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