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