^ 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