden Administration Launches Roadmap to Tackle Pollution from Widely Used ‘Forever Chemicals’ (CNN, October 18, 2021).
Biden Administration Moves to Curtail Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (Washington Post, October 18, 2021).
U.S. EPA Wants Information on Toxic Gas from Cobb Sterigenics Facility (WABE, October 18, 2021).
New Equipment Allows Austin Water to Test for Cyanobacteria, Cyanotoxins in House (KXAN, October 18, 2021).
October 15, 2021
EPA Signs Off on Major Changes to Minnesota’s Water Quality Rules (Minn Post, October 15, 2021).
Michigan Acts on Lead Crisis, Urges EPA to ‘Jump In’ (E&E News, October 15, 2021).
LyondellBasell Companies Agree to Reduce Harmful Air Pollution at Six U.S. Chemical Plants (EPA, October 15, 2021).
October 14, 2021
Justice Department, EPA and Texas Settle with DuPont and PMNA and Require Action to Address Violations of Waste, Water and Air Environmental Laws at Texas Facility (U.S. Justice Department, October 14, 2021)
October 13, 2021
EPA Eyes Broader Oversight of Cancer-causing Gas (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
CEQ Chief Touts Climate Goals, Laments ‘Ping-ponging Policy’ (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
EPA May Increase Reporting Requirements for Carcinogen Used in Plastic Production (The Hill, October 13, 2021).
EPA Advances WOTUS Rewrite (E&E News, October 13, 2021).
EPA Fires Back in D.C. Circuit Appellate Brief on Coal Ash Rules (Law Street, October 13, 2021).
October 12, 2021
EPA to Give an Update on Butte Projects in Virtual Meeting Thursday (NBC Montana, October 12, 2021).
Biden Taps Montgomery County Environmental Chief Ortiz for Key EPA Post (Maryland Matters, October 12, 2021).
October 11, 2021
EPA Finds Evidence for Tightening Key Air Quality Standard (The Hill, October 11, 2021).
October 10, 2021
EPA Closer to Unveiling Plan for Tackling ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Hill, October 10, 2021)
October 8, 2021
EPA Agrees to Further Phase Down Superpollutant (E&E News, October 8, 2021).
EPA Announces Appointment of Rod Snyder as EPA Agricultural Advisor (NewsDakota.com, October 8, 2021).
EPA Challenges Decision on Water Clean Up Standards (Reuters, October 8, 2021).
Biden EPA to Tighten Soot Standards Trump Left Unchanged (E&E News, October 8, 2021).
EPA Grants Petitions to Stem Climate Pollutants in Future Rules (Bloomberg Law, October 8, 2021).
PFAS Comment by Michael Regan Show EPA’s Clear Intent (The National Law Review, October 8, 2021).
October 7, 2021
EPA Power Plant Rules Could be Part of Bigger Initiative (E&E News, October 7, 2021).
Biden Takes Big Step on Rules for Environmental Reviews (The Hill, October 7, 2021).
October 6, 2021
U.S. States Push to Surpass World Emissions Norms on Aviation (US News, October 6, 2021).
EPA Awards $335,000 for Pollution Prevention and Sustainability Projects in Pacific Northwest Communities (U.S. EPA, October 6, 2021).
October 4, 2021
EPA Targets Potent Greenhouse Gases, Putting a Louisville Company in its Crosshairs (Courier Journal, October 4, 2021).
Landmark EJ Ruling Sparks Legislative Reckoning in VA (E&E News, October 4, 2021).
EPA Strategic Plan Touts Climate, Environmental Justice Goals (E&E News, October 4, 2021).
EPA Announces Updates on its Efforts to Address PFAS in Pesticides Packaging (The National Law Review, October 4, 2021).
EPA Moves to Elevate Tribal Rights in Water Quality: Changes Could Modify CWA Implementation (Lexology, October 4, 2021).
October 3, 2021
Maryland to Resume Use of Pesticide after EPA Testing Doesn’t Detect PFAS (Capital Gazette, October 3, 2021).
October 2, 2021
Biden is Protecting the Land Where the Fat Bears Thrive (Mashable, October 2, 2021).
EPA Begins Five Year Review of Verona Pollution (The Monett Times, October 2, 2021).
EPA Fines Riverbend Landfill in McMinnville $104,482 for Air Pollution Violations (Statesman Journal, October 2, 2021).
October 1, 2021
EPA Will Reconsider Requiring Chemours to Fund PFAS Testing, a Petition Rejected by Outgoing Trump Administration (WHQR, October 1, 2021).
Texas Natural Gas Co. Settles with EPA After Worker Deaths (Reuters, October 1, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/october-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
A Sheep in the Closet: The Erosion of Enforcement at the EPA
UPLOADED 06 July 2021This report examined environmental enforcement in the first two years of the Trump administration. Based on extensive interviewing with EPA employees and recent retirees, environmental enforcement data and internal documents, the report concluded that the EPA was no longer capable of fulfilling its mission to ensure competent enforcement of federal environmental laws. In place of that “gorilla in the closet” role characterized by its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, it had become a “sheep in the closet.”
This report examined environmental enforcement in the first two years of the Trump administration. Based on extensive interviewing with EPA employees and recent retirees, environmental enforcement data and internal documents, the report concluded that the EPA was no longer capable of fulfilling its mission to ensure competent enforcement of federal environmental laws. In place of that “gorilla in the closet” role characterized by its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, it had become a “sheep in the closet.”
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/sheep-in-the-closetSOURCE
CITATION
EDGI, “A Sheep in the Closet: The Erosion of Enforcement at the EPA,” November 19, 2018
RELATED TAGS
-
Democratizing Data: Environmental Enforcement Watch’s Report Cards for Congressional Oversight of the EPA
UPLOADED 06 July 2021This report used tools developed by EDGI’s Environmental Enforcement Watch to analyze trends in compliance and enforcement in select congressional districts and states. The analysis found increases in violations under the Trump administration in many of the areas studied, as well as long-term problems with non-compliance. The report also found serious problems with the reporting, collection, maintenance, and access to enforcement and compliance data.
This report used tools developed by EDGI’s Environmental Enforcement Watch to analyze trends in compliance and enforcement in select congressional districts and states. The analysis found increases in violations under the Trump administration in many of the areas studied, as well as long-term problems with non-compliance. The report also found serious problems with the reporting, collection, maintenance, and access to enforcement and compliance data.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/democratizing-dataSOURCE
CITATION
EDGI, "Democratizing Data: Environmental Enforcement Watch's Report Cards for Congressional Oversight of the EPA," October 22, 2020
RELATED TAGS
-
More Permission to Pollute: The Decline of EPA Enforcement and Industry Compliance during COVID
UPLOADED 06 July 2021On March 26, 2020, the EPA suspended pollution monitoring requirements for regulated entities that claimed to have been impacted by Covid-19. EDGI’s Environmental Enforcement Watch used EPA’s ECHO database to analyze facility reporting and compliance. This analysis showed that although few facilities claimed the Covid-19 exemption, a significant proportion of facilities had still failed to report data that would allow for a determination of non-compliance.
On March 26, 2020, the EPA suspended pollution monitoring requirements for regulated entities that claimed to have been impacted by Covid-19. EDGI’s Environmental Enforcement Watch used EPA’s ECHO database to analyze facility reporting and compliance. This analysis showed that although few facilities claimed the Covid-19 exemption, a significant proportion of facilities had still failed to report data that would allow for a determination of non-compliance.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/more-permission-to-polluteSOURCE
CITATION
EDGI, “More Permission to Pollute: The Decline of EPA Enforcement and Industry Compliance during COVID,” August 13, 2020
RELATED TAGS
-
Primer: How Enforcement Works at the EPA
UPLOADED 18 June 2021Part of the reason that enforcement flies under the radar is that it is complex. It is hard for even experienced journalists and policy analysts to understand the complexities of enforcement and the data on enforcement that the agency produces. In this section, we provide a brief primer on how enforcement works at the EPA..
First, it is important to understand that enforcement is the implementation of regulations and laws. When legislators pass laws, they direct administering agencies, like the EPA, to write regulations that flesh out those laws. The agency further shapes the implementation of regulations by writing guidance documents, memos and other documents that give administrators and employees more detailed directives about how to carry out the law.
Further complicating the enforcement process is the U.S. federalist system of environmental laws. Since the 1970s, the national government has passed a series of strong environmental laws, most of which are administered by the EPA, a national agency. But for most laws, the EPA can delegate authority to enforce the law to the states and tribal governments. Most states have the authorized power to enforce federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which is why most environmental enforcement actions are undertaken by state environmental agencies. While most enforcement is, and has been, done by states, the EPA steps in to work on big or complicated cases (with help from the Justice Department), or to step in where states are not adequately enforcing laws.
The details of federally run enforcement practices vary across laws, but generally they happen as follows. The EPA assists regulated entities (businesses, municipalities, and so on) in complying with the law, while also monitoring them for violations. Monitoring may consist of information requests and self-reporting from industries, electronic data collection, and on-site inspections. The EPA also gathers tips from citizens. If it finds a violation, it may initiate an informal enforcement action, such as sending a notice of violation or a warning letter. Or, it may initiate formal enforcement actions. These are of two main types: civil cases (for violations of civil code) and criminal cases (for violations of the criminal code).
For civil violations, the EPA can pursue administrative or judicial cases. The most common enforcement actions are administrative, which entail the agency itself issuing a formal notice of violation or an order requiring compliance. There are many different categories of administrative enforcement actions, reflecting the variety of mechanisms available for compelling compliance.
Civil judicial cases are those cases pursued in court outside the EPA’s administrative apparatus. While less common than administrative cases, judicial cases are usually the most serious civil cases. The Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the lead on these cases, and so when these cases are initiated they are counted as “civil judicial referrals” to the DOJ. These cases typically end in consent decrees, which are a form of court-ordered negotiated settlement (with fines or compliance orders, or both).
Both administrative orders and court orders, including consent decrees, can impose civil penalties on violators and can require them to come into compliance. The EPA tracks the fines (penalties) levied in civil cases and estimates the compliance costs (also called “injunctive relief”) that result from orders and settlements. EPA also tracks the amount of money committed for Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), another potential outcome of cases. SEPs require violators to fund projects to improve environmental or human health in affected communities.
Finally, in addition to civil actions (administrative and judicial) the EPA may pursue criminal enforcement actions. It undertakes these actions against the most egregious violators of environmental laws. As in civil judicial cases, the DOJ prosecutes these on behalf of the EPA, working closely with EPA criminal investigators. Criminal cases can result not just in monetary penalties but also prison time for those held responsible.
Part of the reason that enforcement flies under the radar is that it is complex. It is hard for even experienced journalists and policy analysts to understand the complexities of enforcement and the data on enforcement that the agency produces. In this section, we provide a brief primer on how enforcement works at the EPA..
First, it is important to understand that enforcement is the implementation of regulations and laws. When legislators pass laws, they direct administering agencies, like the EPA, to write regulations that flesh out those laws. The agency further shapes the implementation of regulations by writing guidance documents, memos and other documents that give administrators and employees more detailed directives about how to carry out the law.
Further complicating the enforcement process is the U.S. federalist system of environmental laws. Since the 1970s, the national government has passed a series of strong environmental laws, most of which are administered by the EPA, a national agency. But for most laws, the EPA can delegate authority to enforce the law to the states and tribal governments. Most states have the authorized power to enforce federal environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which is why most environmental enforcement actions are undertaken by state environmental agencies. While most enforcement is, and has been, done by states, the EPA steps in to work on big or complicated cases (with help from the Justice Department), or to step in where states are not adequately enforcing laws.
The details of federally run enforcement practices vary across laws, but generally they happen as follows. The EPA assists regulated entities (businesses, municipalities, and so on) in complying with the law, while also monitoring them for violations. Monitoring may consist of information requests and self-reporting from industries, electronic data collection, and on-site inspections. The EPA also gathers tips from citizens. If it finds a violation, it may initiate an informal enforcement action, such as sending a notice of violation or a warning letter. Or, it may initiate formal enforcement actions. These are of two main types: civil cases (for violations of civil code) and criminal cases (for violations of the criminal code).
For civil violations, the EPA can pursue administrative or judicial cases. The most common enforcement actions are administrative, which entail the agency itself issuing a formal notice of violation or an order requiring compliance. There are many different categories of administrative enforcement actions, reflecting the variety of mechanisms available for compelling compliance.
Civil judicial cases are those cases pursued in court outside the EPA’s administrative apparatus. While less common than administrative cases, judicial cases are usually the most serious civil cases. The Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the lead on these cases, and so when these cases are initiated they are counted as “civil judicial referrals” to the DOJ. These cases typically end in consent decrees, which are a form of court-ordered negotiated settlement (with fines or compliance orders, or both).
Both administrative orders and court orders, including consent decrees, can impose civil penalties on violators and can require them to come into compliance. The EPA tracks the fines (penalties) levied in civil cases and estimates the compliance costs (also called “injunctive relief”) that result from orders and settlements. EPA also tracks the amount of money committed for Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), another potential outcome of cases. SEPs require violators to fund projects to improve environmental or human health in affected communities.
Finally, in addition to civil actions (administrative and judicial) the EPA may pursue criminal enforcement actions. It undertakes these actions against the most egregious violators of environmental laws. As in civil judicial cases, the DOJ prosecutes these on behalf of the EPA, working closely with EPA criminal investigators. Criminal cases can result not just in monetary penalties but also prison time for those held responsible.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/primer-enforcementSOURCE
Zygmunt Plater et al., Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society, 3rd edition (Apen Publishers, 2004).
CITATION
Leif Fredrickson and Jessica Varner, "Primer: How Enforcement Works at the EPA," A People's EPA.
RELATED TAGS
-
Ruckelshaus Demands Firm EPA Enforcement
UPLOADED 06 July 2021In this speech to EPA staff, administrator William Ruckelshaus made is famous comment that the EPA was the "gorilla the closet." What Ruckelshaus meant was that state enforcement of environmental laws was credible because the EPA could be brought in -- or rather, out -- in the case that state governments were not adequately carrying out enforcement. If, on the other hand, the states "open the closet and find nobody there, or somebody who won't come out, that doesn't do them any good... They need us. They'll complain and scream, but if they don't have us, they are dead." This was Ruckelshaus's second time as administrator. He was brought back to the agency after the previous administrator, Anne Gorsuch, was forced to step down after a series of scandals that included lax enforcement. Even after Ruckelshaus was brought back in, the agency was slow to return to aggressive enforcement due to the lingering shadow of the Reagan administration. Ruckelshaus sought to light a fire under his staff: "The elements of a strong enforcement program are here -- absolutely here -- you not only have my support, you've got my demand that something be done."
In this speech to EPA staff, administrator William Ruckelshaus made is famous comment that the EPA was the "gorilla the closet." What Ruckelshaus meant was that state enforcement of environmental laws was credible because the EPA could be brought in -- or rather, out -- in the case that state governments were not adequately carrying out enforcement. If, on the other hand, the states "open the closet and find nobody there, or somebody who won't come out, that doesn't do them any good... They need us. They'll complain and scream, but if they don't have us, they are dead." This was Ruckelshaus's second time as administrator. He was brought back to the agency after the previous administrator, Anne Gorsuch, was forced to step down after a series of scandals that included lax enforcement. Even after Ruckelshaus was brought back in, the agency was slow to return to aggressive enforcement due to the lingering shadow of the Reagan administration. Ruckelshaus sought to light a fire under his staff: "The elements of a strong enforcement program are here -- absolutely here -- you not only have my support, you've got my demand that something be done."
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/ruckelshaus-demands-firm-epa-enforcementSOURCE
CITATION
William Ruckelshaus, "Ruckelshaus Demands Firm EPA Enforcement," EPA Journal, March 1984.
RELATED TAGS
-
Mother Jones, “7 Ways Biden Can Fight Climate Change Without Any Help from Congress" (June 23, 2020)
UPLOADED 29 October 2021In this article, journalist Rebecca Leber argues that Biden must utilize his executive powers to bypass congressional obstruction in order to achieve his ambitious climate change goals. According to members of the environmental community and former Obama administration, Biden must 1) reinstate over 101 environmental safeguards undermined in the Trump era; 2) deter oil companies from drilling on public land by increasing fees or royalties; 3) establish an environmental advisory position which focuses on environmental and racial justice by partnering with state governments; 4) curtail the financial industry’s investment in fossil fuels; 5) push for expansive investment in federal clean energy infrastructure; 6) raise energy efficiency standards of appliances (such as water heaters); 7) fulfill the ambitious 100 percent clean energy target by 2035, which includes U.S. vehicles; and 8) walk a fine line between action and diplomacy to enlist the aid of both Congress and the courts.
In this article, journalist Rebecca Leber argues that Biden must utilize his executive powers to bypass congressional obstruction in order to achieve his ambitious climate change goals. According to members of the environmental community and former Obama administration, Biden must 1) reinstate over 101 environmental safeguards undermined in the Trump era; 2) deter oil companies from drilling on public land by increasing fees or royalties; 3) establish an environmental advisory position which focuses on environmental and racial justice by partnering with state governments; 4) curtail the financial industry’s investment in fossil fuels; 5) push for expansive investment in federal clean energy infrastructure; 6) raise energy efficiency standards of appliances (such as water heaters); 7) fulfill the ambitious 100 percent clean energy target by 2035, which includes U.S. vehicles; and 8) walk a fine line between action and diplomacy to enlist the aid of both Congress and the courts.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/rebecca-leber-7-ways-biden-can-fight-climate-change-without-any-help-from-congressSOURCE
7 Ways Biden Can Fight Climate Change Without Any Help from Congress – Mother Jones
CITATION
Rebecca Leber, “7 Ways Biden Can Fight Climate Change Without Any Help from Congress.” Mother Jones, November 23, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Ruth Etzel, “Viewpoint: EPA Needs to Return to Its Public Health Roots"
UPLOADED 29 October 2021Employees of the EPA have been demoralized, and the American people no longer have faith in the EPA’s leadership. Etzel, a former EPA leader, argues that the solution to this crisis of faith is to refocus the EPA towards the protection of public health. To do so, the EPA should explicitly affirm its commitment to public health in both word and action. Second, the EPA should rescind the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science'' regulation to reintegrate private epidemiological studies into environmental protection. Third, the EPA should establish a hiring program to require at least 5% of the EPA’s workforce to be trained in epidemiology (currently, this number sits at below 1%) and establish a Center of Epidemiology to ensure public health experts are involved in agency decision making.
Employees of the EPA have been demoralized, and the American people no longer have faith in the EPA’s leadership. Etzel, a former EPA leader, argues that the solution to this crisis of faith is to refocus the EPA towards the protection of public health. To do so, the EPA should explicitly affirm its commitment to public health in both word and action. Second, the EPA should rescind the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science'' regulation to reintegrate private epidemiological studies into environmental protection. Third, the EPA should establish a hiring program to require at least 5% of the EPA’s workforce to be trained in epidemiology (currently, this number sits at below 1%) and establish a Center of Epidemiology to ensure public health experts are involved in agency decision making.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/ruth-etzel-viewpoint-epa-needs-to-return-to-its-public-health-rootsSOURCE
CITATION
Ruth Etzel, “Viewpoint: EPA Needs to Return to Its Public Health Roots.” Government Executive, January 20, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Adele Peters, “How to Rebuild the EPA after Trump Trashed It"
UPLOADED 29 October 2021The Trump era initiated an exodus of EPA employees and 78 reported deregulatory actions, leaving behind a daunting task for the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan. Peters writes that there are a number of actions that Regan and the EPA should, and likely will, take. First, the EPA will likely create a new map of pollution hotspots that focuses on communities hit hard by pollution, climate change, poverty, and systemic racism. Second, the EPA should overturn Trump-era policies, such as “secret science” regulation which limits which studies the EPA can utilize in creating environmental regulation. Third, the EPA should wield the power it was given in the Clean Air Act to limit air pollution and create new standards for car emissions. Fourth, credibility must be restored to the EPA by rehiring scientists and staff and adding actual experts, not industry consultants, to science advisory boards.
The Trump era initiated an exodus of EPA employees and 78 reported deregulatory actions, leaving behind a daunting task for the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan. Peters writes that there are a number of actions that Regan and the EPA should, and likely will, take. First, the EPA will likely create a new map of pollution hotspots that focuses on communities hit hard by pollution, climate change, poverty, and systemic racism. Second, the EPA should overturn Trump-era policies, such as “secret science” regulation which limits which studies the EPA can utilize in creating environmental regulation. Third, the EPA should wield the power it was given in the Clean Air Act to limit air pollution and create new standards for car emissions. Fourth, credibility must be restored to the EPA by rehiring scientists and staff and adding actual experts, not industry consultants, to science advisory boards.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/adele-peters-how-to-rebuild-the-epa-after-trump-trashed-itSOURCE
CITATION
Adele Peters, “How to Rebuild the EPA after Trump Trashed It.” Fast Company, February 8, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
Yevgeny Shrago, “Re-Fund the EPA"
UPLOADED 29 October 2021Shrago argues that, in the decades leading up to Trump, EPA’s budget and workforce has faced stagnation and austerity even as its responsibilities and ambitions have grown. The Trump-era hiring freeze only aged and decreased the EPA’s workforce. To reverse the situation, the Biden administration must reject austerity with environmental policies and increase the EPA’s staff to 25,000 permanent employees. To hire and maintain this number, $2.2 billion must be added to the EPA’s budget.
Shrago argues that, in the decades leading up to Trump, EPA’s budget and workforce has faced stagnation and austerity even as its responsibilities and ambitions have grown. The Trump-era hiring freeze only aged and decreased the EPA’s workforce. To reverse the situation, the Biden administration must reject austerity with environmental policies and increase the EPA’s staff to 25,000 permanent employees. To hire and maintain this number, $2.2 billion must be added to the EPA’s budget.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/yevgeny-shrago-re-fund-the-epaSOURCE
CITATION
Yevgeny Shrago, “Re-Fund the EPA.” The American Prospect, September 24, 2020.
RELATED TAGS
-
Michelle Roos and Jeremy Symons, “A Breath of Fresh Air at the EPA, But Budget, Staff Need Boost”
UPLOADED 29 October 2021The EPA is back to work under the Biden administration, these authors say, and four key steps have aided the agency in its mission: 1) competent leadership in the form of Michael Regan; 2) restoration of the EPA’s climate change website and the integrity of independent science advisory committees; 3) a clear direction has formed towards environmental justice for historically marginalized communities; and 4) Trump-era rollbacks are being scaled back. However, as the EPA’s budget lingers at less than 1% of the total federal discretionary budget, more funding must be directed to the agency to fulfill its mission. Congress must invest in the EPA, its core operating programs, public health, jobs, pollution clean-up, and the protection of vulnerable communities.
The EPA is back to work under the Biden administration, these authors say, and four key steps have aided the agency in its mission: 1) competent leadership in the form of Michael Regan; 2) restoration of the EPA’s climate change website and the integrity of independent science advisory committees; 3) a clear direction has formed towards environmental justice for historically marginalized communities; and 4) Trump-era rollbacks are being scaled back. However, as the EPA’s budget lingers at less than 1% of the total federal discretionary budget, more funding must be directed to the agency to fulfill its mission. Congress must invest in the EPA, its core operating programs, public health, jobs, pollution clean-up, and the protection of vulnerable communities.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/michelle-roos-and-jeremy-symons-a-breath-of-fresh-air-at-the-epa-but-budget-staff-need-boostSOURCE
CITATION
Michelle Roos and Jeremy Symons, “A Breath of Fresh Air at the EPA, But Budget, Staff Need Boost.” Bloomberg Law, May 17, 2021.
RELATED TAGS
-
December 2021 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 December 2021A People's EPA (APE)
December Newsfeed
-
-
December 31, 2021
EPA Awards National Grant to Hawaiʻi for Diesel Emissions Reduction Project (Maui Now, December 31, 2021).
EPA Publishes Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 2: Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos (The National Law Review, December 31, 2021).
December 30, 2021
Emissions Testing Eliminated in Rutherford County, Replaced by Increased Registration Fee (Daily News Journal, December 30, 2021).
December 29, 2021
Advocates Call EPA 'Forever Chemical' Testing Announcement Insufficient (The Hill, December 29, 2021).
Off to the Races: EPA’s Aggressive New Fuel Efficiency Standards Will Fundamentally Reshape How Cars are Made and Powered (The National Law Review, December 29, 2021).
December 28, 2021
EPA to Order Chemical Makers to Test PFAS Substances for Toxicity (Reuters, December 28, 2021).
EPA to Require More Facilities to Report Releases of Carcinogenic Gas (The Hill, December 28, 2021).
December 27, 2021
Pine River Downstream Getting EPA Attention (Morning Sun, December 27, 2021).
December 24, 2021
Grassroots Organization Asking EPA to Make Chemours Pay for Environmental Testing (WECT, December 24, 2021).
December 23, 2021
Burnout, Expertise Gaps Plague EPA Chemicals Office (E&E News, December 23, 2021).
December 22, 2021
Biden has no EPA Air Nominee as Climate Goals Teeter (E&E News, December 22, 2021).
Sixteen Hispanic House Democrats Ask EPA for Tougher Methane Rule (The Hill, December 22, 2021).
December 21, 2021
Reversing Trump Rollback, Biden’s EPA Announces Historically Ambitions Vehicle Emissions Standards (EcoWatch, December 21, 2021).
EPA Grants $81M Loan to Sacramento County Water Agency (FOX40, December 21, 2021).
December 20, 2021
EPA: Infrastructure Law Will Fund Clean-Up at Kil-Tone Property in Vineland (Yahoo News, December 20, 2021).
EPA Tightens Car Emission Standards,Tosses Trump-era Rules (E&E News, December 20, 2021).
E.P.A. Announces Tightest-Ever Auto Pollution Rules (The New York Times, December 20, 2021).
December 18, 2021
The EPA Begins Rolling Out Billions to Clean Up Superfund Sites (NPR, December 18, 2021).
December 17, 2021
EPA Announces New Mexico & Louisiana Sites Will Receive Part of First $1B from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funds to Clear Out the Superfund Backlog (EPA, December 17, 2021).
EPA Releases $1B to Clean Up Toxic Waste Sites in 24 States (The Washington Post, December 17, 2021).
December 16, 2021
EPA Announces $1.27 Million to Fund Environmental Justice Efforts in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (EPA, December 16, 2021).
Biden Administration Details Push to Finally Rid the Nation of Millions of Lead Pipes (The Washington Post, December 16, 2021).
EPA Details Push to Tighten Rules for Lead in Drinking Water (AP News, December 16, 2021).
December 15, 2021
Is There Something Amiss With the Way the EPA Tracks Methane Emissions from Landfills? (Inside Climate News, December 15, 2021).
EPA Flush with Cash as Covid Pesticide Registrations Pile Up (E&E News, December 15, 2021).
December 14, 2021
Coal Interests Press Supreme Court to Limit EPA Reach (E&E News, December 14, 2021).
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Moves to Create New Groundwater Quality Standards (The Edwardson Intelligencer, December 14, 2021).
EPA: Clean Up Air Pollution From New Orleans Area Plant (WRAL.com, December 14, 2021).
December 13, 2021
EPA Stops Posting ‘Critically Important’ Data on Chemical Risks (Bloomberg Law, December 13, 2021).
EPA Opens a $20 Million Grant Competition for Community Air Pollution Monitoring (Environmental Protection, December 13, 2021).
December 12, 2021
Biden Calls on EPA to Investigate Role of Climate Crisis in Deadly Tornadoes (The Guardian, December 12, 2021).
December 11, 2021
In Hawaii, Fears Grow Over Unsafe Levels of Petroleum in Drinking Water (The New York Times, December 11, 2021).
December 10, 2021
Navy Blames Hawaii Water Contamination on Jet Fuel Spill (ABC News, December 10, 2021).
December 9, 2021
EPA’s RFS This Week Unleashed a Mix of Support and Questions; Here’s What to Watch Next (AG Web, December 9, 2021).
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for HHS, EPA, and HUD (The White House, December 9, 2021).
December 8, 2021
EPA Awards over $4 Million in Grants for Diesel Emissions Reduction Projects in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (EPA, December 8, 2021).
EPA-Linked Consultant Undercuts Agency’s PFAS Concerns (E&E News, December 8, 2021).
Biofuels Sector Rankled Although EPA Proposes Highest Ethanol Mandate (Successful Farming, December 8, 2021).
December 7, 2021
Deal forces EPA to Revisit Chemical Industry Emissions (E&E News, December 7, 2021).
U.S. EPA Proposes Biofuel Mandate Cuts, a Boost to Pandemic-hit Refiners (Reuters, December 7, 2021).
Scores of Properties Subject to EPA Cleanup in Black Eagle (KRTV Montana, December 7, 2021).
December 5, 2021
$110 Coming to Iowa for Water, Wastewater Work (The Clinton Herald, December 5, 2021).
December 4, 2021
Mississippi to Receive Nearly $75 Million in Infrastructure Funding (AP News, December 4, 2021).
December 3, 2021
The EPA Placed a Texas Superfund Site on its National Priorities List in 2018. Why Is the Health Threat Still Unknown? (Inside Climate News, December 3, 2021).
EPA Advisers Favor Stronger Soot Standards (E&E News, December 3, 2021).
December 2, 2021
EPA Announces Water Infrastructure Funding for States Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Calls for Prioritizing Underserved Communities (EPA, December 2, 2021).
EPA Outlines $7.4B for Water Infrastructure Headed to States (The Washington Post, December 2, 2021).
Environmental Protection Agency Authorizes Red Lake Nation to Set Water Quality Standards (The Bemidji Pioneer, December 2, 2021).
December 1, 2021
Lawmakers Send Three Biden Picks for EPA to Full Senate (Reuters, December 1, 2021).
A People's EPA (APE)
December Newsfeed
-
-
December 31, 2021
EPA Awards National Grant to Hawaiʻi for Diesel Emissions Reduction Project (Maui Now, December 31, 2021).
EPA Publishes Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 2: Supplemental Evaluation Including Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals of Asbestos (The National Law Review, December 31, 2021).
December 30, 2021
Emissions Testing Eliminated in Rutherford County, Replaced by Increased Registration Fee (Daily News Journal, December 30, 2021).
December 29, 2021
Advocates Call EPA 'Forever Chemical' Testing Announcement Insufficient (The Hill, December 29, 2021).
Off to the Races: EPA’s Aggressive New Fuel Efficiency Standards Will Fundamentally Reshape How Cars are Made and Powered (The National Law Review, December 29, 2021).
December 28, 2021
EPA to Order Chemical Makers to Test PFAS Substances for Toxicity (Reuters, December 28, 2021).
EPA to Require More Facilities to Report Releases of Carcinogenic Gas (The Hill, December 28, 2021).
December 27, 2021
Pine River Downstream Getting EPA Attention (Morning Sun, December 27, 2021).
December 24, 2021
Grassroots Organization Asking EPA to Make Chemours Pay for Environmental Testing (WECT, December 24, 2021).
December 23, 2021
Burnout, Expertise Gaps Plague EPA Chemicals Office (E&E News, December 23, 2021).
December 22, 2021
Biden has no EPA Air Nominee as Climate Goals Teeter (E&E News, December 22, 2021).
Sixteen Hispanic House Democrats Ask EPA for Tougher Methane Rule (The Hill, December 22, 2021).
December 21, 2021
Reversing Trump Rollback, Biden’s EPA Announces Historically Ambitions Vehicle Emissions Standards (EcoWatch, December 21, 2021).
EPA Grants $81M Loan to Sacramento County Water Agency (FOX40, December 21, 2021).
December 20, 2021
EPA: Infrastructure Law Will Fund Clean-Up at Kil-Tone Property in Vineland (Yahoo News, December 20, 2021).
EPA Tightens Car Emission Standards,Tosses Trump-era Rules (E&E News, December 20, 2021).
E.P.A. Announces Tightest-Ever Auto Pollution Rules (The New York Times, December 20, 2021).
December 18, 2021
The EPA Begins Rolling Out Billions to Clean Up Superfund Sites (NPR, December 18, 2021).
December 17, 2021
EPA Announces New Mexico & Louisiana Sites Will Receive Part of First $1B from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funds to Clear Out the Superfund Backlog (EPA, December 17, 2021).
EPA Releases $1B to Clean Up Toxic Waste Sites in 24 States (The Washington Post, December 17, 2021).
December 16, 2021
EPA Announces $1.27 Million to Fund Environmental Justice Efforts in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (EPA, December 16, 2021).
Biden Administration Details Push to Finally Rid the Nation of Millions of Lead Pipes (The Washington Post, December 16, 2021).
EPA Details Push to Tighten Rules for Lead in Drinking Water (AP News, December 16, 2021).
December 15, 2021
Is There Something Amiss With the Way the EPA Tracks Methane Emissions from Landfills? (Inside Climate News, December 15, 2021).
EPA Flush with Cash as Covid Pesticide Registrations Pile Up (E&E News, December 15, 2021).
December 14, 2021
Coal Interests Press Supreme Court to Limit EPA Reach (E&E News, December 14, 2021).
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Moves to Create New Groundwater Quality Standards (The Edwardson Intelligencer, December 14, 2021).
EPA: Clean Up Air Pollution From New Orleans Area Plant (WRAL.com, December 14, 2021).
December 13, 2021
EPA Stops Posting ‘Critically Important’ Data on Chemical Risks (Bloomberg Law, December 13, 2021).
EPA Opens a $20 Million Grant Competition for Community Air Pollution Monitoring (Environmental Protection, December 13, 2021).
December 12, 2021
Biden Calls on EPA to Investigate Role of Climate Crisis in Deadly Tornadoes (The Guardian, December 12, 2021).
December 11, 2021
In Hawaii, Fears Grow Over Unsafe Levels of Petroleum in Drinking Water (The New York Times, December 11, 2021).
December 10, 2021
Navy Blames Hawaii Water Contamination on Jet Fuel Spill (ABC News, December 10, 2021).
December 9, 2021
EPA’s RFS This Week Unleashed a Mix of Support and Questions; Here’s What to Watch Next (AG Web, December 9, 2021).
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for HHS, EPA, and HUD (The White House, December 9, 2021).
December 8, 2021
EPA Awards over $4 Million in Grants for Diesel Emissions Reduction Projects in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (EPA, December 8, 2021).
EPA-Linked Consultant Undercuts Agency’s PFAS Concerns (E&E News, December 8, 2021).
Biofuels Sector Rankled Although EPA Proposes Highest Ethanol Mandate (Successful Farming, December 8, 2021).
December 7, 2021
Deal forces EPA to Revisit Chemical Industry Emissions (E&E News, December 7, 2021).
U.S. EPA Proposes Biofuel Mandate Cuts, a Boost to Pandemic-hit Refiners (Reuters, December 7, 2021).
Scores of Properties Subject to EPA Cleanup in Black Eagle (KRTV Montana, December 7, 2021).
December 5, 2021
$110 Coming to Iowa for Water, Wastewater Work (The Clinton Herald, December 5, 2021).
December 4, 2021
Mississippi to Receive Nearly $75 Million in Infrastructure Funding (AP News, December 4, 2021).
December 3, 2021
The EPA Placed a Texas Superfund Site on its National Priorities List in 2018. Why Is the Health Threat Still Unknown? (Inside Climate News, December 3, 2021).
EPA Advisers Favor Stronger Soot Standards (E&E News, December 3, 2021).
December 2, 2021
EPA Announces Water Infrastructure Funding for States Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Calls for Prioritizing Underserved Communities (EPA, December 2, 2021).
EPA Outlines $7.4B for Water Infrastructure Headed to States (The Washington Post, December 2, 2021).
Environmental Protection Agency Authorizes Red Lake Nation to Set Water Quality Standards (The Bemidji Pioneer, December 2, 2021).
December 1, 2021
Lawmakers Send Three Biden Picks for EPA to Full Senate (Reuters, December 1, 2021).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/december-2021-newsfeedRELATED TAGS
-
January 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 January 2022A People's EPA (APE)
January Newsfeed
-
-
January 31, 2022
Biden Administration to Reinstate Mercury Pollution Rules Weakened Under Trump (The New York Times, January 31, 2022).
Biden EPA Revives Justification for Coal Utility Mercury Rule (EWG, January 31, 2022).
Biden Begins Crackdown on Power Plant Pollution (The Washington Post, January 31, 2022).
January 30, 2022
Foundry Site Gets More Cleanup Funds (Traverse City Record Eagle, January 30, 2022).
January 28, 2022
Environmental Protection Agency to Step Up Enforcement and Monitoring of Pollution in Overburdened Communities (Environmental Defense Fund, January 28, 2022).
EPA Rejects Texas’ More Lenient Standard for Highly Toxic Air Pollutant (ProPublica, January 28, 2022).
January 27, 2022
Biden Administration Moves to Boost Cybersecurity of Water Systems (The Hill, January 27, 2022).
January 26, 2022
US to Hold Surprise Plant Inspections Targeting Pollution in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley (The Guardian, January 26, 2022).
E.P.A. Chief Vows to ‘Do Better’ to Protect Poor Communities (The New York Times, January 26, 2022).
January 25, 2022
Justice for PFAS Exposure Races a Ticking Clock (The Hill, January 25, 2022).
EPA to Probe Whether North Carolina’s Permitting of Biogas From Swine Feeding Operations Violates Civil Rights of Nearby Neighborhoods (Inside Climate News, January 25, 2022).
Nearly 200 Democrats Back EPA in Supreme Court Emissions Case (The Hill, January 25, 2022).
January 24, 2022
EPA Finalizes Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards (Mondaq, January 24, 2022).
Tennessee Was ‘Ground Zero’ for Coal Ash Pollution. Now, EPA is Promising Cleanups. (WPLN News, January 24, 2022).
How Biden Could Close Coal Plants Without CO2 Regulations (E&E News, January 24, 2022).
EPA Stops Enforcing Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Staffers (E&E News, January 24, 2022).
Supreme Court Takes EPA Case that Could Narrow Clean Water Act (The Washington Post, January 24, 2022).
January 23, 2022
EPA to Investigate North Carolina Biogas for Discrimination (AG Insider, January 23, 2022).
January 22, 2022
EPA Reverses Finding in Revised Draft Risk Evaluation for TSCA Chemical, Seeks Comment (Safety and Health, January 22, 2022).
US, Colorado and Mining Company Reach Proposed Settlement in Gold King Mine Spill Dispute (Farmington Daily Times, January 22, 2022).
January 21, 2022
Biden Preps Full-court Press to Curb Coal as Emissions Spike (E&E News, January 21, 2022).
EPA Announces It Is Extending Flexibilities to Minimize Supply-Chain Disruptions Facing the Pesticide Industry (JD Supra, January 21, 2022).
January 20, 2022
EPA Sued Over PFAS “Secrecy” Reporting Loopholes (Earthjustice, January 20, 2022).
EPA Concludes Oil Spill Investigation, No Source Identified (KCAW Sitka, January 20, 2022).
EPA Targets Michigan Toxic Site Backlog with Infrastructure Money (MLive, January 20, 2022).
January 19, 2022
EPA, Blue States Push Back on Republicans' SCOTUS Bid to Curb Agency Powers (Reuters, January 19, 2022).
EPA, Developer Settle Case over Wetlands Violations in Boise (EPA, January 19, 2022).
Survey: Burnout, Morale Hamper EPA Chemicals Office (E&E News, January 19, 2022).
Par Hawaii Refining to Pay $176,899 Fine for EPA Violations (The Star Advertiser, January 19, 2022).
Power Companies Back EPA Climate Authority at Supreme Court (E&E News, January 19, 2022).
January 18, 2022
Why EPA’s Announcement about a Chemical No Longer Manufactured is Big News for your Business (The National Law Review, January 18, 2022)
EPA Releases Sampling Results from Coney Island Creek, Finds Presence of Contamination (Brooklyn Paper, January 18, 2022).
January 17, 2022
24 Years Later, Runoff Issues in Hinkson Creek Still Not Resolved (Columbia Missourian, January 17th, 2022).
January 14, 2022
Biden Has Made Progress on Climate Change So Far, But It’s Not Enough, Group Says (The Washington Post, January 14, 2022).
January 13, 2022
EPA Rejected White House Effort to Toughen Car Rules (E&E News, January 13, 2022).
January 12, 2022
An Alabama Town’s Sewage Woes Test Biden’s Infrastructure Ambitions (The New York Times, January 12, 2022).
January 12, 2022
In Orlando, a mountain of coal ash evades EPA rules. It's not the only one. (NPR, January 12, 2022).
Exclusive: Biden Weighing Cuts to 2022 Ethanol Blending Mandate Proposal (Reuters, January 12, 2022).
EPA Ramps Up Pressure Over State Pollution Loopholes (E&E News, January 12, 2022).
EPA Announces Leaded Fuel Endangerment Finding (AVweb, January 12, 2022).
Santa Clara County Petition Sparks EPA Inquiry of Leaded Aviation Fuel (San Jose Spotlight, January 12, 2022).
Group Intends to Sue EPA Over New Montana Law (Helena Independent Record, January 12, 2022).
January 11,2022
EPA Takes Steps towards Addressing Toxic Coal Residue (The Hill, January 11, 2022).
Meet the EPA Staffers Key to Biden’s Goals (E&E News, January 11, 2022).
EPA to Assess Impact on Endangered Species Before Signing Off on Pesticide Ingredients (The Hill, January 11, 2022)
January 10, 2022
Challenge to EPA’s Climate Authority Heads to Supreme Court (Bloomberg Green, January 10, 2022).
The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Efforts to Protect the Environment (The New Yorker, January 10, 2022).
January 7, 2022
Two PFAS-contaminated Sites in Kent County Could be Placed on EPA List of America's Most Toxic Locations (Fox17 West Michigan, January 7, 2022).
Virginia Lawmakers Urge EPA to Aid Landfill Issues (Herald Courier, January 7, 2022).
January 5, 2022
After 30 Years, EPA Finally Adds to Hazardous Air Pollutant List (Earthjustice, January 5, 2022).
January 3, 2022
Biden’s EPA Takes Further Action to Mandate LSL Replacement (Water Finance and Management, January 3, 2022).
Environmental Groups Criticize EPA's Plans to Study Pollution (TheTimesNews, January 3, 2022).
Cleaning Toxic Sites, Removing Lead Pipes Part of EPA's 2022 Vision for New Jersey (Asbury Park Press, January 3, 2022).
Biden Admin Advances Key Toxic Chemical Decision (E&E News, January 3, 2022).
January 2, 2022
EPA Wraps Up A Year of Significant Accomplishments (The National Law Review, January 2, 2022).
EPA: No Money for Sites in Washington, New Haven (emissourian.com, January 2, 2022).
‘They are supposed to protect us’: Community Wants More from EPA for Duwamish Superfund Cleanup (The Seattle Times, January 2, 2022).
January 1, 2022
Five Climate Moves by the Biden Administration You May Have Missed (Climate Insider, January 1, 2022).
Lawmakers Call on Biden to Withdraw New EPA Methane Regulation (The Highland County Press, January 1, 2022).
Beaches Closed After 8.5 Million Gallons of Sewage Spill in Los Angeles County (The New York Times, January 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
January Newsfeed
-
-
January 31, 2022
Biden Administration to Reinstate Mercury Pollution Rules Weakened Under Trump (The New York Times, January 31, 2022).
Biden EPA Revives Justification for Coal Utility Mercury Rule (EWG, January 31, 2022).
Biden Begins Crackdown on Power Plant Pollution (The Washington Post, January 31, 2022).
January 30, 2022
Foundry Site Gets More Cleanup Funds (Traverse City Record Eagle, January 30, 2022).
January 28, 2022
Environmental Protection Agency to Step Up Enforcement and Monitoring of Pollution in Overburdened Communities (Environmental Defense Fund, January 28, 2022).
EPA Rejects Texas’ More Lenient Standard for Highly Toxic Air Pollutant (ProPublica, January 28, 2022).
January 27, 2022
Biden Administration Moves to Boost Cybersecurity of Water Systems (The Hill, January 27, 2022).
January 26, 2022
US to Hold Surprise Plant Inspections Targeting Pollution in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley (The Guardian, January 26, 2022).
E.P.A. Chief Vows to ‘Do Better’ to Protect Poor Communities (The New York Times, January 26, 2022).
January 25, 2022
Justice for PFAS Exposure Races a Ticking Clock (The Hill, January 25, 2022).
EPA to Probe Whether North Carolina’s Permitting of Biogas From Swine Feeding Operations Violates Civil Rights of Nearby Neighborhoods (Inside Climate News, January 25, 2022).
Nearly 200 Democrats Back EPA in Supreme Court Emissions Case (The Hill, January 25, 2022).
January 24, 2022
EPA Finalizes Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards (Mondaq, January 24, 2022).
Tennessee Was ‘Ground Zero’ for Coal Ash Pollution. Now, EPA is Promising Cleanups. (WPLN News, January 24, 2022).
How Biden Could Close Coal Plants Without CO2 Regulations (E&E News, January 24, 2022).
EPA Stops Enforcing Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Staffers (E&E News, January 24, 2022).
Supreme Court Takes EPA Case that Could Narrow Clean Water Act (The Washington Post, January 24, 2022).
January 23, 2022
EPA to Investigate North Carolina Biogas for Discrimination (AG Insider, January 23, 2022).
January 22, 2022
EPA Reverses Finding in Revised Draft Risk Evaluation for TSCA Chemical, Seeks Comment (Safety and Health, January 22, 2022).
US, Colorado and Mining Company Reach Proposed Settlement in Gold King Mine Spill Dispute (Farmington Daily Times, January 22, 2022).
January 21, 2022
Biden Preps Full-court Press to Curb Coal as Emissions Spike (E&E News, January 21, 2022).
EPA Announces It Is Extending Flexibilities to Minimize Supply-Chain Disruptions Facing the Pesticide Industry (JD Supra, January 21, 2022).
January 20, 2022
EPA Sued Over PFAS “Secrecy” Reporting Loopholes (Earthjustice, January 20, 2022).
EPA Concludes Oil Spill Investigation, No Source Identified (KCAW Sitka, January 20, 2022).
EPA Targets Michigan Toxic Site Backlog with Infrastructure Money (MLive, January 20, 2022).
January 19, 2022
EPA, Blue States Push Back on Republicans' SCOTUS Bid to Curb Agency Powers (Reuters, January 19, 2022).
EPA, Developer Settle Case over Wetlands Violations in Boise (EPA, January 19, 2022).
Survey: Burnout, Morale Hamper EPA Chemicals Office (E&E News, January 19, 2022).
Par Hawaii Refining to Pay $176,899 Fine for EPA Violations (The Star Advertiser, January 19, 2022).
Power Companies Back EPA Climate Authority at Supreme Court (E&E News, January 19, 2022).
January 18, 2022
Why EPA’s Announcement about a Chemical No Longer Manufactured is Big News for your Business (The National Law Review, January 18, 2022)
EPA Releases Sampling Results from Coney Island Creek, Finds Presence of Contamination (Brooklyn Paper, January 18, 2022).
January 17, 2022
24 Years Later, Runoff Issues in Hinkson Creek Still Not Resolved (Columbia Missourian, January 17th, 2022).
January 14, 2022
Biden Has Made Progress on Climate Change So Far, But It’s Not Enough, Group Says (The Washington Post, January 14, 2022).
January 13, 2022
EPA Rejected White House Effort to Toughen Car Rules (E&E News, January 13, 2022).
January 12, 2022
An Alabama Town’s Sewage Woes Test Biden’s Infrastructure Ambitions (The New York Times, January 12, 2022).
January 12, 2022
In Orlando, a mountain of coal ash evades EPA rules. It's not the only one. (NPR, January 12, 2022).
Exclusive: Biden Weighing Cuts to 2022 Ethanol Blending Mandate Proposal (Reuters, January 12, 2022).
EPA Ramps Up Pressure Over State Pollution Loopholes (E&E News, January 12, 2022).
EPA Announces Leaded Fuel Endangerment Finding (AVweb, January 12, 2022).
Santa Clara County Petition Sparks EPA Inquiry of Leaded Aviation Fuel (San Jose Spotlight, January 12, 2022).
Group Intends to Sue EPA Over New Montana Law (Helena Independent Record, January 12, 2022).
January 11,2022
EPA Takes Steps towards Addressing Toxic Coal Residue (The Hill, January 11, 2022).
Meet the EPA Staffers Key to Biden’s Goals (E&E News, January 11, 2022).
EPA to Assess Impact on Endangered Species Before Signing Off on Pesticide Ingredients (The Hill, January 11, 2022)
January 10, 2022
Challenge to EPA’s Climate Authority Heads to Supreme Court (Bloomberg Green, January 10, 2022).
The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend Efforts to Protect the Environment (The New Yorker, January 10, 2022).
January 7, 2022
Two PFAS-contaminated Sites in Kent County Could be Placed on EPA List of America's Most Toxic Locations (Fox17 West Michigan, January 7, 2022).
Virginia Lawmakers Urge EPA to Aid Landfill Issues (Herald Courier, January 7, 2022).
January 5, 2022
After 30 Years, EPA Finally Adds to Hazardous Air Pollutant List (Earthjustice, January 5, 2022).
January 3, 2022
Biden’s EPA Takes Further Action to Mandate LSL Replacement (Water Finance and Management, January 3, 2022).
Environmental Groups Criticize EPA's Plans to Study Pollution (TheTimesNews, January 3, 2022).
Cleaning Toxic Sites, Removing Lead Pipes Part of EPA's 2022 Vision for New Jersey (Asbury Park Press, January 3, 2022).
Biden Admin Advances Key Toxic Chemical Decision (E&E News, January 3, 2022).
January 2, 2022
EPA Wraps Up A Year of Significant Accomplishments (The National Law Review, January 2, 2022).
EPA: No Money for Sites in Washington, New Haven (emissourian.com, January 2, 2022).
‘They are supposed to protect us’: Community Wants More from EPA for Duwamish Superfund Cleanup (The Seattle Times, January 2, 2022).
January 1, 2022
Five Climate Moves by the Biden Administration You May Have Missed (Climate Insider, January 1, 2022).
Lawmakers Call on Biden to Withdraw New EPA Methane Regulation (The Highland County Press, January 1, 2022).
Beaches Closed After 8.5 Million Gallons of Sewage Spill in Los Angeles County (The New York Times, January 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/january-2022-newsfeed -
February 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 February 2022A People's EPA (APE)
February Newsfeed
-
-
February 28, 2022
Supreme Court to Hear a Case that Could Limit the EPA's Power to Fight Climate Change (NPR, February 28, 2022).
Supreme Court Could Thwart EPA’s Ability to Address Climate Change (The Washington Post, February 28, 2022).
February 27, 2022
Supreme Court Will Hear Biggest Climate Change Case in a Decade (The New York Times, February 27, 2022).
February 26, 2022
State Cleanup of Public Place May Leave Behind Dangerous Chemicals, EPA Warns (Brooklyn Paper, February 26, 2022).
The Supreme Court is hearing a major case on EPA's authority over planet-warming gases. Here's what's at stake. (CNN, February 26, 2022).
February 25, 2022
Biden EPA Moves Closer to Final Ban of Brain-Damaging Pesticide (EWG, February 25, 2022).
EPA, Army Announce Roundtables to Discuss WOTUS (The Fence Post, February 25, 2022).
EPA Agrees to Update Rules for Cancer-Causing Chemical Plants (Earthjustice, February 25, 2022).
EPA Takes Next Step to Keep Chlorpyrifos Out of Food, Protecting Farmworkers and Children’s Health (EPA, February 25, 2022).February 24, 2022
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for USDA, EPA, and FEMA (The White House, February 24, 2022).
February 24, 2022
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for USDA, EPA, and FEMA (The White House, February 24, 2022).
February 23, 2022
After Years of Pollution Violations, Tesla is Fined $275,000 by the EPA (LA Times, February 23, 2022).
U.S. Postal Service Going Ahead with Plan to Buy Mostly Gas-powered Vehicles in Defiance of EPA and White House (CBS News, February 23, 2022).
Blunt, Hawley and Wagner Demand Answers From EPA on West Lake Landfill (KMOV4, February 23, 2022).
February 22, 2022
EPA Fiddles as Flood Clock Rolls on Mississippi Delta’s Forgotten Nightmare (AgWeb, February 22, 2022).
EPA fines SGL for Gas Leaks (Columbia Basin Herald, February 22, 2022).
Texas Defends its Less Protective Standard for Highly Toxic Air Pollutant During EPA Meeting (Houston Public Media, February 22, 2022).
Tesla and EPA Reach a Settlement After Automaker’s Clean Air Act Violations (CNBC, February 22, 2022).
U.S. EPA Commits to Increasing Biofuel Use, Targets Not Yet Finalized (Reuters, February 22, 2022).
February 19, 2022
EPA Chief Regan Touts Cleanup Aid for Metro Detroit Rivers (The Detroit News, February 19, 2022).
February 18, 2022
Wanted: Staff for EPA’s ‘Monumental’ Infrastructure Job (E&E News, February 18, 2022).
Watchdog to Probe EPA’s Benton Harbor Lead Crisis Response (E&E News, February 18, 2022).
White House Unveils Tool to Determine Eligibility for Environmental Justice Aid (The Hill, February 18, 2022).
February 18, 2022
EPA Developing Plan to Clean Grand Prairie Industrial Site, One of the Most Polluted in the U.S. (The Dallas Morning News, February 18, 2022).
February 17, 2022
Will EPA get an Environmental Justice Boss? (E&E News, February 17, 2022).
Biden Announces $1 billion in Infrastructure Funding to Clean Up the Great Lakes (CNN, February 17, 2022).
February 16, 2022
Biden Administration is Finalizing a Waiver for California to Set its Own Vehicle Emissions Standards (CNN, February 16, 2022).
Chemical Hazard Reporting & Planning Enforcement Actions by EPA Region 10 in 2021 (EPA, February 16, 2022).
Cassidy Places Hold on EPA Nominees Over Carbon Capture Project Approval Delay (The Hill, February 16, 2022).
February 15, 2022
Ag Groups Sue EPA Over Chlorpyrifos Revocation (The Fence Post, February 15, 2022).
White House Takes Aim at Environmental Racism, but Won’t Mention Race (The New York Times, February 15, 2022).
EPA says U.S. Met Obama-era Climate Pledge (E&E News, February 15, 2022).
February 13, 2022
EPA Awards Delaware River and Bay Authority as WasteWise Partner (Cape Gazette, February 13, 2022).
February 12, 2022
Water-Quality Group Registers Concerns with EPA over MMA's Sewage Disposal into Canal (Cape Cod Times, February 12, 2022).
Maryland Department of Environment is Failing to Protect the Chesapeake Bay, Critics Say (The Washington Post, February 12, 2022).
February 11, 2022
EPA Announces Additional Actions to Advance Environmental Justice Efforts (The National Law Review, February 11, 2022).
EPA Pushes School Ventilation Upgrades as Mask Mandates Fall (E&E News, February 11, 2022).
February 10, 2022
White House Regs Shop Delayed Air Pollution Reg for Months (E&E News, February 10, 2022).
EPA Region 10 Clean Water Act enforcement actions in 2021 (EPA, February 10, 2022).
Feb 9
Growth Energy Sues EPA Over Renewable Fuels Standards (Law Street, February 9, 2022).
February 8, 2022
Thirty-Nine States, Including California, Failed to Submit Pollution Reduction Plans to the Environmental Protection Agency, NPCA Reports (Sierra Sun Times, February 8, 2022).
EPA Awards Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Part of $3.8 Million in Grants to Train Environmental Workers for Jobs Created by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (EPA, February 8, 2022).
U.S. EPA Names Oregon Lawyer to Lead Environmental Justice Efforts (Reuters, February 8, 2022).
Tracking Biden’s Environmental Actions (The Washington Post, February 8, 2022).
Virginia Lawmakers Reject Former Trump EPA Chief Along Party Lines (The Hill, February 8, 2022).
February 7, 2022
EPA Nears Deal with Wyo. Over Massive Coal Plant (E&E News, February 7, 2022).
EPA Science Advisers Recommend Tighter Soot Air Quality Standards in Draft Document (The Hill, February 7, 2022).
February 6, 2022
EPA Ramps Up Local Emissions Monitoring, Unannounced Inspections (The Herald Guide, February 6, 2022).
February 5, 2022
EPA to Inspect Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility Amid Ongoing Tainted Water Crisis (Hawaii News Now, February 5, 2022).
Springfield to Receive $200K Grant from EPA for Job Training Program to Revitalize Brownfields (KY3, February 5, 2022).
February 4, 2022
EPA Recognizes Pacific Northwest Energy Savers, Food Waste Reducers, and Recyclers (EPA, February 4, 2022).
EPA says It Has ‘No Confidence’ in Plan to Address Sediment Pollution Coming From Behind Conowingo Dam (Baltimore Sun, February 4, 2022).
February 2, 2022
White House, EPA Urge US Postal Service to Reconsider Gas-Powered Vehicle Plan (Reuters, February 2, 2022).
February 1, 2022
Biden Administration Presses Forward With Revised WOTUS Rule (JD Supra, February 1, 2022).
EPA Reaches Settlements with Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska Companies for Automobile ‘Defeat Device’ Violations (EPA, February 1, 2022).
Biden Officials Head to EPA Regional Offices (E&E News, February 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
February Newsfeed
-
-
February 28, 2022
Supreme Court to Hear a Case that Could Limit the EPA's Power to Fight Climate Change (NPR, February 28, 2022).
Supreme Court Could Thwart EPA’s Ability to Address Climate Change (The Washington Post, February 28, 2022).
February 27, 2022
Supreme Court Will Hear Biggest Climate Change Case in a Decade (The New York Times, February 27, 2022).
February 26, 2022
State Cleanup of Public Place May Leave Behind Dangerous Chemicals, EPA Warns (Brooklyn Paper, February 26, 2022).
The Supreme Court is hearing a major case on EPA's authority over planet-warming gases. Here's what's at stake. (CNN, February 26, 2022).
February 25, 2022
Biden EPA Moves Closer to Final Ban of Brain-Damaging Pesticide (EWG, February 25, 2022).
EPA, Army Announce Roundtables to Discuss WOTUS (The Fence Post, February 25, 2022).
EPA Agrees to Update Rules for Cancer-Causing Chemical Plants (Earthjustice, February 25, 2022).
EPA Takes Next Step to Keep Chlorpyrifos Out of Food, Protecting Farmworkers and Children’s Health (EPA, February 25, 2022).February 24, 2022
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for USDA, EPA, and FEMA (The White House, February 24, 2022).
February 24, 2022
President Biden Announces Key Regional Appointments for USDA, EPA, and FEMA (The White House, February 24, 2022).
February 23, 2022
After Years of Pollution Violations, Tesla is Fined $275,000 by the EPA (LA Times, February 23, 2022).
U.S. Postal Service Going Ahead with Plan to Buy Mostly Gas-powered Vehicles in Defiance of EPA and White House (CBS News, February 23, 2022).
Blunt, Hawley and Wagner Demand Answers From EPA on West Lake Landfill (KMOV4, February 23, 2022).
February 22, 2022
EPA Fiddles as Flood Clock Rolls on Mississippi Delta’s Forgotten Nightmare (AgWeb, February 22, 2022).
EPA fines SGL for Gas Leaks (Columbia Basin Herald, February 22, 2022).
Texas Defends its Less Protective Standard for Highly Toxic Air Pollutant During EPA Meeting (Houston Public Media, February 22, 2022).
Tesla and EPA Reach a Settlement After Automaker’s Clean Air Act Violations (CNBC, February 22, 2022).
U.S. EPA Commits to Increasing Biofuel Use, Targets Not Yet Finalized (Reuters, February 22, 2022).
February 19, 2022
EPA Chief Regan Touts Cleanup Aid for Metro Detroit Rivers (The Detroit News, February 19, 2022).
February 18, 2022
Wanted: Staff for EPA’s ‘Monumental’ Infrastructure Job (E&E News, February 18, 2022).
Watchdog to Probe EPA’s Benton Harbor Lead Crisis Response (E&E News, February 18, 2022).
White House Unveils Tool to Determine Eligibility for Environmental Justice Aid (The Hill, February 18, 2022).
February 18, 2022
EPA Developing Plan to Clean Grand Prairie Industrial Site, One of the Most Polluted in the U.S. (The Dallas Morning News, February 18, 2022).
February 17, 2022
Will EPA get an Environmental Justice Boss? (E&E News, February 17, 2022).
Biden Announces $1 billion in Infrastructure Funding to Clean Up the Great Lakes (CNN, February 17, 2022).
February 16, 2022
Biden Administration is Finalizing a Waiver for California to Set its Own Vehicle Emissions Standards (CNN, February 16, 2022).
Chemical Hazard Reporting & Planning Enforcement Actions by EPA Region 10 in 2021 (EPA, February 16, 2022).
Cassidy Places Hold on EPA Nominees Over Carbon Capture Project Approval Delay (The Hill, February 16, 2022).
February 15, 2022
Ag Groups Sue EPA Over Chlorpyrifos Revocation (The Fence Post, February 15, 2022).
White House Takes Aim at Environmental Racism, but Won’t Mention Race (The New York Times, February 15, 2022).
EPA says U.S. Met Obama-era Climate Pledge (E&E News, February 15, 2022).
February 13, 2022
EPA Awards Delaware River and Bay Authority as WasteWise Partner (Cape Gazette, February 13, 2022).
February 12, 2022
Water-Quality Group Registers Concerns with EPA over MMA's Sewage Disposal into Canal (Cape Cod Times, February 12, 2022).
Maryland Department of Environment is Failing to Protect the Chesapeake Bay, Critics Say (The Washington Post, February 12, 2022).
February 11, 2022
EPA Announces Additional Actions to Advance Environmental Justice Efforts (The National Law Review, February 11, 2022).
EPA Pushes School Ventilation Upgrades as Mask Mandates Fall (E&E News, February 11, 2022).
February 10, 2022
White House Regs Shop Delayed Air Pollution Reg for Months (E&E News, February 10, 2022).
EPA Region 10 Clean Water Act enforcement actions in 2021 (EPA, February 10, 2022).
Feb 9
Growth Energy Sues EPA Over Renewable Fuels Standards (Law Street, February 9, 2022).
February 8, 2022
Thirty-Nine States, Including California, Failed to Submit Pollution Reduction Plans to the Environmental Protection Agency, NPCA Reports (Sierra Sun Times, February 8, 2022).
EPA Awards Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Part of $3.8 Million in Grants to Train Environmental Workers for Jobs Created by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (EPA, February 8, 2022).
U.S. EPA Names Oregon Lawyer to Lead Environmental Justice Efforts (Reuters, February 8, 2022).
Tracking Biden’s Environmental Actions (The Washington Post, February 8, 2022).
Virginia Lawmakers Reject Former Trump EPA Chief Along Party Lines (The Hill, February 8, 2022).
February 7, 2022
EPA Nears Deal with Wyo. Over Massive Coal Plant (E&E News, February 7, 2022).
EPA Science Advisers Recommend Tighter Soot Air Quality Standards in Draft Document (The Hill, February 7, 2022).
February 6, 2022
EPA Ramps Up Local Emissions Monitoring, Unannounced Inspections (The Herald Guide, February 6, 2022).
February 5, 2022
EPA to Inspect Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility Amid Ongoing Tainted Water Crisis (Hawaii News Now, February 5, 2022).
Springfield to Receive $200K Grant from EPA for Job Training Program to Revitalize Brownfields (KY3, February 5, 2022).
February 4, 2022
EPA Recognizes Pacific Northwest Energy Savers, Food Waste Reducers, and Recyclers (EPA, February 4, 2022).
EPA says It Has ‘No Confidence’ in Plan to Address Sediment Pollution Coming From Behind Conowingo Dam (Baltimore Sun, February 4, 2022).
February 2, 2022
White House, EPA Urge US Postal Service to Reconsider Gas-Powered Vehicle Plan (Reuters, February 2, 2022).
February 1, 2022
Biden Administration Presses Forward With Revised WOTUS Rule (JD Supra, February 1, 2022).
EPA Reaches Settlements with Iowa, Missouri and Nebraska Companies for Automobile ‘Defeat Device’ Violations (EPA, February 1, 2022).
Biden Officials Head to EPA Regional Offices (E&E News, February 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/february-2022-newsfeed -
EDGI, "Changing the Digital Climate" (2018)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022In this report, EDGI documented alterations to many federal agency Web resources about climate change during the Trump administration. The changes included overhauls and removals of documents, webpages, and entire websites, as well as significant language shifts. Some of these changes resulted in effective censorship of discussions of climate change.
In this report, EDGI documented alterations to many federal agency Web resources about climate change during the Trump administration. The changes included overhauls and removals of documents, webpages, and entire websites, as well as significant language shifts. Some of these changes resulted in effective censorship of discussions of climate change.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/edgi-changing-the-digital-climate-2018SOURCE
CITATION
Toly Rinberg, Maya Anjur-Dietrich, Marcy Beck, Andrew Bergman, Justin Derry, Lindsey Dillon, Gretchen Gehrke, Rebecca Lave, Chris Sellers, Nick Shapiro, Anastasia Aizman, Dan Allan, Madelaine Britt, Raymond Cha, Janak Chadha, Morgan Currie, Sara Johns, Abby Klionsky, Stephanie Knutson, Katherine Kulik, Aaron Lemelin, Kevin Nguyen, Eric Nost, Kendra Ouellette, Lindsay Poirier, Sara Rubinow, Justin Schell, Lizz Ultee, Julia Upfal, Tyler Wedrosky, Jacob Wylie, EDGI, "Changing the Digital Climate," Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, 2018.
RELATED TAGS
-
Jonathan Cannon, "Memo to EPA" (April 10, 1998)
UPLOADED 16 February 2022In 1998, the EPA privately contemplated its authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Congressman Tom Delay got wind of this and requested a formal opinion from the agency. EPA's general counsel, Jonathan Z. Cannon, wrote a memo arguing that CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and thus subject to regulation by the agency.
In 1998, the EPA privately contemplated its authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. Congressman Tom Delay got wind of this and requested a formal opinion from the agency. EPA's general counsel, Jonathan Z. Cannon, wrote a memo arguing that CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and thus subject to regulation by the agency.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/cannon-memo-april-10-1998SOURCE
EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources
CITATION
Jonathan Z. Cannon, "EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources," EPA memo, April 10, 1998
RELATED TAGS
-
EPA, "Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding" (December 15, 2009)
UPLOADED 16 February 2022In 2007, the Supreme Court had ruled that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. According to that act, if a pollutant was found to endanger public health and welfare, the EPA was obligated to regulate it. Under President Obama, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases were such a danger, prompting the EPA to promulgate greenhouse gas regulations in the following years.
In 2007, the Supreme Court had ruled that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. According to that act, if a pollutant was found to endanger public health and welfare, the EPA was obligated to regulate it. Under President Obama, the EPA concluded that greenhouse gases were such a danger, prompting the EPA to promulgate greenhouse gas regulations in the following years.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/greenhouse-gas-endangerment-finding-december-15-2009SOURCE
CITATION
EPA, "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act," Federal Register, December 15, 2009.
RELATED TAGS
-
Next Generation Compliance: Strategic Plan, 2014-2017
UPLOADED 06 July 2021Cynthia Giles, head of enforcement under the Obama administration, outlined a new approach to enforcement and compliance at the EPA known as “Next Generation Compliance,” or Next Gen for short. The Next Gen idea was built around five, interconnected components: Regulation and permit design, innovative enforcement, advanced monitoring, electronic reporting, and transparency.
Cynthia Giles, head of enforcement under the Obama administration, outlined a new approach to enforcement and compliance at the EPA known as “Next Generation Compliance,” or Next Gen for short. The Next Gen idea was built around five, interconnected components: Regulation and permit design, innovative enforcement, advanced monitoring, electronic reporting, and transparency.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/next-generation-complianceSOURCE
CITATION
EPA, "Next Generation Compliance: Strategic Plan, 2014-2017," October 2014.
RELATED TAGS
-
Possible Reasons for Declines in Inspection, Enforcement and Ideas for Reversing
UPLOADED 07 July 2021Enforcement metrics declined markedly under the Trump administration. While the EPA did not acknowledge this publicly, it did in internal documents. In this document, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance leadership considered various reasons for the decline in enforcement. These included: lack of resources (staff and budget); increased industry influence and pushback; intervention from leadership that is slowing work; uncertainty about regulatory changes; and a general perception among staff that enforcement, or certain types of enforcement, are not appropriate, not welcome by the leadership, or are unlikely to be successful under the new administration’s approach (a “chilling effect,” as the document put it).
Enforcement metrics declined markedly under the Trump administration. While the EPA did not acknowledge this publicly, it did in internal documents. In this document, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance leadership considered various reasons for the decline in enforcement. These included: lack of resources (staff and budget); increased industry influence and pushback; intervention from leadership that is slowing work; uncertainty about regulatory changes; and a general perception among staff that enforcement, or certain types of enforcement, are not appropriate, not welcome by the leadership, or are unlikely to be successful under the new administration’s approach (a “chilling effect,” as the document put it).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/possible-reasons-for-declinesSOURCE
Anonymous Source
CITATION
EPA, “Possible Reasons for Declines in Inspection, Enforcement and Ideas for Reversing,” (Internal Deliberative Draft), June 14, 2018.
RELATED TAGS
Possible Reasons for Declines in Inspection/Enforcement and ldeas for Reversingf nternal Deliberative Draft as of June L4,2OL8OVERVIEW:Our analysis of midyear FY18 enforcement initiations, conclusions and inspections show large declines inalmost all programs and almost all regions. There are likely a variety of reason for these declines, andwhile no single reason may be the main driver, the cumulative impact should be considered. Our focusnow is what could we do to reverse these declines.POSSIBLE REASONS FOR DECLINE1) State deferral:a) The FY18 and FY19 President Budget contains multiple statements that EPA will "focuscompliance assurance and enforcement resources on direct implementation responsibilities."b) Regions are appropriately deferring more to states in delegated programs, due to state requestsand in accord with January 2018 Interim Guidance.c) Interim Guidance is being incorrectly interpreted by some as meaning EPA should do noinspections and enforcement in authorized states; inconsistent messaging on this by some RAs.d) Even correct interpretation on Interim Guidance that there should be specific discussion byregions with its state whenever EPA is considering an inspection and enforcement action in thestate takes effo6 and slows the work.e) Defendants in EPA cases are approaching states and asking the state to take over the case.Some staff may be less motivated to go the extra mile if they know that their hard work indeveloping a case could be turned over to the state, and perceive the state may not resolve theviolations as effectively as EPA would have.While this information is only anecdotal, it becomes more powerful as it spreads amongregional enforcement ma nagers.g) Establishment of pilot measure for "state assists" in FY2018 could lead to further reductions intraditiona I EPA enforcement.0i)2l Resources: Gradual impact of declining EPA enacted budgets from Congress over the past 8 years,plus loss of expertise due to buyouts and extremely limited new hiring, has reduced resources forinspections a nd enforcement.a) VERA,/VSIP in August 2017 specifically impacts FY 18 resultsb) Agency was operating under a CR for more than half of FY L7, with the prospect that the finalbudget could be much lower than the CR budget - specifically impacted spending travel andcontract dollars to develop cases.3) Chilling effect of various actions/perceptions of shifts in enforcement direction, particularly duringfirst 5 months in new Administration:a) Consistent message in the first 6 months of the new Administration was to slow enforcementPage 1 of 2b) Landing Team wanted to pause all enforcement, which then evolved to reviewing all caseq andthe Green Red Blue charts.c) While very few cases were intentionally stopped, the compilation of information and thereviews took resources, and made staff and managers in the regions very cautious on movingforward with inspections and enforcement.d) euestions and emails from senior Agency leadership passing on regulated entity complaintsabout EPA enforcement, with perception that EPA was at faulte) Spring 2017 request for HQ review of all regional information requests was perceived asindicating should be less of these.4l He is asking more detailed questions about the nature of specific enforcement cases earlier in theprocess than historically has been done. While this has legitimate purpose, it may sendunintentional signal that certain types of cases are not appropriate.5) Anticipated changes in program direction may result in less enforcement now - €.8., WOTUS, airpolicy changes.6) perception of industry that new Administration would reduce enforcement or become friendlier, asamplified by willingness of some senior political leaders to meet directly with defendants, led somecompanies to believe that they have more leverage to push back on EPA settlement demands. Thus,some settlements are taking longer to conclude.7l Decline over past few years in HQ interest in ACS measures and regional performance may havefacilitated regional declines in inspections, especially since ACS targets have become low floors.POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR RESPONDING1) June 2018:a) Strong M memo to the RAs highlighting the important role of federal inspections andenforcement actions.b) Share detailed mid-year analysis with regions and ask for QA, explanation and projections'2l Early July: AA Memo announcing the conversion from NEls to NCls with strong message that EPA'srole in NEls as they convert to NCls is still important and enforcement remains an important tool.3) carve out a set of violations that are considered both a priority and "bread and butte/' and thatprior OECA HQ review is not needed unless NSI kicks in'4) Revise the ACS measures for FY2019 to ensure they are focused on setting forth consistent nationalexpectations for inspections and NEI/NCI work, as well as a few other things'Page2 of 2 -
EDGI, "Work in Progress: Governance of Digital Environmental Information in the Biden Administration's First Year" (2022)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022EDGI's Website Monitoring Team assessed whether and how the Biden administration has addressed the damage done to public information by the Trump administration thus far. The findings point to substantial, if incomplete, progress in digital information practices, such as updating and restoring several federal climate change resources, highlighting connections between related environmental issues, and using more direct language about, for example, the "climate crisis." However, the Biden administration has not made progress on improving policies to protect public information, leaving information vulnerable to the kinds of abuses observed under the Trump administration. EDGI recommended the development of information policies that promote the creation of resources that advance environmental and scientific literacy and civic engagement. It also recommended that policies preserve these resources through publicly available active websites and accessible archives.
EDGI's Website Monitoring Team assessed whether and how the Biden administration has addressed the damage done to public information by the Trump administration thus far. The findings point to substantial, if incomplete, progress in digital information practices, such as updating and restoring several federal climate change resources, highlighting connections between related environmental issues, and using more direct language about, for example, the "climate crisis." However, the Biden administration has not made progress on improving policies to protect public information, leaving information vulnerable to the kinds of abuses observed under the Trump administration. EDGI recommended the development of information policies that promote the creation of resources that advance environmental and scientific literacy and civic engagement. It also recommended that policies preserve these resources through publicly available active websites and accessible archives.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/edgi-work-in-progress-governance-of-digital-environmental-information-in-the-biden-administration-s-first-year-2022SOURCE
CITATION
Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) Website Monitoring Team, "Work in Progress: Governance of Digital Environmental Information in the Biden Administration's First Year," January 2022.
RELATED TAGS
-
New York Times, "Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists" (June 9, 1979)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022This articles notes growing alarm among scientists about the threat of global warming and calls by many of those scientists, such as Gordon MacDonald, to the federal government to take action. The article also reports that David Hawkins, head of air pollution at EPA, agreed that carbon dioxide pollution and agreed that it should be addressed the federal government. "But we simply do not have the resources at EPA to deal with it,” he said. "We have all we can do keeping up with today's problems."
This articles notes growing alarm among scientists about the threat of global warming and calls by many of those scientists, such as Gordon MacDonald, to the federal government to take action. The article also reports that David Hawkins, head of air pollution at EPA, agreed that carbon dioxide pollution and agreed that it should be addressed the federal government. "But we simply do not have the resources at EPA to deal with it,” he said. "We have all we can do keeping up with today's problems."
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/new-york-times-increase-of-carbon-dioxide-in-air-alarms-scientists-june-9-1979SOURCE
CITATION
Philip Shabecoff, "Increase of Carbon Dioxide in Air Alarms Scientists," June 7, 1979.
RELATED TAGS
-
U.S. Supreme Court, "Massachusetts v. EPA" (2007)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022In 2003, the EPA rejected a petition that called on the agency to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. The EPA, under the George W. Bush administration, said, contrary to the earlier EPA legal opinion (the “Cannon Memo,”) that it did not have the authority to regulate GHGs – and even if it did, the agency wasn't required to do so. In response, several states and organizations sued the EPA. In 2007, the Supreme Court decided, in a tight 5-4 decision, that the EPA could regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. And, as that act stipulated, if the agency found that GHGs endanger public health, the agency had to regulate them. Eventually, under the Obama administration, the EPA determined that GHGs were a danger to public health and the agency subsequently issued regulations to curb GHGs.
In 2003, the EPA rejected a petition that called on the agency to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. The EPA, under the George W. Bush administration, said, contrary to the earlier EPA legal opinion (the “Cannon Memo,”) that it did not have the authority to regulate GHGs – and even if it did, the agency wasn't required to do so. In response, several states and organizations sued the EPA. In 2007, the Supreme Court decided, in a tight 5-4 decision, that the EPA could regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. And, as that act stipulated, if the agency found that GHGs endanger public health, the agency had to regulate them. Eventually, under the Obama administration, the EPA determined that GHGs were a danger to public health and the agency subsequently issued regulations to curb GHGs.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/massachusetts-v-epa-2007SOURCE
CITATION
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
RELATED TAGS
-
U.S. Congress, "Clean Air Act - Section 7602" (1970)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022The Clean Air Act of 1970 targeted the “short and long-term effects of air pollutants on public health and welfare." This revision of the federal air pollution law defined welfare to include "weather" and "climate" among other things. Those definitions have remained through subsequent revisions of the law, and they formed one of the key arguments in subsequent legal controversy over the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. The legal question of whether the law gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases was settled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), but legal questions remained about how the agency was allowed to regulate greenhouse gases.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 targeted the “short and long-term effects of air pollutants on public health and welfare." This revision of the federal air pollution law defined welfare to include "weather" and "climate" among other things. Those definitions have remained through subsequent revisions of the law, and they formed one of the key arguments in subsequent legal controversy over the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. The legal question of whether the law gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases was settled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), but legal questions remained about how the agency was allowed to regulate greenhouse gases.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/clean-air-act-section-7602-1970SOURCE
CITATION
U.S. Code, Title 42, CHAPTER 85, SUBCHAPTER III, Sec. 7602
RELATED TAGS
-
Daniel Moynihan, "Memo to Nixon" (September 17, 1969)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022In the context of a severe drought in Sub-Saharan Africa, President Richard Nixon’s advisor, Daniel Moynihan, sent a memo to the administration on the "carbon dioxide problem." He cautioned that rising CO2 levels could heat the earth and cause sea level rise. He urged the administration to get involved with the issue. The memo was sent while the administration was conceptualizing the creation of an agency that, a year later, became the Environmental Protection Agency.
In the context of a severe drought in Sub-Saharan Africa, President Richard Nixon’s advisor, Daniel Moynihan, sent a memo to the administration on the "carbon dioxide problem." He cautioned that rising CO2 levels could heat the earth and cause sea level rise. He urged the administration to get involved with the issue. The memo was sent while the administration was conceptualizing the creation of an agency that, a year later, became the Environmental Protection Agency.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/moynihan-memo-september-17-1969SOURCE
CITATION
Daniel Moynihan memo to Richard Nixon, September 17, 1969
RELATED TAGS
-
President's Science Advisory Committee, "Restoring the Quality of our Environment" (November 1965)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022The President's Science Advisory Committee publishes a report that warns that large-scale fossil fuel burning is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere well beyond normal levels. The result will likely be major changes to the earth's climate. The report was widely-covered in the national press and President Jonson mentioned global warming briefly in two talks in 1965.
The President's Science Advisory Committee publishes a report that warns that large-scale fossil fuel burning is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere well beyond normal levels. The result will likely be major changes to the earth's climate. The report was widely-covered in the national press and President Jonson mentioned global warming briefly in two talks in 1965.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/president-s-science-advisory-committee-restoring-the-quality-of-our-environment-november-1965SOURCE
CITATION
President's Science Advisory Committee, "Restoring the Quality of our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel," (November 1965)
RELATED TAGS
-
EPA, “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” (October 18, 1983)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022Several EPA scientists wrote a report warning that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions could cause disastrous global warming, and that that warming might already be underway. They called for an "expeditious response." And they argued that, while currently politically infeasible, the only policy that would delay significant global warming was a ban on coal. Days after the EPA's global warming report, the NAS released its report. The reports agreed on the basic science, but the NAS report claimed that near-term action was unnecessary. Reagan's science advisor praised the NAS report and called EPA's report "unwarranted and unnecessarily alarmist."
Several EPA scientists wrote a report warning that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions could cause disastrous global warming, and that that warming might already be underway. They called for an "expeditious response." And they argued that, while currently politically infeasible, the only policy that would delay significant global warming was a ban on coal. Days after the EPA's global warming report, the NAS released its report. The reports agreed on the basic science, but the NAS report claimed that near-term action was unnecessary. Reagan's science advisor praised the NAS report and called EPA's report "unwarranted and unnecessarily alarmist."
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/epa-can-we-delay-a-greenhouse-warmingSOURCE
CITATION
EPA, “Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming?” (October 18, 1983)
RELATED TAGS
-
Gordon MacDonald, "Testimony to Congress" (July 17, 1979)
UPLOADED 17 February 2022In testimony to Congress, Gordon MacDonald, who chaired the climat report for the elite scientist group called the JASONs, blasted the federal government, and the EPA in particular, for having 'completely neglected the carbon dioxide problem.' Under both the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the EPA was obligated to analyze and identify hazards from air pollutants according to MacDonald. But it had yet to consider the carbon dioxide problem and did not even have a program to research it.
In testimony to Congress, Gordon MacDonald, who chaired the climat report for the elite scientist group called the JASONs, blasted the federal government, and the EPA in particular, for having 'completely neglected the carbon dioxide problem.' Under both the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the EPA was obligated to analyze and identify hazards from air pollutants according to MacDonald. But it had yet to consider the carbon dioxide problem and did not even have a program to research it.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/gordon-macdonald-testimony-july-7-1979SOURCE
CITATION
Gordon MacDonald, Testimony, Synthetic Fuels: Hearings Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, July 17, 1979
RELATED TAGS
51million or two barrels to the supply side will have more than $3 abarrel dampening effect on the world price of oil.As I said earlier, the drop in Iran production, affected the worldsupply of oil by only something like 4 or 5 percent and it increasedthe price by 50 percent. As that New York Times editorial said, itis that last barrel of oil on the demand side, when you are missingthe one on the supply side, that is a $ 100 barrel of oil. That is thebasic economics of this problem .Senator PERCY. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony verymuch.Chairman RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. I hope you will takea few minutes from your labors, Mr. Cutler, that you and yourassociates can assist us in putting this together.Mr. CUTLER . If I had only this panel to worry about, I would feelmore comfortable.Chairman RIBICOFF. I know. Also keep in mind this is one opportunity to really put regulatory reform into action.Mr. CUTLER . Yes, sir.Chairman RIBICOFF. Just put that in the back of your mind. Youmight ask some of your friends to get to work on it now .Mr. CUTLER . Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Chairman RIBICOFF . Thank you very much. Our next witness isGordon MacDonald. Mr. MacDonald, an essential ingredient here isthe protection of the environment. Additional carbon dioxide emission is an alarming prospect. Water pollution is another hazard.So is the solid waste problem. Yet energy self-sufficiency is absolutely essential for the good of this Nation and the future of thisNation. Are the goals of producing synthetic energy and environmental protection contradictory ?TESTIMONY OF GORDON T. MacDONALD, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, FORMER MEMBER OF PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYMr. MacDONALD. That is precisely the problem I would like toaddress this morning. First I really applaud the attention that theCommittee on Governmental Affairs has given this problem .It is particularly important I think that a committee with a newperspective examine not only the energy but also the environmental aspects of the various suggested solutions to the energy problem. But I want to first describe the most important environmentalissue associated with the major commitment to synthetic fuels. Theworldwide change of climate resulting from the loading of theatmosphere with carbon dioxide.Next I will touch on the instrument the Government has now todeal with this environmental problem and briefly discuss alternative approaches to alleviating the energy shortage which has givenrise to the proposals that we have heard about this morning for amassive use synthetic fuels program .My thesis is simply that before we commit ourselves to theconstruction of a major synthetic fuel infrastructure involving investment of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, we should makeevery effort to understand not only the short term benefits andcosts, but the longer term consequences to the generations thatmust live with the decisions taken today. Proponents of synthetic52fuels recall the success of the synthetic rubber industry in WorldWar II.They fail to remind us of the disastrous long -term impact of thatsynthetic industry on the natural rubber economies of SoutheastAsia and the consequent flow of events in Vietnam , Malaysia,Cambodia , and Laos.Man , through the burning of carbon -based fuels, is setting inmotion a series of events that seem certain to cause a significantwarming of world climates over the next decades. The use of synthetic fuels will accelerate and intensify these climatic changes.Such changes will have far reaching implications for human welfare in an ever more crowded world, will threaten the stability offood supplies and will present a set of intractable problems toorganized societies.The basic scientific problem is easily understood. Carbon basedfuels, when burned, produce carbon dioxide. Incidentally, this isone of the reasons why the cost of synthetic fuels keeps going upand up. It is because you have to use energy to make the fuels andas the cost of energy increases the cost of the synthetic productalso increases.That use of energy produces carbon dioxide as does the burningof the final synthetic product. The net result is that synthetic fuelsproduce two to three times as much carbon dioxide as do thenatural fuels.Carbon dioxide, in contrast to oxygen and nitrogen , the majoratmospheric components, absorbs the heat that the Earth wouldotherwise radiate back into space . Carbon dioxide acts as a blanketkeeping the Earth warm . Increasing the carbon dioxide content ofthe atmosphere will increase the number of blankets and raise thetemperature at the surface of the Earth .The consequences of the resulting change in climate are difficultto predict in detail, but it is highly improbable that the changes onthe whole would be beneficial.After 80 years of study on this problem by scientists throughoutthe world, the present day consensus is that doubling the carbondioxide content of the atmosphere will increase the average surfacetemperature by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and that the temperaturechange will be amplified by a factor of 2 to 5 degrees in higherlatitudes. Put simply, a doubling of carbon dioxide would raise theaverage maximum temperatures in Washington , D.C. in the summertime from the low 90's to the high 90's or into the low 100's.The significant scientific advance of the past few years is thatthe uncertainty of what will happen to world climate as carbondioxide increases, has been substantially reduced . We can now ,with confidence, predict that the Earth will warm and the warming will be greater at high latitudes and less in the tropics. Whatremains uncertain are the important details of weather, such aschanges in the amount of precipitation and its distribution over theyears.Also uncertain are the impacts on society of a warming Earth .For example, warmer temperatures in the higher latitudes willshift to the north the geographic regions that can support wheatproduction , but that shift would place the optimal climatic condi53tion for wheat in areas where the soils have been depleted ofnutrients by ancient glaciations.The net impact of a warming trend may also lead to a melting oftheice sheets flooding the coastal regions of the world.When will the doubling of the carbon dioxide content of theatmosphere take place ? If the world continues along the lines ofthe past 30 -year period, increasing carbon fuel usage by 4.3 percentper year, and if the current mix of fuels is maintained , the carbondioxide content of the atmosphere will double in 2030. If we movefrom the present fuel economy to one based upon coal and synthetics, the date could be 30 years from now, 2010. This is becausesynthetic fuels, in their production and use, generate two to threetimes more carbon dioxide than do the natural fuels.With high year to year variations in weather, we may not beable to detect with absolute certainty these long-term changes before the year 1990-95 . By that time, if the synthetic fuel investment and infrastructure are in place, it will be extraordinarilycostly in economic and social terms to move away from a syntheticfuel economy.I will now discuss certain of the policy and institutional aspectsof the carbon dioxide issue. Despite congressional mandates , thisand previous administrations have failed in developing energy policy, to consider the long-term impacts on the environment ofburning coal or synthetic fuels.The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires environmental_impact statements for proposals for legislation and othermajor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment. I have studied dozens of the EIS's from numerous agencies on subjects such as coal leasing from the Department of the Interior, and synthetic fuel demonstration plants fromthe Department of Energy, and nowhere have I found an analysison the environmental impacts of carbon dioxide.The Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1972 is required to comment on the environmentalimpact statements as to their adequacy in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and nowherehaveI found EPA raising the point that the EIS's fail to analyze thecarbon dioxide issue.While the environmental impact statement process may havedeficiencies, it can alert Government officials to potential problems. The responsible agencies have clearly failed to do this in thecase of carbon dioxide.The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1972 and 1978 require thatthe Environmental Protection Agency set standards for pollutantswhich may not have direct health effects but, still, adversely affectthe environment. EPA has not considered the carbon dioxide issue,nor does EPA have a program of research to quantify the longterm consequences of increasing carbon dioxide.In view of the neglect of the carbon dioxide problem by theresponsible agencies, it is not surprising to learn that in the administration's consideration of energy policy, it has completely neglected the carbon dioxide problem .The National Energy Plan II issued this year contains only oneparagraph discussingcarbon dioxide and its impacts. The Presi -
Philadelphia Inquirer, "Air Pollution Puts Climate in Danger" (November 17, 1965)
UPLOADED 28 February 2022In a 1965 article written in the aftermath of the President’s Science Advisory Committee report on global warming, journalist Philip Meyer asked Vernon Mackenzie, chief of the Air Pollution Division of the Public Health Service, about climate change. Mackenzie said “we’re not doing anything about preventing [the greenhouse effect].” There were other pollution problems that could be more imminent threats, Meyer noted. But Mackenzie did not conclude that action on global warming should be delayed. He believe, in Meyer's words, that the “air-temperature problem should be tackled - now.” Mackenzie's words show that not only was there knowledge of the threat of global warming among federal administrators, but that some of them believed the federal government should address global warming immediately. Mackenzie’s Air Pollution Division was rolled into the new Environmental Protection Agency when the latter was created in 1970.
In a 1965 article written in the aftermath of the President’s Science Advisory Committee report on global warming, journalist Philip Meyer asked Vernon Mackenzie, chief of the Air Pollution Division of the Public Health Service, about climate change. Mackenzie said “we’re not doing anything about preventing [the greenhouse effect].” There were other pollution problems that could be more imminent threats, Meyer noted. But Mackenzie did not conclude that action on global warming should be delayed. He believe, in Meyer's words, that the “air-temperature problem should be tackled - now.” Mackenzie's words show that not only was there knowledge of the threat of global warming among federal administrators, but that some of them believed the federal government should address global warming immediately. Mackenzie’s Air Pollution Division was rolled into the new Environmental Protection Agency when the latter was created in 1970.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/philadelphia-inquirer-air-pollutionSOURCE
Philadelphia Inquirer
CITATION
Philip Meyer, "Air Pollution Puts Climate in Danger," Philadelphia Inquirer, November 17, 1965
RELATED TAGS
-
March 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 March 2022A People's EPA (APE)
March Newsfeed
-
-
March 31, 2022
E.P.A. Decides Against Limiting Perchlorate in Drinking Water (The New York Times, March 31, 2022).
EPA Resurrects Plan to Drop Air Pollution Liability Shield (E&E News, March 31, 2022).
March 30, 2022
Internal EPA Report Describes “Incredibly Toxic Work Environment” In New Chemicals Division (The Intercept, March 30, 2022).
March 29, 2022
Biden Renews Push for Environmental Justice Boss at EPA (March 29, 2022).
EPA Proposes to Restore Protective Pollution Standards for Washington Waters (EPA, March 29, 2022).
Wisconsin Environmental Groups See Promise in Biden's Funding Proposal for EPA (Wisconsin Public Radio, March 29, 2022).
EPA Proposes Superfund Site in Georgetown (Cape Gazette, March 29, 2022).
$75,000 EPA Grant Funds Local Air Quality Project Involving Area Youth (Cincinnati WKRC, March 29, 2022).
Producers Warned by EPA that PFAS Is Contaminating Pesticides and Food (Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2022).
March 28, 2022
Biden Budget Proposal Includes Nearly $2 Billion Increase for EPA (The Hill, March 28, 2022).
EPA Would See Highest Funding Ever Under Biden Budget Plan (Bloomberg Law, March 28, 2022).
March 27, 2022
EPA Reviewing Permit Needs for New Refinery Owners (The Virgin Islands Daily News, March 27, 2022).
EPA Grants $52 Million to Washington for Water Infrastructure (Columbia Basin Herald, March 27, 2022).
March 25, 2022
Lawsuit: EPA Fails to Protect Montana Rivers From Pollution (US News, March 25, 2022).
EPA Objects to Colorado’s Approval of Suncor Permit, Asks for Changes (The Colorado Sun, March 25, 2022).
March 25, 2022
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Earthjustice Petitions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Add Dams/Reservoirs as a Source Category (JD Supra, March 25, 2022).
March 24, 2022
The EPA Plans to Sunset its Online Archive (The Verge, March 24, 2022).
EPA Grants $52 Million to Washington for Drinking Water, Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements (EPA, March 24, 2022).
March 23, 2022
EPA Eyes New Rule for Gas-Fired Power Plants (E&E News, March 23, 2022).
March 22, 2022
Thousands of Discharges Keep Pollution Flowing: How can EPA better protect Our Nation’s Waters? (US Government Accountability Office, March 22, 2022).
EPA Announces Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding for Eagle Picher Superfund Site in Socorro, N.M. (EPA, March 22, 2022).
Nessel Calls on EPA to Strengthen Protections Against Childhood Lead Poisoning (Local News 8, March 22, 2022).
EPA Panel Backs Tighter Soot Standards (E&E News, March 22, 2022).
March 18, 2022
EPA Helms White House Indoor Air Plan to Help Fight Covid-19 (E&E News, March 18, 2022).
EPA Chemical Review Tool Sparks Environmental Justice Worries (E&E News, March 18, 2022).
Industrial Site Linked to Polluted Drinking Water in SC Added to EPA Superfund List (The State, March 18, 2022).
March 17, 2022
EPA Adds 12 New Sites to Superfund List (The Hill, March 17, 2022).
The EPA Is Shuttering its Online Archive: Why that Matters (The Equation, March 17, 2022).
March 16, 2022
EPA: ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Pesticide Barrels May Be Illegal (E&E News, March 16, 2022).
Illinois EPA Completes Statewide Sampling of PFAS in Drinking Water, Results Released (WAND, March 16, 2022).
EPA and Justice Department Propose Settlement to Resolve Federal Hazardous Waste and Oil Spill Prevention Violations on the North Slope of Alaska (EPA, March 16, 2022).
March 15, 2022EPA Air Nominee Faces Obstacles to Biden Agenda (E&E News, March 15, 2022).
March 14, 2022
EPA Designates Lower Neponset River in Boston and Milton a Superfund Site (WBUR, March 14, 2022).
Democrats Want Investigation Into Postal Service’s Gas Guzzlers Contract (The New York Times, March 14, 2022).
March 12, 2022
The EPA May Extend the Use of Pesticides that Paralyze Bees (Wired, March 12, 2022).
Portville Gets $3.5 Million from EPA for Sewage Treatment Plant (Olean Times Herald, March 12, 2022).
March 11, 2022
EPA OKs Plan to Release 2.4 million More Genetically Modified Mosquitoes (NBC News, March 11, 2022).
EPA Expands Reach of Ozone Regulations (E&E News, March 11, 2022).
What the EPA’s New Plans for Regulating Power Plants Mean for Carbon (Scientific American, March 11, 2022).
EPA Proposes New Rule to Cut Interstate Air Pollution (The Hill, March 11, 2022).
March 10, 2022
In Texas speech, Biden’s EPA Chief Puts Power Plants on Notice for Pollution (The Washington Post, March 10, 2022).
EPA Strategy Curbs Coal, Spotlights Gas and Renewables (E&E News, March 10, 2022).
March 9, 2022
EPA Restores California’s Authority to Set its Own Auto Pollution Rules (LA Times, March 9, 2022).
NC Fertilizer Plant Fire Caused Air Pollution Five Times Higher Than EPA Limits (The News & Observer, March 9, 2022).
Chevron Phillips Settles With EPA Over Pollution Allegations at Texas Facilities (FOX 4 Beaumont, March 9, 2022).
March 8, 2022
EPA’s Truck Emissions Proposal Faces Competing Criticisms (E&E News, March 8, 2022).
President Biden Announces Key Nominees (The White House, March 8, 2022).
EPA Announces New Actions to Comply With Endangered Species Act (EHS Daily Advisor, March 8, 2022).
March 7, 2022
E.P.A. to Tighten Tailpipe Rules for the Biggest Polluters on the Road (The New York Times, March 7, 2022).
U.S. EPA Proposing Rules to Cut Emissions from Heavy Trucks (Reuters, March 7, 2022).
Inside FDA’s ‘Forever Chemicals’ Catastrophe (E&E News, March 7, 2022).
March 6, 2022
EPA Chief Tours Sewage Problems in Alabama's Black Belt (New Canaan Advertiser, March 6, 2022).
March 4, 2022
Biden EPA Backtracks on Trump-Era Water Policy – Will the New Stance Lead to Efficiency or Add to Administrative Backlog? (The National Law Review, March 4, 2022).
EPA Says Cleanup of Toxin-Fouled Housatonic River Can Begin (WBUR, March 4, 2022).
March 3, 2022
New EPA Toxics Release Inventory Report Shows Decline in Chemical Releases in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (US EPA, March 3, 2022).
March 2, 2022
Documents Reveal Identities of Three EPA Officials Who Downplayed Chemical Hazards (The Intercept, March 2, 2022).
Lexington says $590 million EPA Mandated Sewer Projects Won’t be Done by Deadline (Lexington Herald Leader, March 2, 2022).
March 1, 2022
Supreme Court Seems Ready to Limit EPA Power Plant Oversight (E&E News, March, 1, 2022).
Texas, 14 Other States Sue EPA Over ‘War Against Texas Oil and Gas’ (World Oil, March 1, 2022).
Local Governments Advise EPA on Using Infrastructure Dollars to Support Climate Justice (Smart Cities Dive, March 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
March Newsfeed
-
-
March 31, 2022
E.P.A. Decides Against Limiting Perchlorate in Drinking Water (The New York Times, March 31, 2022).
EPA Resurrects Plan to Drop Air Pollution Liability Shield (E&E News, March 31, 2022).
March 30, 2022
Internal EPA Report Describes “Incredibly Toxic Work Environment” In New Chemicals Division (The Intercept, March 30, 2022).
March 29, 2022
Biden Renews Push for Environmental Justice Boss at EPA (March 29, 2022).
EPA Proposes to Restore Protective Pollution Standards for Washington Waters (EPA, March 29, 2022).
Wisconsin Environmental Groups See Promise in Biden's Funding Proposal for EPA (Wisconsin Public Radio, March 29, 2022).
EPA Proposes Superfund Site in Georgetown (Cape Gazette, March 29, 2022).
$75,000 EPA Grant Funds Local Air Quality Project Involving Area Youth (Cincinnati WKRC, March 29, 2022).
Producers Warned by EPA that PFAS Is Contaminating Pesticides and Food (Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2022).
March 28, 2022
Biden Budget Proposal Includes Nearly $2 Billion Increase for EPA (The Hill, March 28, 2022).
EPA Would See Highest Funding Ever Under Biden Budget Plan (Bloomberg Law, March 28, 2022).
March 27, 2022
EPA Reviewing Permit Needs for New Refinery Owners (The Virgin Islands Daily News, March 27, 2022).
EPA Grants $52 Million to Washington for Water Infrastructure (Columbia Basin Herald, March 27, 2022).
March 25, 2022
Lawsuit: EPA Fails to Protect Montana Rivers From Pollution (US News, March 25, 2022).
EPA Objects to Colorado’s Approval of Suncor Permit, Asks for Changes (The Colorado Sun, March 25, 2022).
March 25, 2022
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Earthjustice Petitions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Add Dams/Reservoirs as a Source Category (JD Supra, March 25, 2022).
March 24, 2022
The EPA Plans to Sunset its Online Archive (The Verge, March 24, 2022).
EPA Grants $52 Million to Washington for Drinking Water, Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements (EPA, March 24, 2022).
March 23, 2022
EPA Eyes New Rule for Gas-Fired Power Plants (E&E News, March 23, 2022).
March 22, 2022
Thousands of Discharges Keep Pollution Flowing: How can EPA better protect Our Nation’s Waters? (US Government Accountability Office, March 22, 2022).
EPA Announces Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding for Eagle Picher Superfund Site in Socorro, N.M. (EPA, March 22, 2022).
Nessel Calls on EPA to Strengthen Protections Against Childhood Lead Poisoning (Local News 8, March 22, 2022).
EPA Panel Backs Tighter Soot Standards (E&E News, March 22, 2022).
March 18, 2022
EPA Helms White House Indoor Air Plan to Help Fight Covid-19 (E&E News, March 18, 2022).
EPA Chemical Review Tool Sparks Environmental Justice Worries (E&E News, March 18, 2022).
Industrial Site Linked to Polluted Drinking Water in SC Added to EPA Superfund List (The State, March 18, 2022).
March 17, 2022
EPA Adds 12 New Sites to Superfund List (The Hill, March 17, 2022).
The EPA Is Shuttering its Online Archive: Why that Matters (The Equation, March 17, 2022).
March 16, 2022
EPA: ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Pesticide Barrels May Be Illegal (E&E News, March 16, 2022).
Illinois EPA Completes Statewide Sampling of PFAS in Drinking Water, Results Released (WAND, March 16, 2022).
EPA and Justice Department Propose Settlement to Resolve Federal Hazardous Waste and Oil Spill Prevention Violations on the North Slope of Alaska (EPA, March 16, 2022).
March 15, 2022EPA Air Nominee Faces Obstacles to Biden Agenda (E&E News, March 15, 2022).
March 14, 2022
EPA Designates Lower Neponset River in Boston and Milton a Superfund Site (WBUR, March 14, 2022).
Democrats Want Investigation Into Postal Service’s Gas Guzzlers Contract (The New York Times, March 14, 2022).
March 12, 2022
The EPA May Extend the Use of Pesticides that Paralyze Bees (Wired, March 12, 2022).
Portville Gets $3.5 Million from EPA for Sewage Treatment Plant (Olean Times Herald, March 12, 2022).
March 11, 2022
EPA OKs Plan to Release 2.4 million More Genetically Modified Mosquitoes (NBC News, March 11, 2022).
EPA Expands Reach of Ozone Regulations (E&E News, March 11, 2022).
What the EPA’s New Plans for Regulating Power Plants Mean for Carbon (Scientific American, March 11, 2022).
EPA Proposes New Rule to Cut Interstate Air Pollution (The Hill, March 11, 2022).
March 10, 2022
In Texas speech, Biden’s EPA Chief Puts Power Plants on Notice for Pollution (The Washington Post, March 10, 2022).
EPA Strategy Curbs Coal, Spotlights Gas and Renewables (E&E News, March 10, 2022).
March 9, 2022
EPA Restores California’s Authority to Set its Own Auto Pollution Rules (LA Times, March 9, 2022).
NC Fertilizer Plant Fire Caused Air Pollution Five Times Higher Than EPA Limits (The News & Observer, March 9, 2022).
Chevron Phillips Settles With EPA Over Pollution Allegations at Texas Facilities (FOX 4 Beaumont, March 9, 2022).
March 8, 2022
EPA’s Truck Emissions Proposal Faces Competing Criticisms (E&E News, March 8, 2022).
President Biden Announces Key Nominees (The White House, March 8, 2022).
EPA Announces New Actions to Comply With Endangered Species Act (EHS Daily Advisor, March 8, 2022).
March 7, 2022
E.P.A. to Tighten Tailpipe Rules for the Biggest Polluters on the Road (The New York Times, March 7, 2022).
U.S. EPA Proposing Rules to Cut Emissions from Heavy Trucks (Reuters, March 7, 2022).
Inside FDA’s ‘Forever Chemicals’ Catastrophe (E&E News, March 7, 2022).
March 6, 2022
EPA Chief Tours Sewage Problems in Alabama's Black Belt (New Canaan Advertiser, March 6, 2022).
March 4, 2022
Biden EPA Backtracks on Trump-Era Water Policy – Will the New Stance Lead to Efficiency or Add to Administrative Backlog? (The National Law Review, March 4, 2022).
EPA Says Cleanup of Toxin-Fouled Housatonic River Can Begin (WBUR, March 4, 2022).
March 3, 2022
New EPA Toxics Release Inventory Report Shows Decline in Chemical Releases in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (US EPA, March 3, 2022).
March 2, 2022
Documents Reveal Identities of Three EPA Officials Who Downplayed Chemical Hazards (The Intercept, March 2, 2022).
Lexington says $590 million EPA Mandated Sewer Projects Won’t be Done by Deadline (Lexington Herald Leader, March 2, 2022).
March 1, 2022
Supreme Court Seems Ready to Limit EPA Power Plant Oversight (E&E News, March, 1, 2022).
Texas, 14 Other States Sue EPA Over ‘War Against Texas Oil and Gas’ (World Oil, March 1, 2022).
Local Governments Advise EPA on Using Infrastructure Dollars to Support Climate Justice (Smart Cities Dive, March 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/march-2022-newsfeed-copy -
April 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 April 2022A People's EPA (APE)
April Newsfeed
-
-
April 29, 2022
EPA Staff Backs Status Quo on Ozone Limits in Blow to Enviros (E&E News, April 22, 2022).
EPA Issues Emergency Fuel Waiver for E15 Sales (EPA, April 22, 2022).
April 28, 2022
Inside EPA’s Contract Ban for a Trump-Era Appointee (E&E News, April 28, 2022).
Time is Running Out for Biden’s EPA to Act on Climate (VOX, April 28, 2022).
April 27, 2022
EPA Announces Gulf Guardian Award (EPA, April 27, 2022).
April 26, 2022
EPA Seeks to Expand Clean Water Act Spill Response Planning to Hazardous Substances (The National Law Review, April 26, 2022).
April 25, 2022
EPA Opens Civil Rights Investigation Into Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ (Inside Climate News, April 25, 2022).
April 24, 2022
EPA Plan Would Force Utah, Wyoming and California to cut harmful air emissions drifting into Colorado (The Denver Post, April 24, 2022).
Climate Activist Dies After Setting Himself on Fire at Supreme Court (The New York Times, April 24, 2022).
April 23, 2022
Two US Electrical Grid Operators Claim That New Rules For Coal Ash Could Make Electricity Supplies Less Reliable (Inside Climate News, April 23, 2022).
April 22, 2022
Members of Congress Are Asking the EPA to Investigate the Environmental Impacts of Crypto Mining (CNBC, April 22, 2022).
Downriver Advocates Call on Biden Administration, EPA to Enact Stringent Safeguards to Reduce Pollution from ‘Dirty Plants’ (News-Herald, April 22, 2022).
San Joaquin Valley Clean Air Plan a Failure After $2.6 billion Budget Shortfall, Court Rules (Merced Sun Star, April 22, 2022).
April 21, 2022
U.S. EPA: Administrator Regan Highlights Investments for Rural Water Infrastructure in Wisconsin, Promise of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for Rural America (WisPolitics.com, April 21, 2022).
EPA Floats Options to Curb Gas Plant Carbon Emissions (E&E News, April 21, 2022).
April 20, 2022
PFAS Are in Face Masks. Should You be Concerned? (E&E News, April 20, 2022).
EPA Responds to BCP Spill (The Monet Times, April 20, 2022).
EPA Bans Chlorpyrifos On Food Crops (NRDC, April 20, 2022
EPA Releases Environmental Justice Equity Action Plan (JD Supra, April 20, 2022).
April 19, 2022
EPA: Pa. Needs Better Plan to Cut Pollution Flowing into Chesapeake Bay (WTOP News, April 19, 2022).
EPA Releases Environmental Justice Equity Action Plan (The National Law Review, April 19, 2022).
Biden Administration Restores Environmental Reviews for Major Infrastructure Projects (NPR, April 19, 2022).
1-in-4 Ohioans Lives Near Toxic Release Facilities (Cleveland.com, April 19, 2022).
EPA Says It Will Emphasize Environmental Justice, Community Engagement to Promote Equity (AZCentral, April 19, 2022).
April 18, 2022
EPA Target of New Lawsuit for Not Enforcing Clean Air Act (Public News Service, April 18, 2022).
Inside Biden’s Sparsely staffed, High-Pressure Environmental Shop (E&E News, April 18, 2022).
EPA Tackles Billings Superfund Site that Deals with Toxic Chemical Vapors (April 18, 2022).
April 14, 2022
Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over State Air Pollution Plans (The Hill, April 14, 2022).
Sources: Biden Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy to Step Down (E&E News, April 14, 2022).
EPA Opens Civil Rights Investigations Over Pollution in Cancer Alley (The Guardian, April 14, 2022).
EPA Pushes for More Smog Control in Houston, Dallas, After Failing to Meet Standards (KHOU11, April 14, 2022).
Formaldehyde Can Cause Rare Cancers, New EPA Analysis Finds (2) (Bloomberg Law, April 14, 2022).
April 13, 2022
EJ Advocates Have a Plan to Monitor Biden’s Progress (E&E News, April 13, 2022).
How Electric Buses Reduce Toxic Exposure for Kids (E&E News, April 13, 2022).
EPA to Release Assessment of Toxic Formaldehyde, Rejects Industry’s Tired Delay Tactics (Environmental Defense Fund, April 13, 2022).
EPA Downgrade of Denver to ‘Severe’ Air Quality Violator Would Trigger New Emissions Rules (Colorado News Line, April 13, 2022).
April 12, 2022
The EPA Moves to Declare the Front Range a ‘Severe’ Air Quality Violator. Here’s Why That Matters. (CPR News, April 12, 2022).
EPA Announces Plan to Protect Endangered Species and Support Sustainable Agriculture (EPA, April 12, 2022).
EPA to Try to Fight High Gas Prices at the Pump with Ethanol Blend this Summer (CBS News, April 12, 2022).
Gas Prices Force Biden Into an Unlikely Embrace of Fossil Fuels (The New York Times, April 12, 2022).
EPA Hits Reset on Pesticides and Endangered Species Work (E&E News, April 12, 2022).
April 11, 2022
Earthjustice Applauds Congressional Leaders Urging EPA to Close Loopholes Concerning Toxic PFAS Chemicals (Earthjustice, April 11, 2022).
Chemours Claims Toxic PFAS Chemical GenX Protects the Climate (The Intercept, April 11, 2022).
EPA Proposes Removing Emergency Affirmative Defense (EHS DAily Advisor, April 11, 2022).
April 10, 2022
Reversing Course, Again: Biden’s EPA Plans to Toss Trump-era Ruling on Pollution in Spokane River (The Spokesman-Review, April 10, 2022).
A Cleanup Plan in LaSalle Park, but Residents' Concerns Won't be Easy to Remediate (Southbend Tribune, April 10, 2022).
April 8, 2022
EPA Launches Civil Rights Inquiry into Louisiana Agencies (E&E News, April 8, 2022).
April 7, 2022
U.S. EPA Denies 36 Refinery Biofuel Waivers; Gives Most of Them Some Relief (Reuters, April 7, 2022).
EPA Denies Requests for Biofuel Blending Exemptions (The Hill, April 7, 2022).
April 6, 2022
Supreme Court Uses 'Shadow Docket' to Revive Trump EPA Clean Water Rule (Reuters, April 6, 2022).
U.S. EPA Soon to Announce Decision on Small Refinery Biofuel Waivers -sources (Reuters, April 6, 2022).
Supreme Court Revives Trump-Era Environmental Regulation (The New York Times, April 6, 2022).
April 5, 2022
EPA Moves to Ban Asbestos After Decades of Failures (Politico, April 5, 2022).
Scientists Sound Alarm at US Regulator’s New ‘Forever Chemicals’ Definition (The Guardian, April 5, 2022).
EPA Reverses Course on Herbicide Ban in 10 Midwest and Plains States (Illinois Newsroom, April 5, 2022).
April 4, 2022
EPA Moves to Ban the Most Common Type of Cancer-Causing Asbestos (The Washington Post, April 4, 2022).
Regan on the Hill to Defend EPA’s Spending, Staffing Plan (E&E News, April 4, 2022).
April 3, 2022
'Chicken or egg?' Nonprofit Will Take Superfund Site if EPA Agrees to Remediate It (Daily Record, April 3, 2022).
April 1, 2022
EPA Won’t Regulate Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water (E&E News, April 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
April Newsfeed
-
-
April 29, 2022
EPA Staff Backs Status Quo on Ozone Limits in Blow to Enviros (E&E News, April 22, 2022).
EPA Issues Emergency Fuel Waiver for E15 Sales (EPA, April 22, 2022).
April 28, 2022
Inside EPA’s Contract Ban for a Trump-Era Appointee (E&E News, April 28, 2022).
Time is Running Out for Biden’s EPA to Act on Climate (VOX, April 28, 2022).
April 27, 2022
EPA Announces Gulf Guardian Award (EPA, April 27, 2022).
April 26, 2022
EPA Seeks to Expand Clean Water Act Spill Response Planning to Hazardous Substances (The National Law Review, April 26, 2022).
April 25, 2022
EPA Opens Civil Rights Investigation Into Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ (Inside Climate News, April 25, 2022).
April 24, 2022
EPA Plan Would Force Utah, Wyoming and California to cut harmful air emissions drifting into Colorado (The Denver Post, April 24, 2022).
Climate Activist Dies After Setting Himself on Fire at Supreme Court (The New York Times, April 24, 2022).
April 23, 2022
Two US Electrical Grid Operators Claim That New Rules For Coal Ash Could Make Electricity Supplies Less Reliable (Inside Climate News, April 23, 2022).
April 22, 2022
Members of Congress Are Asking the EPA to Investigate the Environmental Impacts of Crypto Mining (CNBC, April 22, 2022).
Downriver Advocates Call on Biden Administration, EPA to Enact Stringent Safeguards to Reduce Pollution from ‘Dirty Plants’ (News-Herald, April 22, 2022).
San Joaquin Valley Clean Air Plan a Failure After $2.6 billion Budget Shortfall, Court Rules (Merced Sun Star, April 22, 2022).
April 21, 2022
U.S. EPA: Administrator Regan Highlights Investments for Rural Water Infrastructure in Wisconsin, Promise of President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for Rural America (WisPolitics.com, April 21, 2022).
EPA Floats Options to Curb Gas Plant Carbon Emissions (E&E News, April 21, 2022).
April 20, 2022
PFAS Are in Face Masks. Should You be Concerned? (E&E News, April 20, 2022).
EPA Responds to BCP Spill (The Monet Times, April 20, 2022).
EPA Bans Chlorpyrifos On Food Crops (NRDC, April 20, 2022
EPA Releases Environmental Justice Equity Action Plan (JD Supra, April 20, 2022).
April 19, 2022
EPA: Pa. Needs Better Plan to Cut Pollution Flowing into Chesapeake Bay (WTOP News, April 19, 2022).
EPA Releases Environmental Justice Equity Action Plan (The National Law Review, April 19, 2022).
Biden Administration Restores Environmental Reviews for Major Infrastructure Projects (NPR, April 19, 2022).
1-in-4 Ohioans Lives Near Toxic Release Facilities (Cleveland.com, April 19, 2022).
EPA Says It Will Emphasize Environmental Justice, Community Engagement to Promote Equity (AZCentral, April 19, 2022).
April 18, 2022
EPA Target of New Lawsuit for Not Enforcing Clean Air Act (Public News Service, April 18, 2022).
Inside Biden’s Sparsely staffed, High-Pressure Environmental Shop (E&E News, April 18, 2022).
EPA Tackles Billings Superfund Site that Deals with Toxic Chemical Vapors (April 18, 2022).
April 14, 2022
Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over State Air Pollution Plans (The Hill, April 14, 2022).
Sources: Biden Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy to Step Down (E&E News, April 14, 2022).
EPA Opens Civil Rights Investigations Over Pollution in Cancer Alley (The Guardian, April 14, 2022).
EPA Pushes for More Smog Control in Houston, Dallas, After Failing to Meet Standards (KHOU11, April 14, 2022).
Formaldehyde Can Cause Rare Cancers, New EPA Analysis Finds (2) (Bloomberg Law, April 14, 2022).
April 13, 2022
EJ Advocates Have a Plan to Monitor Biden’s Progress (E&E News, April 13, 2022).
How Electric Buses Reduce Toxic Exposure for Kids (E&E News, April 13, 2022).
EPA to Release Assessment of Toxic Formaldehyde, Rejects Industry’s Tired Delay Tactics (Environmental Defense Fund, April 13, 2022).
EPA Downgrade of Denver to ‘Severe’ Air Quality Violator Would Trigger New Emissions Rules (Colorado News Line, April 13, 2022).
April 12, 2022
The EPA Moves to Declare the Front Range a ‘Severe’ Air Quality Violator. Here’s Why That Matters. (CPR News, April 12, 2022).
EPA Announces Plan to Protect Endangered Species and Support Sustainable Agriculture (EPA, April 12, 2022).
EPA to Try to Fight High Gas Prices at the Pump with Ethanol Blend this Summer (CBS News, April 12, 2022).
Gas Prices Force Biden Into an Unlikely Embrace of Fossil Fuels (The New York Times, April 12, 2022).
EPA Hits Reset on Pesticides and Endangered Species Work (E&E News, April 12, 2022).
April 11, 2022
Earthjustice Applauds Congressional Leaders Urging EPA to Close Loopholes Concerning Toxic PFAS Chemicals (Earthjustice, April 11, 2022).
Chemours Claims Toxic PFAS Chemical GenX Protects the Climate (The Intercept, April 11, 2022).
EPA Proposes Removing Emergency Affirmative Defense (EHS DAily Advisor, April 11, 2022).
April 10, 2022
Reversing Course, Again: Biden’s EPA Plans to Toss Trump-era Ruling on Pollution in Spokane River (The Spokesman-Review, April 10, 2022).
A Cleanup Plan in LaSalle Park, but Residents' Concerns Won't be Easy to Remediate (Southbend Tribune, April 10, 2022).
April 8, 2022
EPA Launches Civil Rights Inquiry into Louisiana Agencies (E&E News, April 8, 2022).
April 7, 2022
U.S. EPA Denies 36 Refinery Biofuel Waivers; Gives Most of Them Some Relief (Reuters, April 7, 2022).
EPA Denies Requests for Biofuel Blending Exemptions (The Hill, April 7, 2022).
April 6, 2022
Supreme Court Uses 'Shadow Docket' to Revive Trump EPA Clean Water Rule (Reuters, April 6, 2022).
U.S. EPA Soon to Announce Decision on Small Refinery Biofuel Waivers -sources (Reuters, April 6, 2022).
Supreme Court Revives Trump-Era Environmental Regulation (The New York Times, April 6, 2022).
April 5, 2022
EPA Moves to Ban Asbestos After Decades of Failures (Politico, April 5, 2022).
Scientists Sound Alarm at US Regulator’s New ‘Forever Chemicals’ Definition (The Guardian, April 5, 2022).
EPA Reverses Course on Herbicide Ban in 10 Midwest and Plains States (Illinois Newsroom, April 5, 2022).
April 4, 2022
EPA Moves to Ban the Most Common Type of Cancer-Causing Asbestos (The Washington Post, April 4, 2022).
Regan on the Hill to Defend EPA’s Spending, Staffing Plan (E&E News, April 4, 2022).
April 3, 2022
'Chicken or egg?' Nonprofit Will Take Superfund Site if EPA Agrees to Remediate It (Daily Record, April 3, 2022).
April 1, 2022
EPA Won’t Regulate Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water (E&E News, April 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/april-2022-newsfeed-copy -
May 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 May 2022A People's EPA (APE)
May Newsfeed
-
-
May 31, 2022
Biden Wants to Rebuild the EPA. He Doesn’t Have the Money to Do It. (The Washington Post, May 31, 2022).
Biden-Harris Administration and EPA Announce Actions to Improve Drinking Water and Wastewater Services for Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (EPA, May 31, 2022).
HHS Announces New Office of Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 31, 2022).
EPA: Two Toxic Hot Spots in Michigan Will Take Longer to Clean Up Than Many Others in Great Lakes States (Bridge Michigan, May 31, 2022).
May 30, 2022
Failure to Launch: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Frontiers in Toxicology, May 30, 2022).
New Clean Water Rules are Coming (Nebraska Public Media, May 30, 2022)
May 29, 2022
U.S. EPA Approves Emergency Fuel Waiver in Texas After Refinery Outage (Reuters, May 29, 2022).
May 27, 2022
EPA Must Provide Certainty for Low-Carbon Fuels In 2023 and Beyond (The Hill, May 27, 2022).
EPA’s Pebble ‘Veto’ Won’t Stop All Mining in Alaska’s Bristol Bay (E&E News, May 27, 2022).
Biden Administration Takes Aggressive Measures to Merge Environmental Enforcement and Equity (JDSupra, May 27, 2022).
May 26, 2022
New Biden Appointees Join EPA’s Ranks (E&E News, May 26, 2022).
EPA Announces $750,000 for Water Quality Monitoring in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (US EPA, May 26, 2022).
May 26, 2022
EPA Rolls Out New EJ Legal Toolkit (E&E News, May 26, 2022).
May 25, 2022
Biden EPA Deals Major Blow to Pebble Mine (E&E News, May 25, 2022).
Biden Administration, Settling a Long Feud, Moves to Block a Mine in Alaska (The New York Times, May 25, 2022).
May 23, 2022
EPA Air Nominee Faces High-Stakes Confirmation Hearing (E&E News, May 23, 2022).
No ‘Simple Fix’: White House Charts Progress on EJ Agenda (E&E News, May 23, 2022).
Nearly $10M in EPA Funding To Go To Environmentally Contaminated Sites in Montana (Great Falls Tribune, May 23, 2022).
May 20, 2022
Unjustified Industry Pushback on EPA’s Toxic Chemical Regulation (The Hill, May 20, 2022).
EPA Announces $221 Million Loan to Modernize Water Infrastructure for Approximately Six Million New Jersey Residents (EPA, May 20, 2022).
EPA, NJ Announce $588M in Water Infrastructure Spending (The Public’s Radio, May 20, 2022).
$500-million Available in 1st Round Funding through EPA For Clean School Buses (The Talk of Delmarva, May 20, 2022).
Biden Administration Kicks Off $5 billion Electric Clean School Bus Program (Electrek, May 20, 2022).
May 19, 2022
EPA Announces Appointment of Casey Sixkiller as Region 10 Administrator (EPA, May 19, 2022).
Hyde-Smith to EPA: Enough talk, it’s Time to Get the Yazoo Pumps Back on Track (Super Talk Mississippi Media, May 19, 2022).
May 18, 2022
In Unusual Move, EPA Backtracks on Air Quality Designations (E&E News, May 18, 2022).
EPA Adds Five PFAS Chemicals to List of Regional Screening and Removal Management Levels to Protect Human Health and the Environment (EPA, May 18, 2022).
The Department of Justice’s Strategy to Advance Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 18, 2022).
EPA New England Awards the University of Vermont a Grant to Help Tackle the Climate Crisis Through Food Waste Diversion (UVM, May 18, 2022).
May 17, 2022
Community Methane Monitoring Fills Gaps Left by EPA (E&E News, May 17, 2022).
May 16, 2022
Getting Environmental Justice Right at the EPA (Canary Media, May 16, 2022).
Bipartisan Group Pushes Senate to Confirm Environmental Prosecutor to Key EPA Post (NPR, May 16, 2022).
EPA Celebrates 25 Years of Children’s Environmental Health Protection (EPA, May 16, 2022).
May 13, 2022
Lawsuit Targets EPA Clean Air Act Waiver Revival (E&E News, May 13, 2022).
EPA Announces Additional $1.9 Billion in State Revolving Loan Funds for Water Infrastructure Upgrades (EPA, May 13, 2022)
May 12, 2022
Biden Administration Announces $254 Million to Tackle Polluted Brownfield Sites (EPA, May 12, 2022).
Biden Administration to Disperse More than $250 million in Contamination Clean-up Funds (The Hill, May 12, 2022).
EPA Blocks Bid to Review Basis for Climate Regs (E&E News, May 12, 2022).
May 10, 2022
Why Can’t Smoggy SoCal Improve Air Quality? Local Regulators Blame the Federal Government (LA Times, May 10, 2022).
Groups Sue EPA Over Water Quality, Manatee Deaths (Citrus County Chronicle, May 10, 2022).
May 9, 2022
Why EPA Might Make New Gas Plants Catch Carbon (E&E News, May 9, 2022).
With Decision on Insecticide, EPA Betrays Protection of Pollinators...Again (Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2022).
Biden’s New Strategy for Environmental Justice (Grist, May 9, 2022).
Biden’s Department of Justice Announces New ‘Office of Environmental Justice’ (The Ohio Star, May 9, 2022).
As DEQ, EPA Are Slow to Act on PFAS, Private Manufacturers Look to Fill the Gap (NC Health News, May 9, 2022).
May 7, 2022
EPA Proposes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Asbestos (The National Law Review, May 7, 2022).
Biden Administration Forms New Office of Environmental Justice (Nation of Change, May 7, 2022).
May 6, 2022
Trump Showed How Easy It Is To Break The EPA. It's Much Harder To Fix It. (Buzzfeed, May 6, 2022).
EPA Proposal Too Tepid to Address Dangerous Chemical Spills (NRDC, May 6, 2022).
EPA to Review Air Toxics Loopholes Covering Oil Refineries and Petrochemical Plants (Earthjustice, May 6, 2022).
May 5, 2022
DOJ Announces New Office Focused on Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 5, 2022).
EPA Union Seeks Climate Emergency Declaration to Hire More Staff (Bloomberg Law, May 5, 2022).
Biden Admin Unveils Long-Awaited EJ Strategy (E&E News, May 5, 2022).
May 4, 2022EPA Proposes 3 New Actions to Protect Public From PFAS (CoastalReview.org, May 4, 2022).
Alarmed by Declining EPA Enforcement, 55 Environmental Groups Urge Senate to Confirm Long-Delayed EPA Enforcement Chief (Yubanet.com, May 4, 2022).
May 3, 2022
EPA Announces $40M to Help Restore Chesapeake Bay (AP News, May 3, 2022).
EPA to Weigh Regulating Common Plastic as Hazardous Waste (E&E News, May 3, 2022).
EPA Recommends Against Reissuing Permit for PolyMet Mine (The Washington Post, May 3, 2022).
EPA Announces $281 Million WIFIA Loan to Modernize Wastewater Infrastructure in Johnson County, Kansas (EPA, May 3, 2022).
EPA Ramps Up Clean Water Inspections in Pennsylvania (Bay Journal, May 3, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
May Newsfeed
-
-
May 31, 2022
Biden Wants to Rebuild the EPA. He Doesn’t Have the Money to Do It. (The Washington Post, May 31, 2022).
Biden-Harris Administration and EPA Announce Actions to Improve Drinking Water and Wastewater Services for Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (EPA, May 31, 2022).
HHS Announces New Office of Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 31, 2022).
EPA: Two Toxic Hot Spots in Michigan Will Take Longer to Clean Up Than Many Others in Great Lakes States (Bridge Michigan, May 31, 2022).
May 30, 2022
Failure to Launch: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Frontiers in Toxicology, May 30, 2022).
New Clean Water Rules are Coming (Nebraska Public Media, May 30, 2022)
May 29, 2022
U.S. EPA Approves Emergency Fuel Waiver in Texas After Refinery Outage (Reuters, May 29, 2022).
May 27, 2022
EPA Must Provide Certainty for Low-Carbon Fuels In 2023 and Beyond (The Hill, May 27, 2022).
EPA’s Pebble ‘Veto’ Won’t Stop All Mining in Alaska’s Bristol Bay (E&E News, May 27, 2022).
Biden Administration Takes Aggressive Measures to Merge Environmental Enforcement and Equity (JDSupra, May 27, 2022).
May 26, 2022
New Biden Appointees Join EPA’s Ranks (E&E News, May 26, 2022).
EPA Announces $750,000 for Water Quality Monitoring in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (US EPA, May 26, 2022).
May 26, 2022
EPA Rolls Out New EJ Legal Toolkit (E&E News, May 26, 2022).
May 25, 2022
Biden EPA Deals Major Blow to Pebble Mine (E&E News, May 25, 2022).
Biden Administration, Settling a Long Feud, Moves to Block a Mine in Alaska (The New York Times, May 25, 2022).
May 23, 2022
EPA Air Nominee Faces High-Stakes Confirmation Hearing (E&E News, May 23, 2022).
No ‘Simple Fix’: White House Charts Progress on EJ Agenda (E&E News, May 23, 2022).
Nearly $10M in EPA Funding To Go To Environmentally Contaminated Sites in Montana (Great Falls Tribune, May 23, 2022).
May 20, 2022
Unjustified Industry Pushback on EPA’s Toxic Chemical Regulation (The Hill, May 20, 2022).
EPA Announces $221 Million Loan to Modernize Water Infrastructure for Approximately Six Million New Jersey Residents (EPA, May 20, 2022).
EPA, NJ Announce $588M in Water Infrastructure Spending (The Public’s Radio, May 20, 2022).
$500-million Available in 1st Round Funding through EPA For Clean School Buses (The Talk of Delmarva, May 20, 2022).
Biden Administration Kicks Off $5 billion Electric Clean School Bus Program (Electrek, May 20, 2022).
May 19, 2022
EPA Announces Appointment of Casey Sixkiller as Region 10 Administrator (EPA, May 19, 2022).
Hyde-Smith to EPA: Enough talk, it’s Time to Get the Yazoo Pumps Back on Track (Super Talk Mississippi Media, May 19, 2022).
May 18, 2022
In Unusual Move, EPA Backtracks on Air Quality Designations (E&E News, May 18, 2022).
EPA Adds Five PFAS Chemicals to List of Regional Screening and Removal Management Levels to Protect Human Health and the Environment (EPA, May 18, 2022).
The Department of Justice’s Strategy to Advance Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 18, 2022).
EPA New England Awards the University of Vermont a Grant to Help Tackle the Climate Crisis Through Food Waste Diversion (UVM, May 18, 2022).
May 17, 2022
Community Methane Monitoring Fills Gaps Left by EPA (E&E News, May 17, 2022).
May 16, 2022
Getting Environmental Justice Right at the EPA (Canary Media, May 16, 2022).
Bipartisan Group Pushes Senate to Confirm Environmental Prosecutor to Key EPA Post (NPR, May 16, 2022).
EPA Celebrates 25 Years of Children’s Environmental Health Protection (EPA, May 16, 2022).
May 13, 2022
Lawsuit Targets EPA Clean Air Act Waiver Revival (E&E News, May 13, 2022).
EPA Announces Additional $1.9 Billion in State Revolving Loan Funds for Water Infrastructure Upgrades (EPA, May 13, 2022)
May 12, 2022
Biden Administration Announces $254 Million to Tackle Polluted Brownfield Sites (EPA, May 12, 2022).
Biden Administration to Disperse More than $250 million in Contamination Clean-up Funds (The Hill, May 12, 2022).
EPA Blocks Bid to Review Basis for Climate Regs (E&E News, May 12, 2022).
May 10, 2022
Why Can’t Smoggy SoCal Improve Air Quality? Local Regulators Blame the Federal Government (LA Times, May 10, 2022).
Groups Sue EPA Over Water Quality, Manatee Deaths (Citrus County Chronicle, May 10, 2022).
May 9, 2022
Why EPA Might Make New Gas Plants Catch Carbon (E&E News, May 9, 2022).
With Decision on Insecticide, EPA Betrays Protection of Pollinators...Again (Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2022).
Biden’s New Strategy for Environmental Justice (Grist, May 9, 2022).
Biden’s Department of Justice Announces New ‘Office of Environmental Justice’ (The Ohio Star, May 9, 2022).
As DEQ, EPA Are Slow to Act on PFAS, Private Manufacturers Look to Fill the Gap (NC Health News, May 9, 2022).
May 7, 2022
EPA Proposes TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Asbestos (The National Law Review, May 7, 2022).
Biden Administration Forms New Office of Environmental Justice (Nation of Change, May 7, 2022).
May 6, 2022
Trump Showed How Easy It Is To Break The EPA. It's Much Harder To Fix It. (Buzzfeed, May 6, 2022).
EPA Proposal Too Tepid to Address Dangerous Chemical Spills (NRDC, May 6, 2022).
EPA to Review Air Toxics Loopholes Covering Oil Refineries and Petrochemical Plants (Earthjustice, May 6, 2022).
May 5, 2022
DOJ Announces New Office Focused on Environmental Justice (The Hill, May 5, 2022).
EPA Union Seeks Climate Emergency Declaration to Hire More Staff (Bloomberg Law, May 5, 2022).
Biden Admin Unveils Long-Awaited EJ Strategy (E&E News, May 5, 2022).
May 4, 2022EPA Proposes 3 New Actions to Protect Public From PFAS (CoastalReview.org, May 4, 2022).
Alarmed by Declining EPA Enforcement, 55 Environmental Groups Urge Senate to Confirm Long-Delayed EPA Enforcement Chief (Yubanet.com, May 4, 2022).
May 3, 2022
EPA Announces $40M to Help Restore Chesapeake Bay (AP News, May 3, 2022).
EPA to Weigh Regulating Common Plastic as Hazardous Waste (E&E News, May 3, 2022).
EPA Recommends Against Reissuing Permit for PolyMet Mine (The Washington Post, May 3, 2022).
EPA Announces $281 Million WIFIA Loan to Modernize Wastewater Infrastructure in Johnson County, Kansas (EPA, May 3, 2022).
EPA Ramps Up Clean Water Inspections in Pennsylvania (Bay Journal, May 3, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/may2022-newsfeed -
June 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 June 2022A People's EPA (APE)
June Newsfeed
-
-
June 30, 2022
Supreme Court Restricts the EPA's Authority to Mandate Carbon Emissions Reductions (NPR, June 30, 2022).
Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Ability to Restrict Power Plant Emissions (The New York Times, June 30, 2022).
How the Supreme Court Ruling Will Gut the EPA's Ability to Fight the Climate Crisis (CNN, June 30, 2022).
E.P.A. Ruling Is Milestone in Long Pushback to Regulation of Business (The New York Times, June 30, 202).
June 29, 2022
EPA Proposes Changes (Again) to CWA Water Quality Certification Rule (JD Supra, June 29, 2022).
EPA: Flame Retardant Chemical Poses Unreasonable Risk (E&E News, June 29, 2022).
June 28, 2022EPA Sends $3.9M to Niagara County (Niagara Gazette, June 28, 2022).
EPA Awards Research Grants to 16 Student Teams to Develop Innovative Solutions to Environmental Challenges (US EPA, June 28, 2022).
June 27, 2022
Supreme Court’s Next Major Ruling Could Severely Limit the Power of the EPA (Fortune, June 27, 2022).
After Court Finds EPA Inaction Unlawful, It’s Time for the Agency to Ban Glyphosate (Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2022).
NY Cities Fighting for Safer Drinking Water Praise New Warning on Toxic 'Forever' Chemicals (Press Connects, June 27, 2022).
June 25, 2022
EPA Objects to Air Pollution Permit for Alabama Coal Plant (AL.com, June 25, 2022).
June 24, 2022
EPA Proposes Changes (Again) to CWA Water Quality Certification Rule (The National Law Review, June 24, 2022).
June 23, 2022
EPA Establishes New Health Advisories for PFAS (The National Law Review, June 23, 2022).
EPA Local Government Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Support Communities Nationwide (US EPA, June 23, 2022).
EPA Awards $1.2 Million to Washington Tribes to Help Protect Communities From Harmful Diesel Emissions (US EPA, June 23, 2022).
‘Crying out for help’: Inside an EPA Water Crisis (E&E News, June 23, 2022).
June 22, 2022
5 Takeaways From the Energy, Environment Spending Bills (E&E News, June 22, 2022).
House Subcommittee Boosts EPA’s Budget to Tackle Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' (EWG, June 22, 2022).
June 21, 2022
U.S. Regulators to Propose New Tougher Vehicle Emissions Rules by March (CNBC, June 21, 2022).
House Appropriators Release Bill to Bolster EPA, Interior (E&E News, June 21, 2022).
June 20, 2022
Federal Water Tap, June 20: EPA Issues PFAS Warning and Troubled Colorado River Is Focus of Senate Hearing (Circle of Blue, June 20, 2022).
EPA Grants Permit for Ocean Era Aquaculture Demonstration Project Off of Sarasota County (Herald-Tribune, June 20, 2022).
EPA Sets Stricter Health Advisory Limits for PFAS – a Harbinger of More Regulation? (JD Supra, June 20, 2022).
June 18, 2022
Court Rejects Trump-Era Environmental Protection Agency Finding That Weed Killer Is Safe (Time, June 18, 2022).
June 16, 2022
EPA Announces No Safe Level for Two PFAS and $1 Billion in Funding (JD Supra, June 16, 2022).
June 15, 2022
EPA Sets Targets for Slashing PFAS in Drinking Water (E&E News, June 15, 2022).
EPA Imposes Stricter Limits on Four Types of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Guardian, June 15, 2022).
June 13, 2022
EPA Announces $6.5 Billion in New Funding Available for Water Infrastructure Projects (EPA, June 13, 2022).
June 12, 2022
How SCOTUS’ Upcoming Climate Ruling Could Defang Washington (Politico, June 12, 2022).
EPA Gives Nevada Firm OK to Turn Trash to Synthetic Fuel Oil (Pioneer, June 12, 2022).
June 10, 2022
EPA Might Deny Calif.’s Clean Truck Waiver (E&E News, June 10, 2022).
EPA to Give $60M to 12 States to Help Curb Water Pollution (AP News, June 10, 2022).
Environmental Groups Demand Answers from Biden’s EPA on Forever Chemicals (Courthouse News Service, June 10, 2022).
June 9, 2022
Environmental Settlements High on EPA West Coast Chief’s Agenda (Bloomberg Law, June 9, 2022).
Biden Administration, EPA Announce $375M in Funding for Recycling and Waste Prevention Initiatives (Waste Today, June 9, 2022).
Five Car Makers Back Biden Decision To Allow California’s Stricter Auto Emissions (California Globe, June 9, 2022).
EPA Reverses Another Trump Administration Rule (IER, June 9, 2022).
EPA Awards $500,000 Brownfields Grant to Flint Hills Regional Council (KMAN, June 9, 2022).
June 8, 2022
EPA Official Says Agency is Committed to Cleaning Up Contaminated Native Corporation Land (Alaska Public Media, June 8, 2022).
EPA Publishes Guidance on Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice (O’Melveny, June 8, 2022).
EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights Compliance Office Issues Draft National Program Guidance (JD Supra, June 8, 2022).
EPA Region 7 Presents $500K Check to Kansas’ Flint Hills Regional Council After Their Selection for Brownfields Grant (EPA, June 8, 2022).
June 8, 2022
The EPA Plans to Rein in Truck Pollution to Ease Asthma, but It May Not Go Far Enough (Scientific American, E&E News, June 8, 2022).
Proposed Deal Could Slash Toxic Emissions in America’s ‘Cancer Alley’ (The Guardian, June 8, 2022).
June 7, 2022
Heavy Duty Regulatory Update: CARB & US EPA Proposed Rulemaking for NOx Heavy-Duty Offroad and Onroad Truck Standards (National Law Review, June 7, 2022).
June 6, 2022
EPA Announces Plan for Cleaning Up Remaining Cancer-Causing Contamination in Franklin (Indy Star, June 6, 2022).
Biden to Update ‘Sacred’ EJ Order That Never Really Worked (E&E News, June 6, 2022).
EPA Issues First Test Order Under National Testing Strategy for PFAS in Commercial Fire Fighting Foam and Other Uses (US EPA, June 6, 2022).
EPA Reaches Tandem Deals Over ‘Cancer Alley’ Pollution (E&E News, June 6, 2022).
June 5, 2022
Consumers Pay The Price As Biden’s War On Oil And Gas Expands (Forbes, June 5, 2022).
June 4, 2022
EPA Grants $300,000+ to USVI for Water Quality Monitoring, Safe Beach Recreation (St Thomas Source, June 4, 2022).
June 3, 2022
U.S. EPA Expected to Release Retroactive Biofuel Blending Mandates for 2020-2022 (Reuters, June 3, 2022).
EPA Takes Action to Reset and Strengthen the RFS Program (US EPA, June 3, 2022).
June 2, 2022
Biden EPA Restores Clean Water Safeguards for Streams, Rivers, and Wetlands (NRDC, June 2, 2022).
EPA Moves to Give States, Tribes More Power to Protect Water (The Washington Post, June 2, 2022).
U.S. EPA Restores Rights of States, Tribes to Block Polluting Projects (Reuters, June 2, 2022).
Biden EPA to Make it Easier for States to Block Fossil Fuel Projects (CNN, June 2, 2022).
EPA Names Director for Its Chesapeake Bay Program (Maryland Matters, June 2, 2022)
June 1, 2022
High Levels of ‘Forever Chemicals’ Found Near Military Bases (E&E News, June 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
June Newsfeed
-
-
June 30, 2022
Supreme Court Restricts the EPA's Authority to Mandate Carbon Emissions Reductions (NPR, June 30, 2022).
Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Ability to Restrict Power Plant Emissions (The New York Times, June 30, 2022).
How the Supreme Court Ruling Will Gut the EPA's Ability to Fight the Climate Crisis (CNN, June 30, 2022).
E.P.A. Ruling Is Milestone in Long Pushback to Regulation of Business (The New York Times, June 30, 202).
June 29, 2022
EPA Proposes Changes (Again) to CWA Water Quality Certification Rule (JD Supra, June 29, 2022).
EPA: Flame Retardant Chemical Poses Unreasonable Risk (E&E News, June 29, 2022).
June 28, 2022EPA Sends $3.9M to Niagara County (Niagara Gazette, June 28, 2022).
EPA Awards Research Grants to 16 Student Teams to Develop Innovative Solutions to Environmental Challenges (US EPA, June 28, 2022).
June 27, 2022
Supreme Court’s Next Major Ruling Could Severely Limit the Power of the EPA (Fortune, June 27, 2022).
After Court Finds EPA Inaction Unlawful, It’s Time for the Agency to Ban Glyphosate (Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2022).
NY Cities Fighting for Safer Drinking Water Praise New Warning on Toxic 'Forever' Chemicals (Press Connects, June 27, 2022).
June 25, 2022
EPA Objects to Air Pollution Permit for Alabama Coal Plant (AL.com, June 25, 2022).
June 24, 2022
EPA Proposes Changes (Again) to CWA Water Quality Certification Rule (The National Law Review, June 24, 2022).
June 23, 2022
EPA Establishes New Health Advisories for PFAS (The National Law Review, June 23, 2022).
EPA Local Government Advisory Committee Adopts Recommendations to Support Communities Nationwide (US EPA, June 23, 2022).
EPA Awards $1.2 Million to Washington Tribes to Help Protect Communities From Harmful Diesel Emissions (US EPA, June 23, 2022).
‘Crying out for help’: Inside an EPA Water Crisis (E&E News, June 23, 2022).
June 22, 2022
5 Takeaways From the Energy, Environment Spending Bills (E&E News, June 22, 2022).
House Subcommittee Boosts EPA’s Budget to Tackle Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' (EWG, June 22, 2022).
June 21, 2022
U.S. Regulators to Propose New Tougher Vehicle Emissions Rules by March (CNBC, June 21, 2022).
House Appropriators Release Bill to Bolster EPA, Interior (E&E News, June 21, 2022).
June 20, 2022
Federal Water Tap, June 20: EPA Issues PFAS Warning and Troubled Colorado River Is Focus of Senate Hearing (Circle of Blue, June 20, 2022).
EPA Grants Permit for Ocean Era Aquaculture Demonstration Project Off of Sarasota County (Herald-Tribune, June 20, 2022).
EPA Sets Stricter Health Advisory Limits for PFAS – a Harbinger of More Regulation? (JD Supra, June 20, 2022).
June 18, 2022
Court Rejects Trump-Era Environmental Protection Agency Finding That Weed Killer Is Safe (Time, June 18, 2022).
June 16, 2022
EPA Announces No Safe Level for Two PFAS and $1 Billion in Funding (JD Supra, June 16, 2022).
June 15, 2022
EPA Sets Targets for Slashing PFAS in Drinking Water (E&E News, June 15, 2022).
EPA Imposes Stricter Limits on Four Types of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Guardian, June 15, 2022).
June 13, 2022
EPA Announces $6.5 Billion in New Funding Available for Water Infrastructure Projects (EPA, June 13, 2022).
June 12, 2022
How SCOTUS’ Upcoming Climate Ruling Could Defang Washington (Politico, June 12, 2022).
EPA Gives Nevada Firm OK to Turn Trash to Synthetic Fuel Oil (Pioneer, June 12, 2022).
June 10, 2022
EPA Might Deny Calif.’s Clean Truck Waiver (E&E News, June 10, 2022).
EPA to Give $60M to 12 States to Help Curb Water Pollution (AP News, June 10, 2022).
Environmental Groups Demand Answers from Biden’s EPA on Forever Chemicals (Courthouse News Service, June 10, 2022).
June 9, 2022
Environmental Settlements High on EPA West Coast Chief’s Agenda (Bloomberg Law, June 9, 2022).
Biden Administration, EPA Announce $375M in Funding for Recycling and Waste Prevention Initiatives (Waste Today, June 9, 2022).
Five Car Makers Back Biden Decision To Allow California’s Stricter Auto Emissions (California Globe, June 9, 2022).
EPA Reverses Another Trump Administration Rule (IER, June 9, 2022).
EPA Awards $500,000 Brownfields Grant to Flint Hills Regional Council (KMAN, June 9, 2022).
June 8, 2022
EPA Official Says Agency is Committed to Cleaning Up Contaminated Native Corporation Land (Alaska Public Media, June 8, 2022).
EPA Publishes Guidance on Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice (O’Melveny, June 8, 2022).
EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights Compliance Office Issues Draft National Program Guidance (JD Supra, June 8, 2022).
EPA Region 7 Presents $500K Check to Kansas’ Flint Hills Regional Council After Their Selection for Brownfields Grant (EPA, June 8, 2022).
June 8, 2022
The EPA Plans to Rein in Truck Pollution to Ease Asthma, but It May Not Go Far Enough (Scientific American, E&E News, June 8, 2022).
Proposed Deal Could Slash Toxic Emissions in America’s ‘Cancer Alley’ (The Guardian, June 8, 2022).
June 7, 2022
Heavy Duty Regulatory Update: CARB & US EPA Proposed Rulemaking for NOx Heavy-Duty Offroad and Onroad Truck Standards (National Law Review, June 7, 2022).
June 6, 2022
EPA Announces Plan for Cleaning Up Remaining Cancer-Causing Contamination in Franklin (Indy Star, June 6, 2022).
Biden to Update ‘Sacred’ EJ Order That Never Really Worked (E&E News, June 6, 2022).
EPA Issues First Test Order Under National Testing Strategy for PFAS in Commercial Fire Fighting Foam and Other Uses (US EPA, June 6, 2022).
EPA Reaches Tandem Deals Over ‘Cancer Alley’ Pollution (E&E News, June 6, 2022).
June 5, 2022
Consumers Pay The Price As Biden’s War On Oil And Gas Expands (Forbes, June 5, 2022).
June 4, 2022
EPA Grants $300,000+ to USVI for Water Quality Monitoring, Safe Beach Recreation (St Thomas Source, June 4, 2022).
June 3, 2022
U.S. EPA Expected to Release Retroactive Biofuel Blending Mandates for 2020-2022 (Reuters, June 3, 2022).
EPA Takes Action to Reset and Strengthen the RFS Program (US EPA, June 3, 2022).
June 2, 2022
Biden EPA Restores Clean Water Safeguards for Streams, Rivers, and Wetlands (NRDC, June 2, 2022).
EPA Moves to Give States, Tribes More Power to Protect Water (The Washington Post, June 2, 2022).
U.S. EPA Restores Rights of States, Tribes to Block Polluting Projects (Reuters, June 2, 2022).
Biden EPA to Make it Easier for States to Block Fossil Fuel Projects (CNN, June 2, 2022).
EPA Names Director for Its Chesapeake Bay Program (Maryland Matters, June 2, 2022)
June 1, 2022
High Levels of ‘Forever Chemicals’ Found Near Military Bases (E&E News, June 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/june-2022-newsfeed -
July 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 July 2022A People's EPA (APE)
July Newsfeed
-
-
July 29, 2022
Exclusive: Biden EPA to Tackle Coal Industry Carbon With Rules on Other Pollutants (Reuters, July 29, 2022).
EPA Orders Weld County Gas Plants to Pay $3.25 Million (Fox 31, July 29, 2022).
Climate Bill ‘Transformative’ for Auto and Energy Industries (The New York Times, July 29, 2022).
Climate Experts Experience An Odd Sensation After the Manchin Budget Deal: Optimism (NPR, July 29, 2022).
Lots of PFAS News, None of it Good. (JD Supra, July 29, 2022).
July 27, 2022
Manchin, in Reversal, Agrees to Quick Action on Climate and Tax Plan (The New York Times, July 27, 2022).
July 26, 2022
Biden-Harris Administration Announces $132 Million for EPA’s National Estuary Program from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (US EPA, July 26, 2022).
EPA Head Michael Regan Tours Puerto Rico Sites Facing Water and Coal Pollution (NBC News, July 26, 2022).
July 25, 2022
EPA’s ‘Sham’ PFAS Claim Shouldn’t Derail Legal Case, Court Told (Bloomberg Law, July 25, 2022).
Biden Could Declare Climate Emergency - Kerry (BBC, July 25, 2022).
Khanna Calls Biden EPA, FAA Refusal to Join Hearing on Lead in Children's Blood 'Unconscionable' (Common Dreams, July 25, 2022).
July 24, 2022
In Atlanta, Work on a New EPA Superfund Site Leaves Black Neighborhoods Wary, Fearing Gentrification (Inside Climate News, July 24, 2022).
July 22, 2022
EPA Awards $25K to Design Drinking Water PFAS Treatment (Water World, July 22, 2022).
EPA Finds Asbestos in the Soil Near the Former W.R. Grace Plant in West Dallas (D Magazine, July 22, 2022).
One of Worst Superfund Sites No Longer Polluting Meadowlands Creek, EPA Says (northjersey.com, July 22, 2022).
July 21, 2022
‘We Are Not For Sale’ (High Country News, July 21, 2022).
EPA Faces Lawsuit for Ethanol’s Impacts on Endangered Species (AgWeb, July 21, 2022).
Delaying the Inevitable? The Uncertain Future of the EPA’s Online Archive (News Security Beat, July 21, 2022).
July 20, 2022
Biden Calls Climate Change a ‘Clear and Present Danger' As He Tries to Find Ways to Take Action (CNN, July 20, 2022).
July 19, 2022
Biden’s Climate Plan in Free Fall (E&E News, July 19, 2022).
Climate, Environmental Groups Want EPA to Target CAFOs (National Hog Farmer, July 19, 2022).
Trying to Salvage His Climate Agenda, Biden Weighs Remaining Options (The New York Times, July 19, 2022).
Biden Preparing Executive Action on Climate after Manchin Sinks Legislative Approach (CNN, July 19, 2022).
Biden to Announce Climate Actions but Not Yet Declare an ‘Emergency’ (Politico, July 19, 2022).
July 18, 2022
4 Issues to Watch as Energy, EPA Bills Reach House Floor (E&E News, July 18, 2022).
Existing Air Law Tools Give EPA Narrow Path on Tackling Climate (Bloomberg Law, July 18, 2022).
1,300 More Cumberland County Wells Considered Contaminated by GenX, ‘Forever Chemicals’: EPA (CBS17, July 18, 2022).
Lawmakers, St. Lawrence River Environmentalists Push EPA to Regulate Ballast Water (CNY, July 18, 2022).
July 15, 2022
Enforcement, Superfund Nominees for EPA in Confirmation Limbo (Roll Call, July 15, 2022).
Four Ways the United States Can Still Fight Climate Change (The New York Times, July 15, 2022).
July 14, 2022
EPA Seeks Feedback on Environmental Justice Action Plan, Equitable Use of Infrastructure Funds (Waste Dive, July 14, 2022).
EPA Finds Colorado Air Regulators Issued Improper Pollution Permits, Confirming Whistleblower Reports (CPR News, July 14, 2022).
Chemours to Challenge EPA’s GenX Guideline (The Marietta Time, July 14, 2022).
July 13, 2022
Supreme Court Invokes Major Questions Doctrine to Curb EPA's Ability to Regulate Carbon Emissions (JD Supra, July 13, 2022).
Meet EPA’s Team Behind The Next Power Plant Rule (E&E News, July 13, 2022).
July 13, 2022
EPA Faces Legal Dead Ends After SCOTUS Climate Decision (E&E News, July 13, 2022).
Environmental Group Sues to get EPA to Crack Down on Colorado’s Record Ozone Violations (The Colorado Sun, July 13, 2022).
July 12, 2022
Environmental Policy After EPA Decision (The Carolina Journal, July 12, 2022).
July 11, 2022
What the SCOTUS Ruling on EPA and Emissions Means for Climate Change (CU Boulder, July 11, 2022).
EPA Needs a Senate-confirmed Enforcement Chief, Groups Say (The Washington Post, July 11, 2022).
Leading Environmental Groups Call for Uhlmann’s Confirmation to Head EPA Enforcement Office (Earthjustice, July 11, 2022).
Green Groups Push Senate to Confirm EPA Enforcement Chief (The Hill, July 11, 2022).
July 8, 2022
Former EPA Head: Supreme Court’s Ruling Is a ‘Body Blow’ to the U.S. (Scientific American, July 8, 2022).
EPA Increases Scrutiny of Self-Reporting Through the eDisclosure System (JD Supra, July 8, 2022).
July 7, 2022
E.P.A. Describes How It Will Regulate Power Plants After Supreme Court Setback (The New York Times, Juy 7, 2022).
EPA Awards $200,000 To San Luis Valley Local Foods Coalition For Food Waste Project (Arc Valley Voice, July 7, 2022).
What the Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling Means For Air Pollution — And Your Health (Vox, July 7, 2022).
E.P.A.,Curbed by Supreme Court, Falls Back on a Piecemeal Plan for Climate Change (The New York Times, July 7, 2022).
July 6, 2022
The Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling Will Delay U.S. Climate Action (Council on Foreign Relations, July 6, 2022).
Polluted Soil at Site of New Lookouts Stadium in Chattanooga to be Addressed by EPA (WTVC, July 6, 2022).
Revealed: US Water Likely Contains More ‘Forever Chemicals’ Than EPA Tests Show (The Guardian, July 6, 2022).
Supreme Court Ruling on EPA Will Force Local Agencies to Spearhead Climate Action, San Diego Leaders Say (The San Diego Union Tribune, July 6, 2022).
July 4, 2022
In Light of EPA Court Ruling, New Focus on States' Power (US News, July 4, 2022).
EPA Extends Comment Period on Watershed Protections That Would Block Pebble Mine (KTOO, July 4, 2022).
July 2, 2022
What the Supreme Court Ruled the EPA Can and Can’t Do (The Hill, July 2, 2022).
July 1, 2022
EPA Targets Permian Basin, Widening Biden’s War On Oil And Gas (Forbes, July 1, 2022).
Biden Opens Door to More Offshore Drilling, Despite Earlier Climate Vow (The Washington Post, July 1, 2022).
The EPA Prepares for its 'Counterpunch' After the Supreme Court Ruling (NPR, July 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
July Newsfeed
-
-
July 29, 2022
Exclusive: Biden EPA to Tackle Coal Industry Carbon With Rules on Other Pollutants (Reuters, July 29, 2022).
EPA Orders Weld County Gas Plants to Pay $3.25 Million (Fox 31, July 29, 2022).
Climate Bill ‘Transformative’ for Auto and Energy Industries (The New York Times, July 29, 2022).
Climate Experts Experience An Odd Sensation After the Manchin Budget Deal: Optimism (NPR, July 29, 2022).
Lots of PFAS News, None of it Good. (JD Supra, July 29, 2022).
July 27, 2022
Manchin, in Reversal, Agrees to Quick Action on Climate and Tax Plan (The New York Times, July 27, 2022).
July 26, 2022
Biden-Harris Administration Announces $132 Million for EPA’s National Estuary Program from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (US EPA, July 26, 2022).
EPA Head Michael Regan Tours Puerto Rico Sites Facing Water and Coal Pollution (NBC News, July 26, 2022).
July 25, 2022
EPA’s ‘Sham’ PFAS Claim Shouldn’t Derail Legal Case, Court Told (Bloomberg Law, July 25, 2022).
Biden Could Declare Climate Emergency - Kerry (BBC, July 25, 2022).
Khanna Calls Biden EPA, FAA Refusal to Join Hearing on Lead in Children's Blood 'Unconscionable' (Common Dreams, July 25, 2022).
July 24, 2022
In Atlanta, Work on a New EPA Superfund Site Leaves Black Neighborhoods Wary, Fearing Gentrification (Inside Climate News, July 24, 2022).
July 22, 2022
EPA Awards $25K to Design Drinking Water PFAS Treatment (Water World, July 22, 2022).
EPA Finds Asbestos in the Soil Near the Former W.R. Grace Plant in West Dallas (D Magazine, July 22, 2022).
One of Worst Superfund Sites No Longer Polluting Meadowlands Creek, EPA Says (northjersey.com, July 22, 2022).
July 21, 2022
‘We Are Not For Sale’ (High Country News, July 21, 2022).
EPA Faces Lawsuit for Ethanol’s Impacts on Endangered Species (AgWeb, July 21, 2022).
Delaying the Inevitable? The Uncertain Future of the EPA’s Online Archive (News Security Beat, July 21, 2022).
July 20, 2022
Biden Calls Climate Change a ‘Clear and Present Danger' As He Tries to Find Ways to Take Action (CNN, July 20, 2022).
July 19, 2022
Biden’s Climate Plan in Free Fall (E&E News, July 19, 2022).
Climate, Environmental Groups Want EPA to Target CAFOs (National Hog Farmer, July 19, 2022).
Trying to Salvage His Climate Agenda, Biden Weighs Remaining Options (The New York Times, July 19, 2022).
Biden Preparing Executive Action on Climate after Manchin Sinks Legislative Approach (CNN, July 19, 2022).
Biden to Announce Climate Actions but Not Yet Declare an ‘Emergency’ (Politico, July 19, 2022).
July 18, 2022
4 Issues to Watch as Energy, EPA Bills Reach House Floor (E&E News, July 18, 2022).
Existing Air Law Tools Give EPA Narrow Path on Tackling Climate (Bloomberg Law, July 18, 2022).
1,300 More Cumberland County Wells Considered Contaminated by GenX, ‘Forever Chemicals’: EPA (CBS17, July 18, 2022).
Lawmakers, St. Lawrence River Environmentalists Push EPA to Regulate Ballast Water (CNY, July 18, 2022).
July 15, 2022
Enforcement, Superfund Nominees for EPA in Confirmation Limbo (Roll Call, July 15, 2022).
Four Ways the United States Can Still Fight Climate Change (The New York Times, July 15, 2022).
July 14, 2022
EPA Seeks Feedback on Environmental Justice Action Plan, Equitable Use of Infrastructure Funds (Waste Dive, July 14, 2022).
EPA Finds Colorado Air Regulators Issued Improper Pollution Permits, Confirming Whistleblower Reports (CPR News, July 14, 2022).
Chemours to Challenge EPA’s GenX Guideline (The Marietta Time, July 14, 2022).
July 13, 2022
Supreme Court Invokes Major Questions Doctrine to Curb EPA's Ability to Regulate Carbon Emissions (JD Supra, July 13, 2022).
Meet EPA’s Team Behind The Next Power Plant Rule (E&E News, July 13, 2022).
July 13, 2022
EPA Faces Legal Dead Ends After SCOTUS Climate Decision (E&E News, July 13, 2022).
Environmental Group Sues to get EPA to Crack Down on Colorado’s Record Ozone Violations (The Colorado Sun, July 13, 2022).
July 12, 2022
Environmental Policy After EPA Decision (The Carolina Journal, July 12, 2022).
July 11, 2022
What the SCOTUS Ruling on EPA and Emissions Means for Climate Change (CU Boulder, July 11, 2022).
EPA Needs a Senate-confirmed Enforcement Chief, Groups Say (The Washington Post, July 11, 2022).
Leading Environmental Groups Call for Uhlmann’s Confirmation to Head EPA Enforcement Office (Earthjustice, July 11, 2022).
Green Groups Push Senate to Confirm EPA Enforcement Chief (The Hill, July 11, 2022).
July 8, 2022
Former EPA Head: Supreme Court’s Ruling Is a ‘Body Blow’ to the U.S. (Scientific American, July 8, 2022).
EPA Increases Scrutiny of Self-Reporting Through the eDisclosure System (JD Supra, July 8, 2022).
July 7, 2022
E.P.A. Describes How It Will Regulate Power Plants After Supreme Court Setback (The New York Times, Juy 7, 2022).
EPA Awards $200,000 To San Luis Valley Local Foods Coalition For Food Waste Project (Arc Valley Voice, July 7, 2022).
What the Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling Means For Air Pollution — And Your Health (Vox, July 7, 2022).
E.P.A.,Curbed by Supreme Court, Falls Back on a Piecemeal Plan for Climate Change (The New York Times, July 7, 2022).
July 6, 2022
The Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling Will Delay U.S. Climate Action (Council on Foreign Relations, July 6, 2022).
Polluted Soil at Site of New Lookouts Stadium in Chattanooga to be Addressed by EPA (WTVC, July 6, 2022).
Revealed: US Water Likely Contains More ‘Forever Chemicals’ Than EPA Tests Show (The Guardian, July 6, 2022).
Supreme Court Ruling on EPA Will Force Local Agencies to Spearhead Climate Action, San Diego Leaders Say (The San Diego Union Tribune, July 6, 2022).
July 4, 2022
In Light of EPA Court Ruling, New Focus on States' Power (US News, July 4, 2022).
EPA Extends Comment Period on Watershed Protections That Would Block Pebble Mine (KTOO, July 4, 2022).
July 2, 2022
What the Supreme Court Ruled the EPA Can and Can’t Do (The Hill, July 2, 2022).
July 1, 2022
EPA Targets Permian Basin, Widening Biden’s War On Oil And Gas (Forbes, July 1, 2022).
Biden Opens Door to More Offshore Drilling, Despite Earlier Climate Vow (The Washington Post, July 1, 2022).
The EPA Prepares for its 'Counterpunch' After the Supreme Court Ruling (NPR, July 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/july-2022-newsfeed -
August 2022 Newsfeed
UPLOADED 01 July 2022A People's EPA (APE)
August Newsfeed
-
-
August 31, 2022
EPA Alleges Local Company Violated Clean Air Act (91.3 WYSO, August 31, 2022).
Biden Speaks with Jackson Mayor About Water Crisis (The Hill, August 31, 2022).
August 30, 2022
Federal Cyber Mandate Looms for Local Water Systems (E&E News, August 30, 2022).
August 29, 2022
EPA Tells 15 States They Missed Air Pollution Plan Deadline (August 29, 2022).
August 26, 2022
EPA Proposes Designating Certain PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances Under Superfund to Protect People’s Health (US EPA, August 26, 2022).
2 ‘Forever Chemicals’ to be Named Hazardous Substances, says EPA Official (PBS News Hour, August 26, 2022).
August 25, 2022
EPA Faces Lawsuit for Exempting Half a Billion Tons of Toxic Coal Ash from Health Protections (Earthjustice, August 25, 2022).
Groups Sue Environmental Protection Agency Over Coal Ash (Yahoo!, August 25, 2022).
August 24, 2022
The EPA Just Quietly Got Stronger (The Atlantic, August 24, 2022).
August 23, 2022
Greens Ask EPA to Ban New Natural Gas Heating (The Hill, August 23, 2022).
The Owner of Four Ethanol Plants, Including One in Iowa, Pays $1.7 million EPA Penalty (The Des Moines Register, August 23, 2022).
Activists Petition EPA to Restrict the Use of Home and Commercial Furnaces by 2030 (Yahoo! News, August 23, 2022).
August 22, 2022
Democrats Designed the Climate Law to Be a Game Changer. Here’s How. (The New York Times, August 22, 2022).
EPA Reaches Over $200K Settlement with The Andersons Marathon Holdings LLC in Denison, Iowa, Over Alleged Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Violations (US EPA, August 22, 2022).
August 21, 2022
EPA Approves iPark 87 Cleanup, Battery Manufacturer Plans Plant (Westchester and Fairfield County Business Journal, August 21, 2022).
Nonprofits Request ‘Community Voice’ Be Heard Before the Courts in Chemours, EPA Lawsuit (PortCityDaily, August 21, 2022).
August 20, 2022
Air Force Won’t Use New EPA Levels in Wurtsmith PFAS Cleanup (Michigan Live, August 20, 2022).
Shilling to Pay EPA $70K in Fines for Release of Polluted Water into Kansas River (The Mercury, August 20, 2022).
August 19, 2022
Breakthrough Research Could Destroy ‘Forever Chemicals’ (E&E News, August 19, 2022).
August 19, 2022
EPA Proposes Stronger Regulations to Protect Communities from Chemical Accidents (US EPA, August 19, 2022).
EPA Finds More Risks For the Pesticide Dicamba (Chemical & Engineering News, August 19, 2022).
Biden Proposes Restoring Chemical Safety Standards Weakened by Trump (The Hill, August 19, 2022).
August 17, 2022
EPA Works With Industry to Reduce Hydrofluorocarbon Production in US (Government Matters, August 17, 2022).
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Doubles Down on Environmental Justice (JD Supra, August 17, 2022).
EPA Reaches $1.7 Million Settlement over Alleged Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Violations with The Andersons Marathon Holdings LLC (US EPA, August 17, 2022).
August 16, 2022
A Detailed Picture of What’s in the Democrats’ Climate and Health Bill (The New York Times, August 16, 2022).
EPA and Columbus Factory Discuss Risks (Nebraska Public Media, August 16, 2022).
Meet EPA Boss Michael Regan’s Inner Circle (E&E News, August 16, 2022).
August 15, 2022
EPA Grant Could Help Clean Up Polluted Air in East Las Vegas (Nevada Public Radio, August 15, 2022).
August 14, 2022
EPA To Remove Sanitizer Involved In Chickasha Fires (Oklahoma City News 9, August 14, 2022).
August 10, 2022
Mich. Toxic Spill Sparks Crackdown, Political Furor (E&E News, August 10, 2022).
August 11, 2022
Biden Faces Time Crunch to Fill EPA Leadership Team (E&E News, August 11, 2022).
August 9, 2022
National Academies Urge EPA to Study Sunscreen Risks (E&E News, August 9, 2022).
EPA Warns of Increased Cancer Risk in Two N.J. Towns From Air Pollutant (New Jersey Monitor, August 9, 2022).
August 8, 2022
Biden’s Climate Win Strains Already-Stretched EPA Workforce (Bloomberg Law, August 8, 2022).
EPA Action Boosts Grassroots Momentum to Reduce Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 8, 2022).
Biden’s Landmark Climate and Spending Bill – What’s In It, and What Got Cut? (The Guardian, August 8, 2022).
How the Climate Bill Could Strengthen EPA Regulations (E&E News, August 8, 2022).
August 7, 2022
Progress in Baby Steps: Westside Atlanta Lead Cleanup Slowly Earns Trust With Help From Local Institutions (Inside Climate News, August 7, 2022).
Advocacy Groups Press EPA on Loophole that Leaves Coal Ash Unregulated, Including in Orlando (WUSF Public Media, August 7, 2022).
August 5, 2022
EPA Says It Is Looking for “Super-Emitters” of Methane Gas in Texas’ Permian Basin (The Texas Tribune, August 5, 2022).
Supreme Court Ruling Against EPA Hurts, May Not Hobble Clean Air in Arizona (The Gila Herald, August 5, 2022).
August 4, 2022
The EPA Has Identified 23 U.S. Facilities that are Emitting Toxic Air Pollution That Puts People At Risk (The Texas Tribune, August 4, 2022).
EPA Announces $8 Million in Grants Available for Tribes and Insular Areas to Replace Diesel Equipment and Reduce Harmful Emissions (USEPA, August 4, 2022).
‘We feel disrespected’: Navajo Farmers Wait for Justice Years After EPA Disaster (The Guardian, August 4, 2022).
August 3, 2022
EPA: Chemical in Medical-Device Cleanser Poses Cancer Risk (AP News, August 3, 2022).
EPA Launches Community Engagement Efforts on New Ethylene Oxide Risk Information (US EPA, August 3, 2022).
In Towns Plagued by Raw Sewage, EPA Promises Relief (Alabama Daily News, August 3, 2022).
August 2, 2022
Biden Administration Launches USDA-EPA Partnership to Provide Wastewater Sanitation to Underserved Communities (USDA, August 2, 2022).
August 1, 2022
EPA Faces New Lawsuit Over ‘Forever Chemicals’ (E&E News, August 1, 2022).
A People's EPA (APE)
August Newsfeed
-
-
August 31, 2022
EPA Alleges Local Company Violated Clean Air Act (91.3 WYSO, August 31, 2022).
Biden Speaks with Jackson Mayor About Water Crisis (The Hill, August 31, 2022).
August 30, 2022
Federal Cyber Mandate Looms for Local Water Systems (E&E News, August 30, 2022).
August 29, 2022
EPA Tells 15 States They Missed Air Pollution Plan Deadline (August 29, 2022).
August 26, 2022
EPA Proposes Designating Certain PFAS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances Under Superfund to Protect People’s Health (US EPA, August 26, 2022).
2 ‘Forever Chemicals’ to be Named Hazardous Substances, says EPA Official (PBS News Hour, August 26, 2022).
August 25, 2022
EPA Faces Lawsuit for Exempting Half a Billion Tons of Toxic Coal Ash from Health Protections (Earthjustice, August 25, 2022).
Groups Sue Environmental Protection Agency Over Coal Ash (Yahoo!, August 25, 2022).
August 24, 2022
The EPA Just Quietly Got Stronger (The Atlantic, August 24, 2022).
August 23, 2022
Greens Ask EPA to Ban New Natural Gas Heating (The Hill, August 23, 2022).
The Owner of Four Ethanol Plants, Including One in Iowa, Pays $1.7 million EPA Penalty (The Des Moines Register, August 23, 2022).
Activists Petition EPA to Restrict the Use of Home and Commercial Furnaces by 2030 (Yahoo! News, August 23, 2022).
August 22, 2022
Democrats Designed the Climate Law to Be a Game Changer. Here’s How. (The New York Times, August 22, 2022).
EPA Reaches Over $200K Settlement with The Andersons Marathon Holdings LLC in Denison, Iowa, Over Alleged Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Violations (US EPA, August 22, 2022).
August 21, 2022
EPA Approves iPark 87 Cleanup, Battery Manufacturer Plans Plant (Westchester and Fairfield County Business Journal, August 21, 2022).
Nonprofits Request ‘Community Voice’ Be Heard Before the Courts in Chemours, EPA Lawsuit (PortCityDaily, August 21, 2022).
August 20, 2022
Air Force Won’t Use New EPA Levels in Wurtsmith PFAS Cleanup (Michigan Live, August 20, 2022).
Shilling to Pay EPA $70K in Fines for Release of Polluted Water into Kansas River (The Mercury, August 20, 2022).
August 19, 2022
Breakthrough Research Could Destroy ‘Forever Chemicals’ (E&E News, August 19, 2022).
August 19, 2022
EPA Proposes Stronger Regulations to Protect Communities from Chemical Accidents (US EPA, August 19, 2022).
EPA Finds More Risks For the Pesticide Dicamba (Chemical & Engineering News, August 19, 2022).
Biden Proposes Restoring Chemical Safety Standards Weakened by Trump (The Hill, August 19, 2022).
August 17, 2022
EPA Works With Industry to Reduce Hydrofluorocarbon Production in US (Government Matters, August 17, 2022).
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Doubles Down on Environmental Justice (JD Supra, August 17, 2022).
EPA Reaches $1.7 Million Settlement over Alleged Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Violations with The Andersons Marathon Holdings LLC (US EPA, August 17, 2022).
August 16, 2022
A Detailed Picture of What’s in the Democrats’ Climate and Health Bill (The New York Times, August 16, 2022).
EPA and Columbus Factory Discuss Risks (Nebraska Public Media, August 16, 2022).
Meet EPA Boss Michael Regan’s Inner Circle (E&E News, August 16, 2022).
August 15, 2022
EPA Grant Could Help Clean Up Polluted Air in East Las Vegas (Nevada Public Radio, August 15, 2022).
August 14, 2022
EPA To Remove Sanitizer Involved In Chickasha Fires (Oklahoma City News 9, August 14, 2022).
August 10, 2022
Mich. Toxic Spill Sparks Crackdown, Political Furor (E&E News, August 10, 2022).
August 11, 2022
Biden Faces Time Crunch to Fill EPA Leadership Team (E&E News, August 11, 2022).
August 9, 2022
National Academies Urge EPA to Study Sunscreen Risks (E&E News, August 9, 2022).
EPA Warns of Increased Cancer Risk in Two N.J. Towns From Air Pollutant (New Jersey Monitor, August 9, 2022).
August 8, 2022
Biden’s Climate Win Strains Already-Stretched EPA Workforce (Bloomberg Law, August 8, 2022).
EPA Action Boosts Grassroots Momentum to Reduce Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 8, 2022).
Biden’s Landmark Climate and Spending Bill – What’s In It, and What Got Cut? (The Guardian, August 8, 2022).
How the Climate Bill Could Strengthen EPA Regulations (E&E News, August 8, 2022).
August 7, 2022
Progress in Baby Steps: Westside Atlanta Lead Cleanup Slowly Earns Trust With Help From Local Institutions (Inside Climate News, August 7, 2022).
Advocacy Groups Press EPA on Loophole that Leaves Coal Ash Unregulated, Including in Orlando (WUSF Public Media, August 7, 2022).
August 5, 2022
EPA Says It Is Looking for “Super-Emitters” of Methane Gas in Texas’ Permian Basin (The Texas Tribune, August 5, 2022).
Supreme Court Ruling Against EPA Hurts, May Not Hobble Clean Air in Arizona (The Gila Herald, August 5, 2022).
August 4, 2022
The EPA Has Identified 23 U.S. Facilities that are Emitting Toxic Air Pollution That Puts People At Risk (The Texas Tribune, August 4, 2022).
EPA Announces $8 Million in Grants Available for Tribes and Insular Areas to Replace Diesel Equipment and Reduce Harmful Emissions (USEPA, August 4, 2022).
‘We feel disrespected’: Navajo Farmers Wait for Justice Years After EPA Disaster (The Guardian, August 4, 2022).
August 3, 2022
EPA: Chemical in Medical-Device Cleanser Poses Cancer Risk (AP News, August 3, 2022).
EPA Launches Community Engagement Efforts on New Ethylene Oxide Risk Information (US EPA, August 3, 2022).
In Towns Plagued by Raw Sewage, EPA Promises Relief (Alabama Daily News, August 3, 2022).
August 2, 2022
Biden Administration Launches USDA-EPA Partnership to Provide Wastewater Sanitation to Underserved Communities (USDA, August 2, 2022).
August 1, 2022
EPA Faces New Lawsuit Over ‘Forever Chemicals’ (E&E News, August 1, 2022).
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/august-2022-newsfeed -
CIDA Partnership
UPLOADED 24 October 2023Introducing EDGI’s New Collaborator in our “Cumulative Effects” Project: Community In-Power and DevelopmentAssociation, Inc. (CIDA)BY EDGI_TEAMOCTOBER 24, 2023BLOGImage courtesy of CIDA.By Kenneth Wohl, Christopher Sellers, and EDGISince 1901, when Texas oil first gushed in nearby Beaumont, the city of Port Arthur, Texas, has been synonymous with oil refineries. As “center of the world’s most prosperous oil refining facilities” by 1957,1its refineries have retained their global prominence into the 21st century. The Motiva oil refinery in Port Arthur is now the largest in North America, and Total and Valero also operate major refineries here.A host of chemical factories around the city continue to feed off refinery products: Oxbow Calcining (part of the Koch brothers’ empire), Chevron Phillips, BASF, and Indurama–just to name a few. Whiledrawing local investment and jobs for this community, Port Arthur’s petrochemical industry has also brought immense and longstanding environmental challenges. Among the hardest hit by thisconvergence of major polluters within a single town have been Black Port Arthurians. Ever since the Jim Crow era Port Arthur’s West Side, wedged along two of these refineries’ fence lines, has beenpredominantly Black. A paradigmatic case of the “sacrifice zone,” West Port Arthur and similar neighborhoods in Beaumont also epitomize the cumulative impacts faced by America’s most environmentallyburdened communities.In recent decades these places have become springboards for local activists fighting for environmental justice. One of the leaders of this movement is the Community In-Power and Development (CIDA), Inc.CIDA was founded in 2000 by Hilton Kelley, a local activist who moved back to Port Arthur after two decades to help tackle the many problems he realized his hometown now faced.2 Despite decades ofenvironmental regulation by the EPA and Texas state agencies, the combined pollution from Port Arthur’s many petrochemical plants seemed ineradicable, imposing a growing toll on people’s health.This yawning gap between official methods of pollution tracking and control and the actual on-the-ground environmental challenges faced by such communities is the subject of EDGI’s own NSF-fundedproject on “Data, Science, and Environmental Justice at the US Environmental Protection Agency.” EDGI is now working with CIDA and Kelley to document how and why environmental agencies havestruggled to address the cumulative environmental and social burdens which Port Arthur has shouldered.Over the past two decades, CIDA has worked tirelessly to “take action against the neighboring chemical manufactures, refiners and incinerator facilities,” to “foster and promote a healthy, safe andeconomically vital community.”3 From its beginnings, CIDA has drawn on what is now known as civic science to verify the local presence, for instance, of toxic air pollutants that the Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (TCEQ) was not measuring. Early on, by drawing its own air samples using “buckets” and sending these to a lab for chemical analysis, CIDA was able to challenge a Motiva Enterprisesrefinery permit in 2004 with charges that the company had a “continuing pattern of illegal upset emissions.” It also made a powerful case against the TCEQ for not doing enough to regulate and punishthese illegal and hazardous actions.4 Two years later, Motiva proposed an expansion of the company’s Port Arthur refinery to make it the nation’s largest. Kelley and CIDA effectively pressed the case that itwould threaten neighborhoods even more, especially those next door on the mostly Black West Side.5 After months of negotiating and legal filings, CIDA settled with Motiva, dropping their challenge toMotiva’s expansion permit in return for a host of concessions. New ambient air quality monitors were set up and higher standards of pollution control pledged within the plant; Motiva also promised manymore investments in the surrounding community: to improve housing quality, create a health clinic as well as economic and recreational programs, and support other environmental projects.6Addressing many of this community’s accumulated deficits, by guaranteeing new safety measures as well as encouraging community growth, the settlement also offered a shining example of whatcommunity-based environmental justice activism could accomplish. It was a major reason why, in 2011, Hilton Kelley was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize, colloquially known as the “GreenNobel.”7 At least for a time, Port Arthur’s air also turned less worrisome. By 2014, the TCEQ removed Port Arthur from its Air Pollutant Watch List. CIDA and local residents celebrated the decision as itmeant that the health risks in the area had also diminished. At the same time, Kelley cautioned that being removed from the Watch List was not the end of the battle. Only sustained and increased vigilanceand regulations would ensure that air pollution levels did not rise again.8 And more recently, with repeated and intensifying hurricanes striking Port Arthur, and in the case of 2017’s Hurricane Harvey,bringing severe flooding to its downtown, climate change has already served up formidable additions to this community’s environmental burdens. In response, CIDA has now taken up the challenge ofenhancing Port Arthur’s resilience and prodding a local transition toward cleaner energy.9 Even with its victories, CIDA has found there is still much work to be done in engaging companies, state and federalregulators, and the local citizenry as well as outside allies, to bring environmental justice to Port Arthur.CIVIC SCIENCECUMULATIVE IMPACTSENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE -
ACAT Partnership
UPLOADED 24 October 2023Introducing EDGI’s New Collaborator in our “Cumulative Effects” Project: Community In-Power and DevelopmentAssociation, Inc. (CIDA)BY EDGI_TEAMOCTOBER 24, 2023BLOGImage courtesy of CIDA.By Kenneth Wohl, Christopher Sellers, and EDGISince 1901, when Texas oil first gushed in nearby Beaumont, the city of Port Arthur, Texas, has been synonymous with oil refineries. As “center of the world’s most prosperous oil refining facilities” by 1957,1its refineries have retained their global prominence into the 21st century. The Motiva oil refinery in Port Arthur is now the largest in North America, and Total and Valero also operate major refineries here.A host of chemical factories around the city continue to feed off refinery products: Oxbow Calcining (part of the Koch brothers’ empire), Chevron Phillips, BASF, and Indurama–just to name a few. Whiledrawing local investment and jobs for this community, Port Arthur’s petrochemical industry has also brought immense and longstanding environmental challenges. Among the hardest hit by thisconvergence of major polluters within a single town have been Black Port Arthurians. Ever since the Jim Crow era Port Arthur’s West Side, wedged along two of these refineries’ fence lines, has beenpredominantly Black. A paradigmatic case of the “sacrifice zone,” West Port Arthur and similar neighborhoods in Beaumont also epitomize the cumulative impacts faced by America’s most environmentallyburdened communities.In recent decades these places have become springboards for local activists fighting for environmental justice. One of the leaders of this movement is the Community In-Power and Development (CIDA), Inc.CIDA was founded in 2000 by Hilton Kelley, a local activist who moved back to Port Arthur after two decades to help tackle the many problems he realized his hometown now faced.2 Despite decades ofenvironmental regulation by the EPA and Texas state agencies, the combined pollution from Port Arthur’s many petrochemical plants seemed ineradicable, imposing a growing toll on people’s health.This yawning gap between official methods of pollution tracking and control and the actual on-the-ground environmental challenges faced by such communities is the subject of EDGI’s own NSF-fundedproject on “Data, Science, and Environmental Justice at the US Environmental Protection Agency.” EDGI is now working with CIDA and Kelley to document how and why environmental agencies havestruggled to address the cumulative environmental and social burdens which Port Arthur has shouldered.Over the past two decades, CIDA has worked tirelessly to “take action against the neighboring chemical manufactures, refiners and incinerator facilities,” to “foster and promote a healthy, safe andeconomically vital community.”3 From its beginnings, CIDA has drawn on what is now known as civic science to verify the local presence, for instance, of toxic air pollutants that the Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (TCEQ) was not measuring. Early on, by drawing its own air samples using “buckets” and sending these to a lab for chemical analysis, CIDA was able to challenge a Motiva Enterprisesrefinery permit in 2004 with charges that the company had a “continuing pattern of illegal upset emissions.” It also made a powerful case against the TCEQ for not doing enough to regulate and punishthese illegal and hazardous actions.4 Two years later, Motiva proposed an expansion of the company’s Port Arthur refinery to make it the nation’s largest. Kelley and CIDA effectively pressed the case that itwould threaten neighborhoods even more, especially those next door on the mostly Black West Side.5 After months of negotiating and legal filings, CIDA settled with Motiva, dropping their challenge toMotiva’s expansion permit in return for a host of concessions. New ambient air quality monitors were set up and higher standards of pollution control pledged within the plant; Motiva also promised manymore investments in the surrounding community: to improve housing quality, create a health clinic as well as economic and recreational programs, and support other environmental projects.6Addressing many of this community’s accumulated deficits, by guaranteeing new safety measures as well as encouraging community growth, the settlement also offered a shining example of whatcommunity-based environmental justice activism could accomplish. It was a major reason why, in 2011, Hilton Kelley was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize, colloquially known as the “GreenNobel.”7 At least for a time, Port Arthur’s air also turned less worrisome. By 2014, the TCEQ removed Port Arthur from its Air Pollutant Watch List. CIDA and local residents celebrated the decision as itmeant that the health risks in the area had also diminished. At the same time, Kelley cautioned that being removed from the Watch List was not the end of the battle. Only sustained and increased vigilanceand regulations would ensure that air pollution levels did not rise again.8 And more recently, with repeated and intensifying hurricanes striking Port Arthur, and in the case of 2017’s Hurricane Harvey,bringing severe flooding to its downtown, climate change has already served up formidable additions to this community’s environmental burdens. In response, CIDA has now taken up the challenge ofenhancing Port Arthur’s resilience and prodding a local transition toward cleaner energy.9 Even with its victories, CIDA has found there is still much work to be done in engaging companies, state and federalregulators, and the local citizenry as well as outside allies, to bring environmental justice to Port Arthur.CIVIC SCIENCECUMULATIVE IMPACTSENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE -
TESTING
UPLOADED 21 June 2024head
Test PDFLorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been theindustry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of typeand scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leapinto electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with therelease of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishingsoftware like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been theindustry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of typeand scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leapinto electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with therelease of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishingsoftware like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been theindustry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of typeand scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leapinto electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with therelease of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishingsoftware like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been theindustry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of typeand scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leapinto electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with therelease of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishingsoftware like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. -
testing too
UPLOADED 28 June 2024testin 2
Test PDF 2Lorem is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem -
EPA Oversight: One-Year Review
UPLOADED 06 July 2021In 1982, majority members in the House convened a hearing to review the EPA, about which there were a variety of concerns. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, Toby Moffett, stated, “The Administration of the EPA, even some Members of Congress, claim that all is well at EPA. Frankly, some of us don’t believe it. That is why we are here today.” While the hearings ranged across many aspects of the agency, a key focus was enforcement, which many members of Congress believed had been struck a ruinous blow by Administrator Anne Gorsuch. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and his staff, for example, conducted a study of the agency and concluded that “the effectiveness of the enforcement division of the Environmental Protection Agency was virtually destroyed by a combination of mismanagement and mixed signals.” As a result, “good environmental legislation passed with bipartisan support over the last 20 years… and strong public support, is being repealed in a back-door manner by not enforcing it.”
In 1982, majority members in the House convened a hearing to review the EPA, about which there were a variety of concerns. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, Toby Moffett, stated, “The Administration of the EPA, even some Members of Congress, claim that all is well at EPA. Frankly, some of us don’t believe it. That is why we are here today.” While the hearings ranged across many aspects of the agency, a key focus was enforcement, which many members of Congress believed had been struck a ruinous blow by Administrator Anne Gorsuch. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and his staff, for example, conducted a study of the agency and concluded that “the effectiveness of the enforcement division of the Environmental Protection Agency was virtually destroyed by a combination of mismanagement and mixed signals.” As a result, “good environmental legislation passed with bipartisan support over the last 20 years… and strong public support, is being repealed in a back-door manner by not enforcing it.”
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/epa-oversight-one-year-reviewSOURCE
CITATION
U.S. Congress, “EPA Oversight: One-Year Review,” July 21 and 22, 1982
RELATED TAGS
-
Hazardous Waste Enforcement: Report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
UPLOADED 06 July 2021In a scathing report based on Congressional hearings earlier in 1982, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation ticked off numerous issues with the agency's hazardous waste enforcement program. It noted disrupted agency reorganization, a steep drop in civil cases initiated, and a philosophy of "voluntary compliance" that was ineffective without the threat of strong enforcement to back it up. The EPA had failed to implement hazardous waste laws enacted by Congress, according to Chairman John Dingell, and as a result was failing to protect public health and the environment.
In a scathing report based on Congressional hearings earlier in 1982, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation ticked off numerous issues with the agency's hazardous waste enforcement program. It noted disrupted agency reorganization, a steep drop in civil cases initiated, and a philosophy of "voluntary compliance" that was ineffective without the threat of strong enforcement to back it up. The EPA had failed to implement hazardous waste laws enacted by Congress, according to Chairman John Dingell, and as a result was failing to protect public health and the environment.
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE
https://apeoplesepa.org/modules/hazardous-waste-enforcement-reportSOURCE
CITATION
U.S. Congress, "Hazardous Waste Enforcement: Report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce," (GPO, 1982).
RELATED TAGS