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