2010_(2009)_SLR__Beaver_School_Assessment_and_Cleanup_Plan_(PACP)_1.pdf

FFFIIINNNAAALLL

PPPRRROOOPPPEEERRRTTTYYY AAASSSSSSEEESSSSSSMMMEEENNNTTT

AAANNNDDD CCCLLLEEEAAANNNUUUPPP PPPLLLAAANNN

VViillllaaggee ooff BBeeaavveerr OOlldd BBIIAA SScchhooooll TTaannkk FFaarrmm aanndd BBuurrnneedd GGeenneerraattoorr BBuuiillddiinngg BBeeaavveerr,, AAllaasskkaa

SSuubbmmiitttteedd ttoo::

DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn

BBrroowwnnffiieelldd PPrrooggrraamm

BByy::

SSLLRR IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCoorrpp

MMaayy 22001100

FINAL

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP PLAN

VILLAGE OF BEAVER OLD BIA SCHOOL TANK FARM

AND BURNED GENERATOR BUILDING

BEAVER, ALASKA

Prepared for

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Contaminated Sites Program

Division of Spill Prevention and Response 610 University Avenue

Fairbanks, AK 99709-3643

May 2010

Prepared by

SLR

4601 Business Park Blvd., Suite K42

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

3455 Rewak Drive, Suite 103 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709

SLR Project Number 005.0065.09008(9)

Village of Beaver PACP_F.doc May 2010

FINAL

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP PLAN

VILLAGE OF BEAVER OLD BIA SCHOOL TANK FARM AND

BURNED GENERATOR BUILDING

BEAVER, ALASKA

This document has been prepared by SLR International Corp. The material and data in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned.

David Puchrik Project Geologist

Carl Benson Project Manager

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS............................................................................................................. iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Project ............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Scope of Services Summary ............................................................. 1-2

1.2.1 Task 1 – Stakeholder Scoping and Planning Meeting ............ 1-2

1.2.2 Task 2 – PACP Preparation.................................................... 1-2

1.3 Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-2

2. COMMUNITY OVERVIEW AND INFORMATION........................................ 2-1

2.1 Community General Information........................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Location and Climate .............................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Community Resources and Infrastructure .............................. 2-1

2.2 Community Involvement .................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Community Concerns ............................................................. 2-3

2.2.2 Stakeholder Meeting Summary............................................... 2-3

2.2.3 Proposed Community Development and Land Use ................ 2-4

2.2.4 Interviews and Community Input............................................. 2-4

3. OVERVIEW OF SITE PROPERTY .............................................................. 3-1

3.1 Old BIA School Site ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Burned Generator Building Site......................................................... 3-1

3.3 Geologic Setting ................................................................................ 3-2

3.4 Property Use ..................................................................................... 3-2

3.4.1 Historical Use.......................................................................... 3-2

3.4.2 Current Use ............................................................................ 3-2

3.5 Ownership Information ...................................................................... 3-3

3.6 Records Review ................................................................................ 3-3

4. SITE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Methodology...................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Observations ..................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Site Sampling .................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.1 Sampling Methodology ........................................................... 4-3

4.4 Sampling and Field Screening Results.............................................. 4-4

4.5 Quality Assurance Summary ............................................................. 4-6 i

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ii

5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS................... 5-1

5.1 Historical Environmental Review ....................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Old BIA School Site ................................................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Burned Generator Building Site .............................................. 5-2

5.2 Potential Source Areas...................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Known or Perceived Data Gaps ........................................................ 5-3

5.4 Conceptual Site Model ...................................................................... 5-3

5.4.1 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways .............................. 5-3

5.4.2 Incomplete Exposure Pathways.............................................. 5-4

5.4.3 Current and Future Receptors ................................................ 5-5

5.5 Cleanup Criteria ................................................................................ 5-5

5.5.1 Soil Cleanup Levels ................................................................ 5-5

5.5.2 Ground Water cleanup Levels ................................................ 5-6

5.5.3 Other Regulated Cleanup Criteria........................................... 5-6

5.5.4 Non-Regulated Cleanup Criteria............................................. 5-7

5.6 General Environmental Overview...................................................... 5-7

6. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS ....................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Environmental Actions....................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Debris Removal ................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Contaminated Soil Excavation........................................................... 6-3

6.4 Soil Management Alternatives........................................................... 6-4

6.5 Preferred Alternative.......................................................................... 6-5

6.6 Institutional Controls .......................................................................... 6-5

6.7 Long-Term Soil Treatment Locations In Beaver ................................ 6-6

6.8 Source of Backfill Material ................................................................. 6-6

6.9 Water Management Options.............................................................. 6-7

6.10 Equipment and Labor Requirements ................................................. 6-7

6.11 Available Resources in Beaver.......................................................... 6-7

6.11.1 Equipment............................................................................... 6-7

6.11.2 Labor ...................................................................................... 6-8

6.11.3 Resource Leveraging Opportunities ....................................... 6-8

6.11.4 Personnel Qualifications ......................................................... 6-8

7. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................... 7-1

8. REFERENCES............................................................................................. 8-1

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

iii

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Old BIA School Site Figure 3 Washeteria Leaking Fuel Line Area Apron Area Detail Figure 4 Burned Generator Building Site 2006

TABLES

Table 1 Soil Sample Analytical Results Old BIA School Tank Farm Table 2 Soil Sample Analytical Results Burned Generator Building Table 3 Ground Water Analytical Results Drinking Water Well Table 4 Soil Volume Calculations Village of Beaver Table 5 Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives for Soil

APPENDICES

Appendix A-1 Old BIA School DEC Brownfield Assessment Request Form – 2009 Appendix A-2 Burned Generator Building DEC Brownfield Assessment Request

Form – 2009 Appendix B Beaver plat and USFWS Lease to State of Alaska Appendix C Stakeholder Meeting Minutes Appendix D 1968 Well Construction Log Appendix E-1 Photographic Log – Old BIA School Appendix E-2 Photographic Log – Burned Generator Building Appendix F-1 Field Notes – Old BIA School Appendix F-2 Field Notes – Burned Generator Building Appendix G-1 Old BIA School Laboratory Analytical Results, QAR & DEC Checklist Appendix G-2 Burned Generator Building Laboratory Analytical Results, QAR &

DEC Checklist Appendix G-3 Village of Beaver – Drinking Water Sample Analytical Results appendix H-1 Old BIA School Conceptual Site Model appendix H-2 Burned Generator Building Conceptual Site Model Appendix I-1 Old Bia School DEC Exposure Tracking Model Appendix I-2 Burned Generator Building DEC Exposure Tracking Model Appendix J Heavy Equipment Rental Rates Appendix K Cost Estimate Spreadsheets

ACRONYMS

AAC Alaska Administrative Code ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AST aboveground storage tank bgs below ground surface BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BJU Beaver Joint Utilities BTC Beaver Tribal Council BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSM conceptual site model cy cubic yards DBA DEC Brownfield Assessment DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic

Development DCRA Division of Community and Regional Affairs DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources DOE Alaska Department of Education DRO diesel range organics EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETM exposure tracking model GRO gasoline range organics HAZWOPER hazardous waste operation and response IGAP Indian General Assistance Program mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter NEC notice of environmental conditions OASIS Oasis Environmental OIT Organic Incineration Technology PACP Property Assessment and Cleanup Plan PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PID photoionization detector ppm parts per million RACM regulated asbestos containing material iv

ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

v

RRO residual range organics RSE Restoration Science and Engineering SGS SGS Environmental Services, Inc.

SHPO State Historic Preservation Offices SIM selective ion monitoring SLR SLR International Corp STRP State Tribal Response Program µg/L micrograms per liter USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USF&WS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VOC volatile organic compound YFSD Yukon Flats School District YRITWC Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SLR International Corp (SLR) is pleased to submit this Property Assessment and Cleanup Plan (PACP) to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for the Old Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) School tank farm and the Beaver Joint Utilities (BJU) Burned Generator Building sites in Beaver, Alaska. The Village of Beaver is located on the north bank of the Yukon River, approximately 105 miles north of Fairbanks (DEC, 2009a). The objective of this PACP is to assist in beneficial redevelopment of the subject properties.

The Old BIA School property is owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is leased to the Alaska Department of Education. Contaminated surface soil and subsurface soil were identified in two main areas to the west/northwest and east of the Old BIA School tank farm in 2001 (Oasis, 2002).

As part of the Village of Beaver Project Assessment conducted by OASIS Environmental in 2001, environmental soil sampling was also conducted at the BJU tank farm, which was adjacent to the generator building, and has since burned (Oasis, 2002). Soil contamination was observed near the generator building during this assessment.

The findings of the 2001 investigation work indicated the presence of 1,650 cubic yards of soils impacted above DEC Method Two migration to ground water cleanup levels for the Under 40-inch Precipitation Zone on the two properties. This volume estimate was based on data from test pits advanced to a depth of 9 feet below ground surface using a local backhoe.

The area of impact noted in 2001 was approximately 5,000 square feet. The findings of this assessment work indicated an impacted volume of approximately 2,048 cubic yards based on a five foot excavation depth. The area of excavation is approximately 11,000 square feet. The change in excavation area is largely driven by the area of impact defined at the Burned Generator Building and the increased area of impact noted at the leaking fuel line to the washeteria building. The increase in impacted area delineated at the leaking washeteria fuel line since 2001 suggests a potential leak exists in this area. A pit approximately 2 feet wide by 3 feet long by 1.5 feet deep has been excavated beneath a fuel line coupling. Although no leak was noted during the SLR site visit, a bucket was noted hanging under the pipe coupling. The purpose of this bucked was likely to catch fuel leaking from the coupling when the coupling leaked in the past.

Landfarming is the remedial alternative recommended for contaminated soil at these properties. A cost estimate for guiding future funding requests was prepared for the preferred remedial alternative based on costs for local and imported equipment, and labor available in Beaver.

Results of the site characterization work indicate that potential impacts to drinking water resources should be investigated. Installation and sampling of ground water monitoring wells should be performed to assess potential impact to the Village of Beaver drinking water well.

The leaching of fuel constituents from contaminated soils at the Old BIA School tank farm and the leaking fuel line to the washeteria building may be close enough to impact the community well. Monitoring wells will help assess whether ground water has been impacted at these sites. A well inspection should be performed to determine the depth of the well screen and assess the well’s vulnerability to site contamination. The well was drilled to approximately 42 feet bgs in 1968. A sample collected from the drinking water well for the DEC Drinking Water Program identified xylenes at 2.33 micrograms per liter [µg/L] in 2007.

The well is sampled annually for VOCs (DEC, 2009d). Subsequent sampling by DEC’s Drinking Water Program and by SLR during the 2009 site visit did not detect VOCs in water samples from the Village of Beaver well.

The Village of Beaver intends to reuse the Old BIA School site property for housing and/or a multipurpose building following remediation. The intended reuse of the Burned Generator Building site property is for a potential expansion of the BJU tank farm.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Beaver Tribal Council (BTC) submitted two Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Brownfield Assessment (DBA) requests to DEC during the spring 2009 DBA request period. The requests targeted assessment of sources on the Old Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) School property, and a generator facility that burned in 2007 and associated tank farm operated by Beaver Joint Utilities (BJU). Property boundaries for both sites are provided on Figure 1. The DBA request forms are included as Appendices A-1 and A-2.

The legal description of the Old BIA School property is Lot 8, Block 7, U.S. Survey 4895, and the property is 2.77 acres in size. The Old BIA School property is owned by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and is leased to the State of Alaska Department of Education (DOE). A plat map of Beaver and the USF&WS lease to the DOE are provided as Appendix B. The Old BIA School area is presented in Figure 2. The fuel line extending from the Old BIA School tank farm to the washeteria was investigated in 2001 and is shown in Figure 2. The area assessed along the above ground fuel line to the washeteria is presented in Figure 3; and the location of the assessment area in relation to the washeteria is presented in Figure 1. The legal description of the Burned Generator Building site is Lot 1, Block 8 of U.S. Survey 4895 and the property size is 0.47 acres. The Burned Generator Building area is presented in Figure 4.

This Property Assessment and Cleanup Plan (PACP) was written by SLR International Corp (SLR) on behalf of DEC in response to the DBA requests to recommend property assessment and cleanup actions with general cost estimates to enable sufficient and productive reuse of the properties.

Funding for work associated with the Old BIA School was provided by State of Alaska Capital Improvement Project funding. Funding for work associated with the Burned Generator Building site was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through DEC using the State Tribal Response Program (STRP) grant program.

1.1 PURPOSE OF PROJECT

The purpose of this PCAP is to provide background, regulatory, and remedial option information appropriate for advancing the Sites through the Brownfield process to help the state and community redevelop and reuse the property. The environmental investigation conducted in 2009 in conjunction with this PCAP was performed to further identify potential environmental hindrances that could limit the beneficial reuse of these Sites.

1-1

1-2

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES SUMMARY

SLR completed the following tasks to develop this PACP.

1.2.1 TASK 1 – STAKEHOLDER SCOPING AND PLANNING MEETING

In August 2009, SLR participated in a stakeholder and planning teleconference with stakeholders in the project. Attendees included representatives from The Native Village of Beaver, USF&WS and the Yukon Flats Wildlife Refuge, EPA, Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), DEC, and SLR. The purpose of the meeting was to define the project objectives and also identify the path through the Brownfield process to reuse the Site. SLR prepared a summary record of the meeting and provided it to the stakeholders and DEC. A copy of this summary is included in Appendix C.

1.2.2 TASK 2 – PACP PREPARATION

The PACP, developed following SLR’s field investigation, is based on review of information gathered from the stakeholder meeting, DEC site files, previous investigations conducted at the Site, communication with individuals familiar with the community and the Site, and observations made during the SLR field investigation. This plan includes a comprehensive summary of the existing site conditions and recommendations for property assessment and corrective actions to supply interested stakeholders with a guideline document suitable for progression of sites through the remediation process.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this project is to provide a PACP that recommends cleanup actions with general cost estimates to enable sufficient and productive reuse of the property. This plan will provide readers with an understanding of the following:

An accurate historical summary for the Old BIA School site and Burned Generator Building site properties, including historical land use, environmental incidents, and assessment/response activities to date;

An understanding of the proposed reuse of the properties;

A qualitative assessment of risk to human receptors from potential contamination at the sites;

Knowledge of specific data gaps necessary to fill in order to fully evaluate cleanup requirements;

A clear understanding of the steps necessary to make the properties suitable to meet the community reuse objectives; and

Knowledge of practical remediation strategies including cost estimates.

2. COMMUNITY OVERVIEW AND INFORMATION

This section provides information about the community of Beaver. It provides pertinent information on the stakeholders and summarizes the community involvement for the property.

2.1 COMMUNITY GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1.1 LOCATION AND CLIMATE

The Village of Beaver is located on the north bank of the Yukon River, approximately 105 miles north of Fairbanks. The Village of Beaver has a continental subarctic climate characterized by seasonal extreme temperatures. The average high temperature during July ranges from 65 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The average low temperature during January is well below zero. Extended periods of -50°F to -60°F are common. Extreme temperatures ranging from a low of -70°F to a high of 90°F have been measured. Precipitation averages

6.5 inches. The average annual snowfall is 43.4 inches. The Yukon River is ice-free from mid-June to mid-October (DCRA, 2009).

2.1.2 COMMUNITY RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

A well was constructed 1967, however the well was abandoned immediately due to problems with well placement. A new well and pump house were constructed in 1968. The well was drilled to approximately 42 feet bgs. A driller log of the well is provided as Appendix D. A sample collected from the drinking water well for the DEC Drinking Water Program identified low level xylenes (2.33 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) in 2007. The well is sampled annually for VOCs (DEC, 2009d). The water sample collected from the drinking water well in 2009 by SLR personnel did not contain detectable concentrations of targeted analytes (Table 3). Laboratory analytical results for ground water sampling at the Village of Beaver community well are provided as Appendix G-3 and includes results from this work and a summary of sampling performed by DEC’s Drinking Water Program.

Ground water from the pump house is sent to the washeteria where it is pumped through a green sand filter, treated with chlorine and permanganate, and then run twice through a final sand filter. Residents haul the treated water from this point. Honey buckets are used for sewage disposal in all homes and a village-operated vehicle is used to haul wastes to a sewage lagoon located near the village landfill approximately 2.5 miles from the village.

Villagers rely on the washeteria for bathing and laundry. The washeteria and school use individual septic systems. Electricity is provided by BJU. There is one school located in the

2-1 community, attended by 10 students. Local hospitals or health clinics include Beaver Clinic.

The Beaver Clinic is a Primary Health Care facility. Emergency service is provided by a health aide (DCRA, 2009).

2.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The following entities are considered stakeholders for the Sites: The Native Village of Beaver, USF&WS, EPA, YRITWC, and DEC. A summary of the project stakeholders and their involvement in the Brownfield process for the Sites is provided below.

The Beaver Village Council – The Beaver Village Council administers the Indian General Assistance Program (IGAP) through a grant from EPA. The IGAP provides an opportunity for tribes to build capacity and management capability to implement environmental programs administered by the Tribe. The BTC submitted two DBA requests to DEC during the spring 2009 DBA request period. The requests targeted assessment for the BIA School and associated facilities on the property located in Beaver, Alaska, and a former generator facility that burned in 2007.

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – The property is owned by the USF&WS and is leased to the DOE because the school built in 1986 is also on the USF&WS property. The DOE lease extends through 2040.

EPA – The EPA funds state and tribal Brownfield programs. The STRP plays a significant role in cleaning up Brownfields across the country and Alaska. The continued demand for Brownfield cleanup and redevelopment in communities throughout the country, coupled with increasingly limited state and tribal resources, makes access to federal funding critical. The law authorizes EPA to provide up to $50 million in grants to states and tribes to establish or enhance their response programs. Generally, these response programs are intended to establish and enhance environmental response programs, as well as to address the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of Brownfields (EPA, 2009).

EPA’s Brownfield Program empowers tribes, states, and communities by providing money and technical assistance to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse Brownfields. EPA is proud of its partnership with the more than 60 tribes that are creating and enhancing Tribal Response Programs to address the cleanup and reuse of contaminated property in Indian country. Through these response programs, tribes are taking an active role in combating environmental issues, while creating self-sufficient organizations for environmental protection (EPA, 2009).

Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council – The YRITWC consists of 66 First Nations and Tribes and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of the Yukon River Watershed.

The council provides Yukon First Nations and Alaska Tribes in the Yukon Watershed with technical assistance, such as facilitating the development and exchange of information, coordinating efforts between First Nations and Tribes, undertaking research, and providing training, education and awareness programs to promote the health of the watershed and its indigenous peoples.

2-2

Since receiving Section 128(a) Tribal Response Program funding in 2005, the YRITWC Brownfield Program has partnered with 40 tribes, working with them to identify, prioritize and assess potential Brownfield sites. In May of 2007, YRITWC completed many inventory guides for suspected contaminated sites in the village of Beaver. Among those sites are the Old BIA School, generator building, and tank farm. The Beaver Village Council has not applied for an environmental site assessment through the YRITWC Brownfield Program.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation – DEC’s Reuse and Redevelopment Program conducts site assessment and cleanup work on State-liable sites that are brought to DEC’s attention through other state agencies. The DBA request forms are submitted by communities that are interested in having an assessment conducted on a property where there is no State liability on the property. DEC receives limited funds from EPA to conduct assessments on these properties and therefore the forms are used to help rank and determine which projects are eligible for EPA funding.

2.2.1 COMMUNITY CONCERNS

Community concerns identified in the 2009 DBA applications included:

Potential threats to public health and safety from contaminants inside the old school building and from fuel leaks from the tank farm, generator building and underground fuel pipes.

The need to demolish the building (an action which USF&WS supports) so that the land may be used either for housing or for a new community building such as a multipurpose building. Demolition cannot occur without adequate characterization because it is suspected that there is lead-based paint and asbestos in the building.

Soil fuel levels are high enough to cause concern for public health and safety should any demolition/construction work occur on the Site; these levels also preclude safe alternate use/occupancy of the Site. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will need to be consulted if any work is conducted on the building because the building is considered a potential National Historic Building.

The potential threats to ground water also need to be evaluated and if ground water is contaminated, a remediation/mitigation plan developed and implemented. The village drinking water well is located between this site and the river. The depth at which the drinking water well is screened was not known to the preparer of the DBA application; whether contamination from the sites pose a threat to the village drinking water supply needs to be determined.

2.2.2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY

In August 2009, SLR participated in a stakeholder and planning teleconference with stakeholders in the project. The objectives of the project were explained and discussion took place regarding resources available to the community, site conditions and options for

2-3 treatment or disposal of contaminated soils. One example given was to evaluate the option of using site soil as landfill cover.

The SLR field staff for the site visit was identified and schedule and sampling activities were discussed. Information was summarized regarding contaminated sites and potential sources.

The property owners were verified and the roles of the stakeholders were addressed.

Other topics discussed in the meeting were details of fuel handling and storage, the leaking washeteria fuel line, and tank farm upgrades. The Village had applied for a tank farm upgrade through the Denali Commission and was on a list, but it had not yet received an upgrade.

A copy of the stakeholder meeting summary is included in Appendix C.

2.2.3 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE

The proposed use for the Old BIA School site property is housing or a new community building such as a multipurpose building. The proposed use for the Burned Generator Building site is for a potential expansion of fuel storage capacity near the BJU tank farm.

2.2.4 INTERVIEWS AND COMMUNITY INPUT

Interviews were conducted during the field investigation with individuals knowledgeable about current and historic conditions of the property and other information necessary to prepare the PACP. These interviews are summarized below to provide the pertinent information gathered.

Paul Williams – Paul Williams, the Second Chief of the Village of Beaver, grew up in Beaver. He indicated that the Old BIA School property was built in 1928 and did not receive electricity until 1986. Fuel for the Old BIA School property was previously barged in by Yutana Barge Company however, fuel is currently flown in by Everts Air 2,200 gallons at a time. He indicated the vicinity of the airport presents danger and prevents expansion of the village. He indicated that there were six heavy equipment operators in the village. There is however, land east of Beaver which is Village Council land.

Richard Williams – Richard Williams, son of Paul Williams and a resident of Beaver, said he and his wife are Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained. He said the village has one dump truck, one loader that needs repair, a 610 backhoe that needs repair and a Department of Transportation-owned grader. There is no excavator in the village. Mr. Williams said that operators cost 25 dollars per hour. He added that there are no known leaking lines or tanks in the village, and that only three tanks at the Old BIA School site that are being used to provide fuel to the new Cruikshank school.

Rebecca Fisher – Rebecca Fisher, a resident of Beaver and a Village Council member, said that the Old BIA School site generator building is still under lease agreement with Yukon Flats Wildlife Refuge. Her main concern is asbestos at the Old BIA School building. She

2-4

2-5 indicated the old generator building is still used for backup power for the new school. She is concerned that soil and water contamination and the direction of ground water flow may be affecting water quality in the Village well. She would prefer if contaminated soil was to be removed from the Village that it be barged out of Beaver. Her concern is subsistence hunting land near the landfill and the potential location for long-term storage of contaminated soils.

3. OVERVIEW OF SITE PROPERTY

This section provides a historical overview of the property including the historical and current use of the property and its geologic setting. It also summarizes the records review conducted for this work.

3.1 OLD BIA SCHOOL SITE

A large frame building, a tank farm with nine vertical fuel tanks, a building housing the old school generator, and a school shop are located on the Old BIA School property. The school building is abandoned and boarded up. The shop building is currently used by the adjacent Cruikshank School. The Old BIA School generator is still functional and is maintained as an emergency generator in case the village generator fails. The tank farm is still in use. Of the nine vertical tanks in the tank farm, one is not used because it purportedly leaks; five are used to store fuel for the Cruikshank School, and three supply fuel to the washeteria.

There is also an underground fuel line that runs from the airport to the Old BIA School tank farm and to the washeteria south of the Old BIA School site (Figure 3). There have reportedly been numerous leaks and spills at the Old BIA School tank farm and the Old BIA School generator building. The above-ground fuel line leading to the washeteria from the Old BIA School tank farm is known to leak; this was confirmed during the 2009 SLR investigation. Only one spill is documented at the Old BIA School tank farm in the DEC spills database (DEC, 2009b). This was for a 1,250-gallon spill on August 8, 2002. There is documented fuel contamination at the generator shed, the tank farm, and from the above ground fuel line leading to the washeteria. The maximum depth of the soil contamination has not yet been fully defined. It is assumed there is lead paint and asbestos present in the old building, as it was built at a time when these hazardous materials were common components of building materials.

3.2 BURNED GENERATOR BUILDING SITE

The Burned Generator Building site is located on the west side of C Street, just north of the post office, and across the street, west, from the Cruikshank School (Figure 4). The BJU generator building was built in the early 1990s and burned in 2007. There was at least one fuel tank (a day tank) associated with the generator building. Immediately to the northeast of the Site is the BJU tank farm that consists of three horizontal aboveground storage tanks (AST) with a total fuel storage capacity of approximately 30,000 gallons (Figure 4). The tanks are skid-mounted welded steel construction. The tank farm is in a lined and bermed secondary containment area, and is surrounded by a chain-link fence. No fuel spills at the village tank farm were identified from review of DEC contaminated sites and spill records.

3-1

3.3 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Soils in the area are alluvial deposits from the Yukon River. The parent material of the Beaver area consists of alluvium deposits from the Yukon River floodplain. Soils encountered during previous site investigations consisted of silts and sandy silts with gravel (Oasis, 2002). Driller logs for wells installed in 1967 and 1968 near the Yukon River indicate a 4-foot layer of silt overlying a clay, sand and gravel layer ranging from 19 to 37 feet thick

(RSE, 2002).

3.4 PROPERTY USE

3.4.1 HISTORICAL USE

Old BIA School Site

The school was in operation from the date of construction, estimated to be 1963 based on the date of well installation for the Old BIA School, to 1986. After 1986, it was used as an office building until the late 1990s. The school building has not been occupied since the late 1990s.

The BTC would like to demolish the building; an action that the USF&WS supports, so that the land may be reused by the community.

The building and associated facilities initially housed a BIA school. The school closed in 1986, after which the building largely stood empty until the BTC used it for their offices in the late 1990s. The BTC vacated the building when the new health clinic/tribal office building was completed, and the building has remained empty since.

Burned Generator Building Site

The BJU tank farm and associated, now burned, generator building were constructed in the early 1990s and were originally operated by the Beaver Tribe. Fuel was also sold to community members and was dispensed to containers from the fuel line to the generator day tank (Figure 4). This facility is owned by the Beaver Tribe. In addition to improving the community appearance through clean-up and reuse of the site, the village does not have an abundance of good land upon which to build. The village requires additional fuel storage and the area to the west of the BJU tank farm is the most suitable place to add additional tanks (Beaver Village Council 2009 DBA Request for Burned Generator Building area [Appendix A-2]).

3.4.2 CURRENT USE

Since abandonment of the Old BIA School the Site and property remains unused with the following exceptions: The generators in the Old Generator Building are used as a backup

3-2

3-3 power source, and three of the tanks in the Old BIA School tank farm are used to supply heating oil to the new school.

There is no current use of the Burned Generator Building; however, the BJU tank farm is still in use.

3.5 OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

The Old BIA School and tank farm, was leased to the DOE by the U.S. Department of the Interior, USF&WS in 1983 under a 55-year lease agreement. The leased lot (Lot 8 Block 7 of U.S. Survey No. 4895) comprises 2.74 acres and includes the BIA school facility and the adjacent tank farm which is now serving the washeteria and the Cruikshank School. The Plat Map and the attached aerial of the village both show Lot 7 of Block 8 bordered to the south by Second Avenue and to the west by C Street. The tank farm is on the lot with the BIA School and the new Cruikshank School. The plat map and lease agreement are included in Appendix B.

Under this lease, the entire lot is leased by the DOE from the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The USF&WS would like to negotiate a land swap with the Village Council once cleanup is complete. The USF&WS would then establish a new cabin for refuge staff outside the village, and the village would have more centrally located land for other purposes.

The BJU tank farm and associated, now burned, generator building were constructed in the early 1990s and were originally operated by the Beaver Tribe. The tank farm facility is still owned by the Beaver Tribe.

3.6 RECORDS REVIEW

SLR reviewed several records as part of this PACP. These records included Cruikshank School Tank Farm Diesel Spill Site Assessment Report, Beaver Alaska, 2002 (RSE, 2002).

Village of Beaver Site Assessment Project Report (Oasis, 2002), the DEC contaminated sites database, and BIA and Alaska Lands Records.

4. SITE RECONNAISSANCE

In September 2009, SLR representatives traveled to Beaver to assess the current condition of the Old BIA School and Burned Generator Building sites, interview individuals familiar with the property, and evaluate potential remedial strategies. Interviews conducted during the field investigation are summarized in Section 2.1.5, while soil management strategies assessed for the Site are discussed in Section 6.3. Evaluation of the property’s current condition is discussed below.

4.1 METHODOLOGY

SLR visited the Village of Beaver between September 8 and 11, 2009. During SLR’s visit, interviews were conducted with individuals knowledgeable about current and historic site conditions, the Old BIA School and Burned Generator sites were visited and the village drinking water well was sampled. Still photographs, video with voice narrative, and field notes were used to document site conditions.

To assess the conditions of the Sites, SLR traversed the property to inspect for surface staining or other visual signs of contamination. In locations where surface staining was observed, a hand auger was used to investigate the depth of soil contamination. Visual observations and heated headspace analysis using a photoionization detector (PID) were used to field screen soil for petroleum hydrocarbons. Subsurface soil was assessed by advancing hand-auger borings; and soil samples were collected based on field screening findings, observations, and the locations of the samples.

Hand-auger soil borings were advanced until refusal was encountered. This was typically at a depth of 3-5 feet below ground surface (bgs). If soil contamination was observed at a boring, then an attempt was made to delineate the contamination vertically and horizontally.

Horizontal step outs varied at each area, but overall spacing between borings averaged approximately 10 feet.

Heated headspace field screening of soils consisted of placing a representative soil sample in a re-sealable plastic bag, and situating the bag in a warm area for a sufficient time to raise the soil temperature to at least 60°F. After warming, the sealed soil sample was agitated (shaken) for 15 to 20 seconds, after which a PID probe was inserted into the bag and the highest reading recorded. Prior to headspace field screening analysis, the PID was calibrated with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene calibration gas.

Village drinking water well observations and results are discussed in subsection F of Section 4.4.

4-1

4.2 OBSERVATIONS

Observations from the field investigations at the Old BIA School and Burned Generator Building sites are described by area below. The descriptions also include observations from the washeteria area and water well, which are not located on the subject properties.

Photographic logs of each site are provided in Appendices E-1 and E-2. Field notes documenting observations during the Site assessments are provided in Appendices F-1 and F-

2. Video with voice narrative is provided on a separate compact disc accompanying this

PACP.

Leaking Washeteria Fuel Line Area – The fuel line leading to the washeteria from the tank farm is above ground. A pit approximately 2 feet wide by 3 feet long by 1.5 feet deep has been excavated beneath a leaking fuel line coupling, located as shown on Figure 2. A bucket was noted hanging under the pipe likely to catch fuel leaking from the coupling in the past.

The soil in the excavated hole was fuel-stained and had a fuel odor. Due to poor photo quality, no pictures of the Leaking Washeteria Fuel Line Area are presented in the Photographic Log; however, video was taken with voice narrative.

Old BIA School Tank Farm Area – There is a wooded area east of the Old BIA School tank farm. A utilidor and fuel lines leading into and out of the tank farm passes through this wooded area (Figure 2). During the visit, a leaking elbow coupling was observed adjacent to the utilidor (north of the location of soil sample B-2, Figure 2 and Appendix E-1, Photograph 4). Beneath the coupling, stained soil was observed with a fuel odor. The locations of test pits from previous investigations were also evident in this area. North of and adjacent to the western fence of the tank farm, 15 to 20 55-gallon drums with antifreeze and unleaded gasoline labels were present (Figure 2 and Appendix E-1, Photograph 2). Some drums were bulged and contained liquid contents during the field investigation. Strong fuel odors were noted throughout the Old BIA School tank farm area.

Old BIA School Shop and Generator Building Area – Approximately 25 square feet of soil staining was observed just north of the Old BIA School generator building. No other soil staining was observed in the Old BIA School shop and generator building areas. Two large generators and an estimated 300-gallon fuel tank were located inside the Old BIA School generator building. Moderate oil odors were noted. There was motor oil, antifreeze and other common chemical products stored in the building. The generators appeared to have small leaks. The fuel filter for the fuel tank leaked however containment was observed beneath the filter. The Old BIA School shop building was well kept. The floor boards were stained with oil but no strong odors were noted during the field investigation. Access beneath the shop building was blocked by a plywood skirt along the building perimeter. The shop building is constructed on pilings. Items stored in the shop included tools, a snow machine, skis, a lawnmower, and a table saw. Chemical related items included painting supplies and a few small fuel containers.

Beaver Joint Utilities Tank Farm Area – At the BJU tank farm, several potential environmental issues were identified. Strong fuel odors were noted in the area of the tank farm. Although there was containment, leaking valves and couplings were observed. One of the fuel dispensing hoses was a common household garden hose. There were transformers

4-2 and bulging 55-gallon drums being stored west of the tank farm. Stained soil was observed adjacent to the 55-gallon drums. (Figure 4 and Appendix E-2, Photographs 3-7)

Burned Generator Building Site – The Burned Generator Building site contained an approximate one-half- to 1-foot-deep layer of burned debris on the ground surface. There were no recognizable construction materials left from the fire (Appendix E-2, Photograph 1).

Strong fuel odors were noted in the area.

Village Drinking Water Well – The water sample was collected from the tap closest to the Village well in the washeteria building (Appendix E-1, Photograph 11). The water had an unidentified odor, but the odor did not resemble fuel.

4.3 SITE SAMPLING

4.3.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Soil samples were collected directly from the hand auger at each borehole. The hand auger was decontaminated between borings. The decontamination procedure consisted of a wash with potable water with Liquinox® detergent, followed by a deionized water rinse. One duplicate sample for every ten original samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis. A duplicate water sample was not collected from the village drinking water well.

Sampling Rationale

Soil samples were collected in order to delineate soil contamination at the Old BIA School, Burned Generator Building, and leaking washeteria line areas. Soil samples were collected based on field screening results and visual observations at the sites. In potential source areas, samples were collected to learn the magnitude of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the soils. In areas where delineation was the objective, soil samples were collected to document concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soils vertically and laterally in an effort to delineate where petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations dropped below DEC cleanup levels.

Analytical Testing Methods

Soil samples were collected on September 10, 2009 and submitted for laboratory analysis at SGS Environmental Services, Inc. (SGS) in Anchorage, Alaska, a DEC-approved laboratory.

The analytical soil samples were selectively analyzed by one or more of the following methods:

Gasoline range organics (GRO) using Alaska Method (AK) 101

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene (BTEX) using EPA Method 8021B

Diesel range organics (DRO) using AK 102

4-3

Residual range organics (RRO) using AK 103

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using EPA Method 8270C using selective ion monitoring (SIM)

Lead using EPA Method 6020

Locations of hand-augured borings and soil samples collected for laboratory analysis are identified in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Areas assessed were segregated as five different areas during the sampling effort and borings and soil samples are labeled accordingly (A, B C, D and E).

The areas are discussed in detail in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

The village drinking water well was sampled on September 11, 2009. The sample was collected by filling the appropriate laboratory-supplied sample container from the closest sample point to the well. The well water sample was sent to SGS Laboratories in Anchorage, Alaska and analyzed by the following methods:

GRO using AK 101

DRO using AK 102

RRO using AK 103

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 524.2

PAHs by EPA Method 8270D using SIM

4.4 SAMPLING AND FIELD SCREENING RESULTS

Soil screening and soil and drinking water sampling at the site are described below by area.

The field screening and laboratory analytical results for each area are also summarized.

Laboratory analytical results for sampling activities are provided in Appendices G-1, G-2, and G-3. The DEC data review checklists and a quality assurance review are presented with the laboratory data packages in Appendix G-1 and G-2 (DEC, 2009c). Analytical results for soil samples are also provided in tabular form in Table 1 and Table 2, and presented on Figures 2-4. Analytical results for the Village of Beaver water well are provided in Table 3.

A. Leaking Washeteria Fuel Line Area – Nine hand-augered soil borings were advanced at the leaking washeteria fuel line area to assess soil contamination. These boreholes were identified as borings A-1 through A-9. PID readings from soil screening samples collected from the soil borings ranged from 1.0 ppm to 1,390 ppm at the Site. Two soil samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis.

The soil sample collected at Boring A-2 from a depth of 3.5 feet bgs contained detectable concentrations of GRO, DRO, RRO, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes. GRO, DRO and ethylbenzene were detected at concentrations above DEC cleanup levels at 1,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 15,100 mg/kg and 10.8 mg/kg, respectively. The soil sample collected at Boring A-8 from a depth of 4.0 feet bgs contained detectable

4-4 concentrations of GRO, DRO, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes and all were above DEC cleanup levels. GRO, DRO, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes were detected at concentrations of 4,620 mg/kg, 31,100 mg/kg, 0.491 mg/kg,

31.7 mg/kg, 53.9 mg/kg, and 385 mg/kg, respectively.

B. Old BIA School Tank Farm Area – Five hand-augered soil borings, B-1 through B-5, were advanced east of the Old BIA School Tank Farm Area. PID readings from soil screening samples collected from the soil borings ranged from 1.2 ppm to 94.4 ppm at the site. One soil sample was collected and submitted for laboratory analysis. The soil sample collected at Boring B-2 from a depth of 1.5 feet bgs contained detectable concentrations of GRO, DRO, RRO and total xylenes; however, the detected concentrations were below DEC cleanup levels.

C. Old BIA School Shop and Generator Building Area – Thirteen hand-augered soil borings, C-1 through C-13, were advanced at the Old BIA School Shop and Generator Building Area.