EPA910/R-93-022
r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Ground Water
Program Profile
1993
Alaska
-------
Profile of Ground Water
Quality Protection 1993
State of Alaska
Prepared by
Dru Keenan
Kerrie Schurr
Grover Partee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Ground Water Section
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
December 1993 EPA 910/R-93-022
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS "i
LIST OF TABLES iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
INTRODUCTION 1
ERA'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY 1
PURPOSE OF THE PROFILE 2
PART I. GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOAL 4
A. Alaska's Ground Water Protection History and State Strategy .... 4
B. Ground Water Standards 6
PART II. ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES 7
A. Aquifer Classification 7
B. Mapping and Characterizing the Ground Water Resource 7
C. Identifying Sources of Contamination 8
1. DGGS Contaminant Survey of Alaska 9
2. Kenai Special Appropriation 9
3. Underground Storage Tanks 9
4. Contaminated Sites Database 9
5. Solid Waste Facilities 10
6. Federal Facilities 10
7. Class V Underground Injection Wells (Septic Systems, etc.) . . 10
D. Ranking Sources of Contamination 10
E. Previous Needs Analyses 11
1. Ground Water Quality Protection Strategy 11
2. State/EPA Agreement (SEA) 12
PART III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 12
A. Legislative Authorities 12
B. Responsibilities 13
1. State Agencies 16
2. State Boards 19
3. Local Programs 22
C. Coordinating Mechanisms 26
1. Interagency Agreements 26
2. Federal Agencies and State/Federal Interaction 26
3. Planning Initiatives 27
4. DEC Coordination Mechanism 28
D. Resources 28
-------
29
PART IV. IMPLEMENTATION 29
A. Source Control Programs • 29
1. Nonpoint Source Program 2g
2. Pollution Prevention Program 3Q
3. Siting Criteria 32
4. Permitting Programs ._
B. Response Programs
1. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
2. Contaminated Sites Program •
3. Superfund Program ^
C. Water Supply Programs •
1. Drinking Water 46
2. Water Rights and Permitting 47
3. Critical Water Management Program 48
D. Other Programs that Influence Groundwater 48
1. Facilities Construction and Operation (FC&O) 48
2. Pesticides 50
3. 401 Certification Program • • 52
PART V. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT 53
A. Current Ground Water Data Management 53
1. DEC Tracking Databases 53
2. DEC Drinking Water Database 54
3. DEC Contaminated Sites Database 54
4. DNR Groundwater Data Management Program 54
5. USGS Database 55
B. Interagency Ground Water Data Management Initiatives 55
1. Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water 55
2. DNR/DOW and USGS Cooperation 56
3. DEC use of USGS data 56
4. Water Management Council Water Data Issues Group 57
PART VI. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION 57
A. Education „ 57
1. DEC Workshops and Presentations 57
2. Development of Educational Materials 57
B. Public Participation 58
REFERENCES 59
APPENDIX A: Sites Where Impaired Groundwater has been Documented .... 60
-------
LIST OF COMMON ACRONYMS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
AOGCC Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
AS Alaska Statute
AWARE Alaska Water Resources Evaluation
AWQS Alaska Water Quality Standards
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act - "Superfund"
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSGWPPs Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (Also ADEC)
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Also ADF&G)
DGGS DNR's Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (Also
DNR/DGGS)
DNR Department of Natural Resources (also ADNR)
DOD Department of Defense
DOT Alaska Department of Transportation
DOW DNR's Division of Water (Also DNR/DOW)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FC&O Facility Construction and Operation
GIS Graphical Information System
GPS Global (Satellite) Positioning System (Also GSPS)
GWSI Ground Water Site Inventory system
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NPS Non-Point Source
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SEA State-EPA Agreement
UIC Underground Injection Control
USGS US Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1: Strategic Activities in a CSGWPP •
2: Agencies with Primary Statutory or Regulatory Authority Regarding
Groundwater Quality Protection in Alaska
3: Legislative and Regulatory Authorities -
4: DEC & DNR Ground Water Related Programs
5: Boroughs and Home Rule Municipalities • °
6: Key Cooperative Interagency Agreements
7: Minimum Separation Distances Between Surface or Subsurface
Drinking Water Sources and Potential Sources of
Contamination
8: Inventoried Class V Injection Wells
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Region 10 would like to acknowledge and thank all those who helped with this
document, especially Blair Wondzell of the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, Richard
Barrett and staff of the ADEC Pesticides Programs, Jim Munter, Gary Prokosh and
staff of the Division of Water ADNR, and the following from Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Mike Lewis, George Wilson, Jeff Engles, Doug
Redburn, Richard Markum, Glenn Miller, Deena Henkins, Mary Siroky, and Drew
Grant. Thanks also go to Elizabeth Corr of EPA Headquater's Ground Water
Protection Division. Special thanks go to Jean Bodeau of ADEC who provided
valuable assistance in completing this document.
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
ERA'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
In July 1989, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William K. Reilly
established a Ground Water Task Force to review the Agency's ground water
protection programs and to develop concrete principles and objectives to ensure
effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency activities affecting the
resource. The Task Force was chaired by Deputy Administrator F. Henry Habicht II
and included senior Agency managers from all EPA Headquarters offices with ground
water-related responsibilities and selected representatives from the Agency's Regional
offices. The Task Force sought and received input from governors, state legislators,
state agencies, business organizations, environmental groups, local governments,
Indian Tribes, universities, national organizations and other federal agencies.
The outcome of this effort was a report entitled: Protecting the Nation's Ground
Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s. The report announced that:
The overall goal of EPA's Ground Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects to
human health and the environment and to protect the environmental integrity
of the nation's ground water resources; in determining appropriate prevention
and protection strategies, EPA will a/so consider the usef value, and
vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values.
The Strategy identifies states as having primary responsibility for ground water
protection, and calls on EPA to promote the development and implementation of
voluntary Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs)
designed to protect the resource and provide the framework to coordinate programs
and activities under federal, state and local statutes and ordinances.
Between December 1991 and February 1992, a series of roundtable discussions
involving EPA, state, and tribal officials from agencies with ground water
responsibilities were held throughout the country. The roundtables were organized
to provide a forum for state and tribal views on several key issues related to the
CSGWPP approach, including the necessary elements of a CSGWPP and the criteria
for determining the adequacy of the CSGWPP elements.
EPA recognizes that CSGWPP development must build on various ground water
protection activities already underway within each state. Accordingly, an important
first step becomes the identification of current activities related to the CSGWPP
elements. To assist the state of Alaska in moving toward CSGWPP implementation,
EPA Region 10 has initiated this Profile of Ground Water Quality Protection for Alaska.
-------
PURPOSE OF THE PROFILE
The Profile is intended to serve as a baseline of information on Alaska s cu
ground water quality protection programs and activities. The information collec
referenced in the Profile can be compared to EPA CSGWPP guidance docurnents ^
order to identify gaps in the state's ground water protection efforts, and to ass
what activities the state can undertake in order to achieve comprehensive protec i
of the resource. Such information can prove useful in setting state priorities tor
action, and in tailoring EPA assistance to the state in its efforts to develop and
implement a full CSGWPP.
To assist state officials in using the Profile for its intended purpose of identifying and
assessing gaps in CSGWPP development, the Profile is structured according to the six
Strategic Activities which EPA, based on input from the State Roundtables, has
identified as comprising a CSGWPP. These are presented in the table below.
Table 1: Strategic Activities in a CSGWPP
1. Establishing a ground water protection goal to guide all relevant programs
in the state
2. Establishing priorities, based on characterization of the resource,
identification of sources of contamination, and programmatic needs, to
direct all relevant programs and activities in the state toward the most
efficient and effective means of achieving the state's common protection
goal
3. Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating
mechanisms across all relevant federal, state, tribal, and local programs
for addressing identified ground water protection priorities
4. Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the state's ground
water protection goal consistent with the state's priorities and schedules
5. Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress, evaluate priorities, and support all ground water-related
programs
6. Improving public education and participation in all aspects of ground
water protection, so as to achieve support of the state's protection goal,
priorities, and programs
-------
COMPLETING THE PROCESS
The EPA guidance describes the following six steps in the development of a CSGWPP.
Step 1: Establishing a Vision
Based on the State's ground water strategy, this profile, and the CSGWPP
guidance, EPA and the state will negotiate a "vision" of what Alaska's fully
integrated CSGWPP will include.
Step 2: Completing an Assessment
The state will assess what it needs to do to achieve the vision based upon the
information in this profile. The assessment will indicate the resource needs and
a schedule for achieving a "core" CSGWPP
Step 3: Achieving a Core CSGWPP
A state may already have achieved a core program. In such cases no further
documentation is required. If however, Alaska does need to take some actions
to achieve a core CSGWPP, an update to the assessment demonstrating that
they have met the adequacy criteria will be prepared and submitted to EPA.
EPA will formally endorse the state's achievement upon review of that
submittal.
Step 4: Developing a Multi-year Program Agreement
Following EPA endorsement of it's core program, Alaska will develop jointly
with EPA a written multi-year program agreement that describes how the state
will further implement and improve the strategic activities of the core program,
and what actions EPA will take to support the state's efforts.
Step 5: Implementing Yearly Workplans
EPA and Alaska will negotiate through yearly workplans how to close the gaps
between the core program and the vision and how to provide additional federal
program flexibility to the state.
Step 6: Achieving a Fully Integrated CSGWPP
Alaska's final, fully integrated CSGWPP will meet the entire set of criteria
outlined in the EPA guidance.
-------
PART I. GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOAL
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 1: Establishing a ground water protection goal to guide all
relevant programs in the state.
A. Alaska's Ground Water Protection History and State Strategy
Alaska is a state of vast proportions and dispersed and scant population. Half of the
state's current population of approximately 500,000 lives in Anchorage. Development
has occurred in localized areas in response to natural resource discoveries and
exploitation. Industries that have shaped Alaska's history are fishing, trapping,
timber, mining, and, most recently, oil. Prior to becoming a state in 1959, Alaska had
a territorial government. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
was formed in 1971.
Ground water protection activities in the state of Alaska have historically been carried
out under a variety of programs with authority stemming from Alaska statutes. These
programs and authorities are outlined in this profile. Each of the programs typically
has defined its own work plan and goals with regard to ground water activities.
Alaska's Ground Water Quality Protection Strategy (hereafter referred to as the
Strategy) was completed in August 1990. This planning effort began in 1987 with
a grant from EPA and was coordinated by DEC to comprehensively address needed
improvements in ground water protection. Alaska's Strategy was developed to
provide direction for state and federal agencies, local governments, industry, and the
general public. The Strategy describes Alaska's ground water resource, how it is
used, abused, and regulated, and provides a series of recommended steps to improve
its protection.
Alaska's Strategy describes the goal for ground water quality protection in Alaska as:
To protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of Alaska's
groundwater resources, to ensure availability for continued use by
present and future generations, and to prevent degradation that may be
harmful to public health or the environment.
Eleven objectives are listed in the Strategy to meet the objectives of the goal; they
are:
1. To recognize the State of Alaska is primarily responsible for ensuring that
prevention, detection, and correction of ground water contamination is carried out by
the responsible individuals or government agencies.
-------
2. To recognize the State of Alaska is the appropriate unit of government to direct
the development of cooperative agreements with federal and local governments,
regional health groups, and community groups for ground water protection.
3. To establish priorities for ground water protection and management efforts and
provide technical assistance to local governments and regional health groups in
achieving these priorities.
4. To adequately characterize, map, and monitor the quality and quantity of ground
water resources in Alaska.
5. To assure long-term protection of ground water resources by encouraging minimal
use of toxic or hazardous materials and reduction of waste products.
6. To recognize, adopt, and incorporate consistent methods, practices, and
techniques to prevent, detect, and correct contamination of ground water resources.
7. To assure that adequate financial resources are available to carry out the
recommendations of the ground water strategy in a phased approach.
8. To encourage and assist educational efforts towards preventing, detecting, and
correcting contamination of ground water resources.
9. To coordinate ground water quality protection efforts with other environmental
protection efforts and water quality and quantity programs, and with full consideration
of the hydrologic cycle.
10. To plan, develop, and implement ground water quality protection efforts, in a
clear and consistent manner. The efforts should be developed with long-term
commitments in mind and, to the extent possible, be updated only as necessary.
11. To encourage industry, the technical community, citizen groups, and government
to share in the development of ground water quality protection efforts.
A two year work plan, the Action Plan, is also part of Alaska's Strategy and seeks
involvement of all entities whose actions affect ground water quality. The state
continues to move forward with implementation of the Action Plan.
The DEC'S ground water program, located within the Water Quality Management
section, consists of a project manager whose job it is to coordinate and oversee
completion of tasks identified in Alaska's Strategy. The Strategy calls for involvement
of all citizens, agencies and industrial groups. Networking the efforts of all DEC
control programs towards the objective of improved ground water protection has
been, and will continue to be, a major responsibility and challenge.
-------
Recommendations for actions by many state programs and agencies are included
within the Strategy. There is no law or statute which specifically and exclusively
addresses ground water protection. Nor is there any specific legislative mandate that
ground water protection be incorporated into the goals and objectives of_ otn®r
programs or other state agencies. Administrative Order No. 120 signed by the
Governor on July 26, 1990, describes the need for all Alaskans to protect the State s
ground water consistent with the principles in the Strategy. It further states that
ground water is an important resource that is vulnerable to contamination, and that
Alaska must implement improvements in existing government, industry, and private
efforts to protect it. The order directs and assigns responsibility for implementing the
Strategy to the DEC and the Department of Natural Resources. The Strategy and
Administrative Order 120 constitutes the state's principal policy directives on ground
water protection.
B. Ground Water Standards
Alaska does not have a set of standards written expressly for and applicable only to
ground water. Rather, Alaskan ground waters are subject to the state's more general
Alaska Water Quality Standards (AWQS) Regulation at 18 AAC 70. The standards
describe the water quality required to be achieved in order to support various
designated uses of the water (e.g., drinking water, domestic or industrial, recreation,
wildlife, etc.). The standards are divided into fresh and marine water categories.
According to 18 AAC 70.050, ground waters are protected for the following use
classes:
- Class (1)(A) Fresh water - Water supply
(i) drinking, culinary, and food processing;
(ii) agriculture;
(Hi) aquaculture; and
(iv) industrial;
Since no ground waters have been listed in 18 AAC 70.050(b) as being protected for
a more limited set of designated use classes, all of the applicable fresh water uses
above would apply. In the case of fresh ground waters, the most stringent of the
water quality standards for each class would apply since these waters are protected
for more than one use class (per 18 AAC 70.030). Also for fresh ground waters, the
water quality standards regulation ensures that drinking water standards (as tabulated
in the Drinking Water Regulations at 18 AAC 80) will be met. Aquatic life criteria
must be met where discharge to surface water occurs. (As of May 1993 ground
waters were also protected for industrial water supply as marine waters - Class (2){A).
That application is being deleted.)
-------
Alaska's water standards regulations explicitly apply to both surface water and ground
water. However, the state has not prepared specific guidance on how to apply its
water quality standards to ground water protection. Application of the standards
depends largely on the knowledge and judgement of the individual permit writer.
It is, in fact, not always clear which water quality standards should be applied or how.
For example, the water quality regulations allow for a mixing zone to be prescribed in
its permits or certifications. This provision of the regulation has been used exclusively
for discharges to surface waters. Little guidance exists on how to apply this provision
in the case of discharges to ground water which do not meet the water quality
standards (e.g., from underground injection wells). Neither is it clear that mixing
zones are not allowed.
Nor is it entirely clear how the ground water standards apply to remediation.
However, efforts to clarify the use of ground water standards with respect to
remediation began in January 1992 through discussions between the Department of
Law, parties at contaminated sites and water supply programs. A legal opinion is
being prepared.
PART II. ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 2: Establishing priorities, based on characterization of the
resource, identification of sources of contamination, and programmatic needs, to
direct all relevant programs and activities in the state toward the most efficient and
effective means of achieving the state's common protection goal.
A. Aquifer Classification
Alaska does not currently have a ground water classification system. All ground
waters are protected for the uses previously discussed. There are no sole source
aquifers designated or petitioned for in Alaska. Wellhead or aquifer protection areas
have been designated in Nome and Juneau and are being delineated in the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, the community of Anchor Point, and Fairbanks.
B. Mapping and Characterizing the Ground Water Resource
Aquifer characterization can include defining the system's lateral and vertical extent,
hydraulic properties (hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storage), recharge and
discharge rates, flow patterns and directions including seasonal variations, water use,
degree of interconnection between aquifers and surface water, and water quality.
This information is essential to informed decision-making for ground water quality and
resource issues.
-------
Ground water studies have been conducted in Alaska on a sub-regional scale by the
US Geological Survey, DNR, other state and local government agencies and private
parties. The USGS and the DNR Divisions of Water (DOW) and Geological and
Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) have an active cooperative program. There is, however,
no state-wide aquifer map or program in place that would result in a state-wide a
map, nor is there a program in place to characterize the aquifers of the State.
lacks funds to undertake such an effort.
DNR (DGGS) has conducted basic aquifer projects in Nome, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, the Kenai Peninsula, Juneau, Eagle River, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other
areas. Aquifer mapping is a major function of DNR. However, a small budget limits
its mapping projects. The focus has been on regional studies or in response to site-
specific contamination events. DNR has not done any site-specific ground water
vulnerability assessment work in the State. They do have the data and capability to
do limited wellhead delineation work.
USGS, under Public Law 70-100, has participated in many studies that were jointly
funded by the Survey and by state and local agencies which are, or were at the time,
too small to maintain their own staffs or hydrologists. The resulting reports should
not be perceived as USGS projects, but as joint projects of the Survey and the state
or local agencies, including DEC, DNR, and DF&G. Through these studies, the State
has played an active role in defining its ground water resources.
In FY 1992, EPA provided Alaska with a grant under section 319 of the Clean Water
Act to set up a multi-agency task force to determine the availability and quality of
data for use in developing ground water vulnerability maps, develop and demonstrate
program applications, assess feasibility and make recommendations for vulnerability
mapping, and develop interagency resource and funding support. Once these efforts
are completed, a possible "next step" for the task force would be to validate models
for assessing ground water vulnerability.
C. Identifying Sources of Contamination
Appendix A, from the 1992 Water Quality Assessment report under CWA Section
305(b), indicates documented groundwater impairment sites in the state. Sites
suspected of being contaminated are also listed in the report.
Sources of contamination in Alaska have been identified in a number of different
ways, most during the last five years. The sections below identify several of the
methods and findings of contaminant source surveys that are addressed in Alaska's
305(b) report.
8
-------
1. DGGS Contaminant Survey of Alaska
In 1987. the DNR (DGGS) conducted a study to identify sites with ground water
contamination in Alaska, reporting its findings in Munter, J.A. and D.L. Maynard,
1987. "Extent of groundwater contamination in Alaska," Alaska DGGS Report of
Investigations 87-16. This report was updated in May of 1988 and reported a total
of 120 sites with confirmed ground water contamination.
2. Kenai Special Appropriation
In 1987, then-Governor Cowper and the Alaska Legislature created a special
appropriation to address ground water problems on the Kenai Peninsula. The first
phase of the Kenai special appropriation project was to conduct a Comprehensive
Inventory of Potential Waste Disposal Sites in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
findings were presented in Harding Lawson, 1989, "Comprehensive Inventory Report:
Potential Waste Disposal Sites and Other Reports/Complaints." The consultant
prepared individual reports for 68 potential waste disposal sites, plus more limited
information for 90 sites. Listings and information are included for 68 permitted solid
waste facilities, and approximately 217 drilling waste disposal sites in the Kenai
Peninsula Borough.
3. Underground Storage Tanks
At the time of this writing, there were 6,159 registered underground storage tanks
in Alaska, at a total of 2,273 facilities. Many registered tanks have already been
"closed" and only about 3000 remain active. On the other hand, the state estimates
that 25% of tanks may not have been registered so the total number of tanks in
Alaska subject to regulation may be 8,200. This number does not include fuel oil or
exempted tanks.
The underground storage tank database uses the program Revelation to track
registration and status of facilities. If a leak or contamination is detected, the data on
the tank is transferred to the contaminated sites/leaking underground storage tank
program.
There were 611 leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) identified in the state as
of December 1992. Data on LUST sites as well as non-LUST sites are stored in the
contaminated sites database, which utilizes the program RBase. To date the LUST
program has identified 684 LUST sites in Alaska.
4. Contaminated Sites Database
In March 1992, there were approximately 1300 sites identified in Alaska's
contaminated sites database. Ground water contamination has been detected at
approximately 180 of those sites, not including the military installations.
-------
5. Solid Waste Facilities
There are approximately 750 municipal and industrial landfills in Alaska subject to
permitting. Of these, approximately half have permits.
6. Federal Facilities
Types of sites include Defense Early Warning (DEW) sites. Army, Air Force, Navy, and
Coast Guard installations, and other sites. They have been identified through the
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System) process. Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP),
state permitting programs, and state UST and contaminated sites programs.
7. Class V Underground Injection Wells (Septic Systems, etc.)
In a recent inventory, EPA Region 10 identified 2237 Class V underground injection
wells in Alaska. A database in the program Rbase includes information such as
operator name and address, well type, etc. The extent of actual ground water
contamination resulting from Class V injection wells is not yet known.
D. Ranking Sources of Contamination
Alaska's Strategy identifies categories of sources of ground water contamination and
ranks them according to level of threat. Petroleum product storage and transportation
facilities were identified as the most significant source of ground water contamination,
and the most significant element of this category is leaking underground storage
tanks. The other sources of contamination, in descending order of threat, are waste
water disposal systems, improper handling and disposal of hazardous substances and
waste, landfills and dumps, and salt-water intrusion.
Priorities for individual sites in Alaska are set on a program-by-program basis. Alaska
developed a hazard ranking model for the contaminated sites database in 1991
(Shannon and Wilson, 1991, Contaminated Site Report, Vol. 1-4, for ADEC). The
model uses a variety of criteria to assign a score to identified contaminated sites. The
database utilizes the program Rbase. The scores, which are strongly influenced by
actual or potential ground water contamination, are used to prioritize remediation and
enforcement actions at the sites. The database is updated on a continual basis and
maintained in DEC regional offices. The regional offices send monthly updates to
Juneau where they are entered into the master database.
Several factors are evaluated to determine the hazard ranking score for a site, as
follows:
Substance Factors: toxicity, quantity, release information;
Human Targets: air exposure index; population; ground water usage;
groundwater exposure index; surface water use; surface water exposure index;
10
-------
Environmental Targets: surface water environments; environmental/recreation
areas; observed environmental impacts; sites with multiple sources or
contaminants.
E. Previous Needs Analyses
1. Ground Water Quality Protection Strategy
Alaska's Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy makes recommendations on what
needs to be done to improve state regulation and enforcement activities to more
effectively protect the state's ground water resources. Needed improvements
identified in the Strategy were:
development of prevention-oriented regulations for oil processing and
storage facilities;
water well and monitoring well design and construction standards;
subdivision plan review authority;
improving the existing system of data collection and management;
developing and revising guidelines for implementing existing regulations;
developing agency staff technical expertise;
public education;
securing funding sources for enforcement under existing authorities;
and updating existing permit application and review procedures to
specifically address impacts to ground water quality.
Specific recommendations in the Strategy are presented in six groups:
education;
data collection and management;
planning;
control of contamination sources;
enforcement; and
Action Plan and funding development.
Within these groups, 24 separate topics are identified and 84 specific
recommendations are provided, followed by a description of how the
recommendations would improve ground water protection.
The recommendations are not prioritized nor assigned to any particular agency. The
Action Plan specifies those details. Many of the recommendations can be completed
by existing regulatory programs with no additional funding. Some of the
recommendations require new regulations and new sources of funding.
For the Strategy to be successful in guiding improvement in ground water protection
in Alaska, federal and state agencies, local governments, industry, community groups
11
-------
and the general public generally need to agree with the recommendations and make
the commitment to implement them.
2. State/EPA Agreement (SEA)
The SEA is an agreement between EPA and DEC. The agreement identifies priority
environmental programs by each state agency for each state fiscal year (July 1 - June
30). Commitments are made by the state programs in return for EPA grants and
technical assistance. The SEA is a primary mechanism for identifying annual priority
activities.
The SEA provides state and federal program managers, and the public, with
opportunities to participate in a review of the state's commitments towards
implementing federal environmental programs. EPA Region 10 uses the SEA process
to negotiate and fund priority ground water efforts identified in EPA's annual Agency
Operating Guidance.
PART III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 3: Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and
coordinating mechanisms across all relevant federal, state, tribal, and local programs
for addressing identified ground water protection priorities;
A. Legislative Authorities
A key principle in EPA's Ground Water Task Force Report (EPA 1990) is that the
primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing ground water protection
programs has always been, and should continue to be, with the states. Alaska's
policy on ground water protection is outlined in the Strategy, Administrative Order
120, the State of Alaska Water Policy, and regulatory and guidance documents.
There is no single state law or statute specifically for ground water protection, nor is
there a specific mandate that ground water protection be incorporated into the goals
and objectives of other programs outside of DEC and DNR. Table 2 lists the statutes
and regulations that govern ground water management in the state of Alaska.
Strengths of existing ground water quality regulation in Alaska include: 1) the DEC has
broad statutory authority to regulate sources of contamination; 2) the majority of
source control programs are within one agency (DEC); 3) the water quality standards
include standards specifically for ground water; and 4) the State has an oil and
hazardous substance release response fund that can be used to clean up contaminated
soil and ground water. Existing state authorities provide sufficient coverage for state
agencies to develop source control programs and require sufficient ground water
protection measures.
12
-------
B. Responsibilities
Although other agencies have authority over ground water (see Table 3), the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) are the primary state agencies responsible for the identification,
management, and protection of Alaska's ground water resource. Table 4 lists the
programs within DEC and DNR that manage ground water. In the sections below, the
responsibilities of these and other state agencies as defined in Alaska statutes are
outlined. There are also several state interagency committees and boards that
determine water policy in Alaska, including the Alaska Water Resources Board, the
Water Management Council, and the Interagency Hydrology Committee. Descriptions
of these and other relevant government entities, including local governments, follow
Table 5.
13
-------
Table 2: Agencies with Primary Statutory or Regulatory Authority Regarding
Groundwater Quality Protection in Alaska
Activity
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Water Quality Standards
Groundwater Classification
Solid Waste Disposal
Domestic Wastewater Disposal
Nondomestic Wastewater Disposal
Surface Impoundments
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Hazardous Waste Transportation *
Underground Injection of Nonhazardous Wastes
Underground Injection of Hazardous Wastes
Oil and Gas Wells
Fertilizer Application
Pesticide Application
Oil Storage - Above ground
Oil Storage - Below ground
Coal Mining
Industrial Materials Storage
Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Response
Appropriation of Water
Public Drinking Water Wells
Private Drinking Water Wells
Wellhead Protection
Aquifer Protection
—
DEC
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
===
EPA
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DNR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
AOGCC
=====
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
Anch
=====
X
X
X
X
• Additional authority lie* within the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
DEC - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
EPA -- Environmental Protection Agency
DNR - Alaska Department of Natural Resources
AOGCC - Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Anch - Municipality of Anchorage
14
-------
Table 3: Legislative and Regulatory Authorities
Legislative Authorities
AS Title 46.03
AS Title 46.40
AS Title 41
AS Title 29
DEC Statutory Authority
CZM Statutory Authority
DNR Statutory Authority
Local government authority
Regulations with Provisions Pertaining to
Ground Water
18 AAC 15
18 AAC60
ISAAC 62
ISAAC 63
18 AAC 70
ISAAC 72
18 AAC 75
ISAAC 78
ISAAC 80
18 AAC 90
1 1 AAC 55
1 1 AAC 90
1 1 AAC 93
6 AAC 80
Administrative Procedures
Solid Waste Management 1987
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
Water Quality Standards 1989
Wastewater Disposal Regulations 1990
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Control Regulations 1991
Underground Storage Tanks 1991
Drinking Water Regulations 1991
Pesticide Control 1991
Land Planning and Classification
Surface Coal Mining
Water Management
Coastal Management Program
Other Authorities
Administrative
Administrative
Order No. 120
Order No. 133
- 1990
- 1992
Established
priority
Established
ground water
the
Water
protection
Management
as a state
Council
15
-------
Table 4: DEC & DNR Ground Water Related Programs
Department of Environmental Conservation
Environmental Quality Division
Wastewater
Solid and Hazardous Waste
RCRA
Drinking Water
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Groundwater
Pollution Prevention
Water Quality
Coastal Management
Spill Prevention and Response Division
Contaminated Sites
Underground Storage Tanks
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Spill Prevention Planning and Management
Federal Facilities
Environmental Health Division
Pesticides
Facilities Construction and Operation Division
Village Safe Water
Municipal Matching Grants
Construction Grants
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
1. State Agencies
a. Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
As outlined in state statutes and described in Alaska's Groundwater Strategy, DEC'S
responsibilities with regard to ground water are:
1) to prevent and abate pollution of the state's ground water resource;
16
-------
2) to systematically identify, investigate, and quantify potential sources of soil
and ground water pollution;
3) to oversee the investigation and cleanup of sites with soil or ground
water pollution;
4) to coordinate management of data related to regulatory responsibilities
for protection of public health and the environment; and
5) to work with local governments, state and federal agencies, and the
public to improve ground water protection activities.
DEC is responsible for implementing programs to protect public health and the
environment. The programs it implements include the pesticides control program, the
water quality programs, the drinking water program, the contaminated sites program
and the hazardous and solid waste management programs. In addition, DEC
coordinates with EPA on the programs that EPA has responsibility for implementing -
- RCRA, NPDES, UST, CERCLA/SARA and UIC.
DEC is composed of five divisions:
1) Spill Prevention and Response,
2) Environmental Quality,
3) Facility Construction and Operations,
4) Environmental Health, and
5) Administration and Regional Offices.
The water quality standards, nonpoint source, ground water, wastewater, water
supply, and solid waste programs are in the Environmental Quality Division. The
pesticide control program is in the Environmental Health Division, and the municipal
facilities construction and operation is in the Facilities Construction and Operations
Division.
The implementation of the DEC programs is divided among the Central Office and four
Regional Offices. The Central Office is responsible for program planning, grant
management, regulation development, and guidance. The regional offices are
responsible for implementing the programs. They operate with autonomy, and are
organizationally answerable to the Commissioner's Office. The Central Office does
not supervise or coordinate the regions' activities.
17
-------
The regional offices are as follows:
Northern Regional Office - Fairbanks;
Southcentral Regional Office - Anchorage;
Southeast Regional Office - Juneau;
Pipeline Corridor Regional Office - Anchorage.
The regions are further subdivided into districts, which have field offices located in
communities around the State.
The Groundwater Program is located within DEC in the Division of Environmental
Quality, Water Quality Management section. The Groundwater Program is responsible
for implementing Alaska's Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy. Staffing for the
program includes one program manager. The position is part of DEC'S central office,
although the manager is physically located in Anchorage.
The Groundwater Program and staff position are currently supported solely by a
Section 106 ground water grant from EPA. There are no state funds devoted directly
to this program. However, state-funded activities in the variety of control programs
of the Department indirectly affect and support the goal of improved groundwater
protection. This "networking" of efforts toward a common goal is a central tenet of
the Alaska Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy, and the Groundwater Program
staff is continuing to develop these networks.
b. Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
As outlined in state statutes, and described in Alaska's Groundwater Strategy, DNR's
responsibilities with regard to ground water are:
1) to collect, record, evaluate, and distribute data on the quantity,
quality, location, and use of ground water;
2) to periodically publish data related to the quantity or quality of ground water
of the state;
3) to systematically identify, investigate, and quantify the quantity and
quality of the state's ground water resource;
4) to coordinate management of data related to geologic and hydrologic
characteristics of aquifers;
5) to work with local governments to improve the knowledge and
understanding of the ground water resource in their area;
6) to adjudicate and grant water rights for the use of ground water; and
18
-------
7) to establish policy related to ground water use and management.
DNR is composed of the following divisions that play a role in water management:
Division of Water, Division of Oil and Gas, Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys, Division of Mining, and Division of Land. The DNR is organized into three
regions: South Central Region, with offices in Anchorage; Northern Region, located
in Fairbanks; and Southeastern Region, in Juneau.
The Division of Water (DOW) was created in July, 1991. DOW issues water rights;
administers the dam safety program; renders and reviews administrative navigability
determinations; asserts ownership and management of submerged lands; and surveys,
collects, and distributes water resource data related to the quantity and quality of
ground water and surface and coastal waters of Alaska. It is responsible for
coordinating water-related data collection and management activities with other
agencies, providing support to the State Water Board, and advocating responsible
water development, including water exports.
Hydrologic staff from the DGGS were transferred to the DOW, which has assumed
the responsibilities of that group, including conducting hydrologic studies, and
collecting and compiling water well logs submitted by water well contractors. DGGS
maintains a statewide well log database in cooperation with the USGS.
Many ground water related programs initially under DGGS are now being continued
by DOW. Since both are part of DNR, this document in most instances will refer
directly to DNR rather than to either DOW or DGGS.
b. Office of the Governor. Division of Governmental Coordination (OGC)
OGC, in addition to overseeing coastal planning under the CZM program, is a co-lead
with DEC on developing the Coastal Nonpoint Source program under Section 6217.
Elements of this program affect protection of ground water resources.
2. State Boards
a. Soil and Water Conservation Board and Districts
The Alaska Soil and Water Conservation Board was formed by the DNR Division of
Agriculture. The Board is composed of five members drawn from the five major land
areas of the state: 1) the Arctic and northwest Alaska; 2) the Yukon and Tanana
valleys; 3) southwest Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula; 4) southcentral Alaska; and 5)
southeast Alaska. The Board holds meetings twice yearly. Upon petition by 25 or
more land users within a district, the board may establish a Soil and Water
Conservation District.
There are currently 10 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Alaska. The district
members are citizens, farmers, local agency staff, and other people with an interest
19
-------
in soil and water conservation and protection issues. The Salcha-Big Delta Soil and
Water Conservation District has undertaken water quality monitoring studies over the
past several years, funded in part by 205(j) grants. Monitoring efforts in the Delta
Clearwater area are evaluating the effects of farming activities and domestic septage
on water quality. The Homer Soil and Water Conservation District is developing an
aquifer protection project in the Anchor Point area. District volunteers in Homer,
Kenai, Delta and Palmer have ground water flow models and use them in public
presentations.
b. Alaska Water Resources Board
The Alaska Water Resources Board (AWRB) was established by the Water Use Act,
AS 46. It is composed of seven members "having general knowledge of the use,
conservation and protection of state waters" appointed by the governor and subject
to confirmation by the legislature. The commissioners of DEC and DNR serve as
ex-officio members.
The board's mandate is to inform and advise the governor on all matters relating to
the use and appropriation of water in the state, including, but not limited to: the effect
and adequacy of all state laws and regulations governing the establishment of water
rights, the multi-purpose uses of water, the prevention of pollution and the protection
of fish and game, studies of the state's water supplies and plans for future
requirements, development of water resources, participation of local governmental
units in the management of water resources, lands which are or may be needed for
dams, reservoirs, flood dams, flood ways, canals or ditches for the impoundment,
storage, flow and control of waters.
The AWRB holds one regular meeting annually in Juneau and one or more additional
meetings at the time and place the board selects. The board may also hold and
conduct public meetings at any time or any place in the state in order to obtain public
opinion on a water use problem or proposal.
c. Interaoency Hydrology Committee
The Interagency Hydrology Committee for Alaska {IHC) has no legal authorities but
serves as a technical advisory panel and provides a mean of coordination between and
among the several state agencies concerned with ground water. The IHC meets twice
a year and is comprised of hydrologists from state, federal and local agencies. The
group traditionally has been more involved with surface water but is expanding its
participation in ground water issues.
The IHC was first formed in 1965 out of the Inter-Agency Technical Committee for
Alaska. That latter committee was established in 1963 under the auspices of the
Water Resources Council. The IHC is a component of the national Hydrology
Subcommittee of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, a committee
of the American Water Resources Association. An "Organization, Objective, and
20
-------
Operation" statement was prepared in 1977 and a summary of operations in February
1989. Bylaws and a more formalized structure came along in May 1993 at which
time the committee also agreed, at the request of the Water Management Council, to
serve as a technical advisory group to that Council.
d. Water Management Council
On January 30, 1992, an interagency "Water Summit" meeting was held in Juneau.
According to the minutes, "Thirty eight people showed up, including representatives
of state and federal agencies, several legislative aides, [State] Representative
Davidson, [and] environmental organizations" plus "several" interested citizens. The
primary "action item" which came out of this meeting was the establishment of the
Water Management Council (WMC) whose executive committee consists of the
directors of the Divisions of Water (DNR), Environmental Quality (DEC) and Habitat
(DF&G). The Council was charged with developing work programs and convening a
series of work groups to address priority issues. The WMC involves DGC and other
agencies in a support role and informs the public and private sector of policy
directions.
The WMC was officially established by Administrative Order No. 133, signed by
Governor Walter J. Hickel, January 22, 1993. This order charged the WMC "to serve
as a convenient forum in which representatives of state and federal agencies may
exchange information and concerns relating to the management of water resources
in Alaska." It established quarterly meetings of the "executive committee" of the
Council (the three division directors as identified above), but also authorized the
establishment of a "standing committee" "composed of director-level representatives
(or their equivalents) ... from state and federal agencies, boards, or commissions that
have direct water management responsibilities within the State of Alaska."
The Council held its first meeting on February 25, 1992, at which time the members
decided to pursue coordination of data management for water resources in addition
to cooperation data collection and permit reform. An Interagency Water Data Issues
working group developed a list of issues and recommendations for working groups
to address those issues.
21
-------
3. Local Programs
a. Local Government Structure
Alaskan municipalities have the authority to adopt an ordinance to protect their water
supply and watershed, and may enforce the ordinance outside their boundaries.
However, when the watershed lies outside of the municipality, the municipality must
have the approval of the adjoining municipality. This gives local governments the
ability to protect their municipal water supply, either surface water or ground water,
independent of the authority of state agencies. Nome has used this provision for
protecting its municipal water source.
There are no counties in Alaska; the next level of government below the State is the
borough. Table 3 presents a list of the 13 boroughs in Alaska. Not all of the State
of Alaska is part of a borough.
Unified Home Rule and First- and Second-Class Boroughs may exercise powers to
provide area-wide water pollution control. Borough ordinances defining the
assumption of these powers must be at least as stringent as relevant state
regulations. Boroughs are required by state law to provide planning and zoning
controls. Through these powers, boroughs develop comprehensive plans controlling
development within the borough, develop land use ordinances to implement the
comprehensive plan, and establish platting requirements for the subdivision of land.
Cities within a first or second class borough may, by ordinance, assume planning and
zoning powers.
People in several Alaska communities have organized groundwater task forces to
address and coordinate ground water-related activities. The task forces bring together
regulators, scientists, industry and the public to approach ground water issues in a
multidisciplinary manner. The task forces have been very successful in achieving their
goals and in stimulating new ideas, due to the level of community-wide participation.
Some boroughs have undertaken ground water studies or organized ground water task
forces to address ground water concerns in the borough. The major achievements of
boroughs and borough-wide task forces are summarized below.
b. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
The Matanuska-Susitna (MatSu) Borough passed an ordinance authorizing and funding
a wellhead protection program for the Borough in 1992. It received a Wellhead
Demonstration Grant from EPA in 1992 which it used to develop the procedures and
phasing for "Delineation Criteria and Methods for Wellhead Protection Areas in the
MatSu Borough." The Borough Planning Commission authorized formation of a
Groundwater Task Force which has met regularly since summer, 1992. DEC also
awarded a grant to the MatSu Borough to assist with developing its Wellhead
Protection Program.
22
-------
The Alaska Soil and Water Conservation Board conducted an area-wide investigation
of groundwater resource in MatSu Borough. Published as "Conceptual Model of
Groundwater Resources from Big Lake to Palmer" (1990, James Montgomery
Engineers), the study was funded in part by a 205(j3) local water quality monitoring
grant. Approximately 100 drinking water supply wells were tested in the Talkeetna,
Butte, Wasilla, Colony and Big Lake areas. The study found generally good water
quality of moderate to high hardness, with levels of iron above the secondary standard
in some areas. In the Butte area, relatively high levels of chloride and TDS were
noted. No pesticides, benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene or xylenes were detected in
any of the samples. This investigation will aid in planning decisions and focus future
investigations.
c. Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
FNSB community members have organized a ground water task force composed of
ground water professionals, federal, state, and local agency officials and scientists,
and the public. The task force received a Section 205(j) Local Water Quality
Monitoring Grant from DEC to help it get started. The group formed four committees:
education, contamination, data management, and groundwater management.
Accomplishments of the task force to date include compiling a bibliography of ground
water-related reports in the FNSB, and preparing a ground water monitoring plan. The
education committee has been very active with such projects as purchasing and using
a ground water sand-tank model, sponsoring ground water awards in local science
fairs, and installing groundwater displays in local libraries. The task force prepared a
report summarizing its activities, and is continuing to meet regularly.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough is a key member of the FNSB groundwater task
force. The FNSB is a signatory to the community agreement for the area that defines
roles with regard to pollution prevention and response.
d. Kenai Peninsula Borough
The Kenai Peninsula Borough has recognized the importance of groundwater
protection in their coastal management plan. It designates an "area meriting special
attention," which means that projects proposed in this area receive special attention
regarding their potential impacts to groundwater quality.
The Kenai Peninsula Groundwater task force is composed of people representing
industry, citizens, environmental groups, state agencies, and federal agencies. The
task force has developed a four phase work plan to address ground water concerns
on the Kenai Peninsula: Phase 1) Map and evaluated existing data in the U.S.
Geological Survey's National Water Information System; Phase 2) Collect and compile
additional data and evaluate regional ground water flow systems; Phase 3) Collect
additional data and evaluate subregional ground water flow systems; and Phase 4)
Long-term monitoring and groundwater protection, including development and
distribution of educational material to encourage aquifer protection planning. A Phase
23
-------
1 report was prepared in 1991 that presents maps and summaries of hydrogeologic
data on the central Kenai Peninsula. The Phase 1 report has been used to help focus
monitoring efforts on the Kenai Peninsula. However, due to insufficient funds, no
field work was conducted in 1992.
Current significant Phase 4 projects are principally educational. They are:
Production of a ground water/water quality poster for distribution throughout
the peninsula;
Purchase and demonstration of plexiglas ground water flow models in Kenai
and Homer;
Development of awards for school science projects that deal with ground
water; and
Participation in the Water Watch training program.
Additionally, the task force is participating in the development by the Soil and Water
Conservation District of an aquifer protection project in the Anchor Point community.
Key aquifers in the area were mapped to identify critical management areas and the
SWCD is distributing to private well-owners a wellhead protection packet. The packet
includes questionnaires and fact sheets to guide the owner through contamination
identification and pollution prevention. After such modifications as are shown to be
appropriate in the Anchor Point case, the packet will be distributed statewide.
f. Municipality of Anchorage
The Municipality of Anchorage is the only borough to assume limited water pollution
control authorities. The Municipality regulates on-lot wastewater disposal systems,
single family water well construction, and conducts water quality monitoring within
the municipality. Voters approved bond issues to support investigation and monitoring
of water quality, and construction projects to improve water quality. As part of water
quality monitoring, approximately 80 monitoring wells have been installed by the city
and are sampled periodically to determine trends and changes in groundwater quality.
24
-------
Table 5: Boroughs and Home Rule Municipalities
Unified Home Rule Municipalities
City and Borough of Juneau
City and Borough of Sitka
Municipality of Anchorage
Home Rule Boroughs
North Slope Borough
Denali Borough
First Class Boroughs
Northwest Arctic Borough
Second Class Boroughs
Bristol Bay Borough
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Kodiak Island Borough
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Third Class Boroughs
Haines Borough
25
-------
C. Coordinating Mechanisms
1. Interaaencv Agreements
Interagency agreements are tools for defining roles and coordinating activities
between agencies, either between or within state, federal, and local agencies. Table
5 lists some existing interagency agreements that affect ground water management.
Informal agreements between agencies also influence coordination.
Table 6: Key Cooperative Interagency Agreements
LUST Trust cooperative agreement between Alaska and EPA - annual
CERCLA cooperative agreement between Alaska and EPA - annual
Cooperative Agreement between the ADF&G, ADNR, ADEC - 1979
Memorandum of Agreement between ADEC, ADOT/PF, ADF&G, ADNR
Statement of Cooperation between Department of Defense and ADEC
- 1992
- 1992
SEA State/Environmental Protection Agency Agreement - annual
Joint Funding Agreements between USGS and DIMR/DGGS and DOW -
agreements exist currently or have in the past, one of the largest being
AWARE program
several
the
2. Federal Agencies and State/Federal Interaction
a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS and the DIMR have an active cooperative funding program which includes
the Alaska Water Resources Evaluation (AWARE) program. The two agencies
frequently undertake hydrologic studies that complement each other. The Phase 2
and Phase 3 studies of the Kenai Peninsula Groundwater Task Force are an example
of such cooperation.
b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Alaska DEC and EPA have several cooperative agreements that define their
relationships and roles with regard to ground water and other environmental issues.
The scope and schedule of the agreements are outlined in the State/EPA Agreement
(SEA), which is renegotiated annually.
c. Department of Defense (POD)
Under the Defense/State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMA), the Department of
Defense provides 1 % of all DERP funds to ADEC for oversight of DOD environmental
restoration. Other agreements outline the cooperative approach to be followed by the
26
-------
agencies and military institutions.
d. National Park Service
The National Park Service role in ground water management has to date been primarily
in response to contaminated sites or hazardous waste issues. The Service's regional
office in Anchorage has one person designated to coordinate site remediation and
investigation issues, which include such things as underground storage tank closures
at parks and hazardous material removal. There is no memorandum of understanding
between DEC and the National Park Service.
e. Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a Hazardous Materials program which
investigates and addresses known or potential contamination on land it administers.
The BLM has conducted site investigations at a number of sites in Alaska but, to date,
no ground water sampling or monitoring has been included in the site work. The BLM
anticipates that it will initiate ground water monitoring on sites at several locations in
the near future. BLM has not entered into a cooperative agreement with the DEC.
3. Planning Initiatives
a. Community Agreements
DEC has signed some agreements and is currently negotiating others to outline the
roles that the two parties will assume with regard to environmental protection and
management. Communities have been encouraged to include ground water protection
provisions. However, even the agreement for the Kenai Peninsula, where ground
water quality is a major priority, contained no specific provision for ground water
protection. (The draft agreement was not reviewed by the Ground Water Program.)
Communities are also encouraged to include provisions regarding specific sources,
such as leaking underground storage tanks or hazardous waste. An example of a
ground water provision, drawn from the Fairbanks community agreement, reads:
Present Situation: DEC and others are finding an increasing number of locations
with ground water pollution. As part of the Environmental Problem Solving
Task Force there is a sub-group working on ground water protection issues.
Strategy: DEC will assist the ground water sub-group with identifying all the
issues related to protecting the water supplies for the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, Fairbanks and North Pole areas. DEC has done this in other areas of
the state.
Goals: To coordinate DEC, FNSB, Fairbanks and North Pole activities with other
state and federal agencies to develop a phased approach to move from
response to ground water pollution to prevention of ground water pollution.
This approach will be specific to the needs of the Fairbanks areas.
27
-------
DEC has had excellent success in other areas with community agreements.
Involvement of local people in planning will significantly enhance the likelihood of
successful implementation. With respect to ground water, however, this tool remains
largely unused.
b. Coastal Zone Management Districts
The Coastal Zone Management Program requires that communities comprehensively
plan development activities that occur within the coastal area. A few communities
have used this opportunity to include ground water protection provisions in their
planning process. This is an area where coordination can be expanded in the future.
4. DEC Coordination Mechanism
In March 1993 top DEC managers agreed to establish a system for coordinating
ground water related activities within the Department. Ground water contacts were
appointed for each program, region and division within DEC. The ground water
contacts shall have primary responsibility for coordinating with the Ground Water
Program.
D. Resources
The comprehensive implementation of the Alaska Groundwater Quality Protection
Strategy requires commitments of resources and funding from a variety of local, state
and federal governments, industry and the broad public. The Strategy identifies a
number of tasks which should be shared among participants in this regard:
identify resources needed to implement recommendations (EPA, DEC,
DNR, Department of Community and Regional Affairs, League of Women
Voters, USGS);
identify all federal funds available for implementing Strategy;
identify all current funding sources used for ground water protection;
identify options for additional in-state funding; and
identify sources of private foundation or industry funding.
Federal funding dominates environmental protection activities in Alaska. Because of
this, protection efforts are directed towards national priorities, not necessarily state
priorities. Much time is spent meeting federal program and reporting requirements.
A clear need exists to develop additional state and local funding to implement state
priorities that may not be addressed in the national priorities.
Activities in the Ground Water Protection Program in the Department of Environmental
28
-------
Conservation have been funded primarily from federal program grants (pesticides,
319, 205(j), 106, drinking water, LUST/UST, RCRA) and state general funds devoted
to these programs. The DEC has not formally sought and the State of Alaska
legislature has not provided any funds specifically for the DEC's Ground Water
Protection Program. The Department of Natural Resources funding is primarily state
general funds. Efforts of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC)
in the UIC program have been funded with a combination of federal UIC funds and
general funds. Local governments fund operations through local taxes, assessments
and state and federal funds.
State agencies currently lack a coordinated operating budget strategy which could be
used to request a single legislative general fund appropriation that would be
distributed via RSA to the participating departments. Individual departments submit
their own budget requests.
The State is progressing towards increasing opportunities to share equipment and
software for the Global Satellite Positioning System (GPS or GSPS), geographic
information systems (GIS) and mapping, etc. and to making use of matching grant
opportunities with the USGS in aquifer investigations.
PART IV. IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 4: Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the state's
ground water protection goal consistent with the state's priorities and schedules;
A. Source Control Programs
1. Nonpoint Source Program
DEC established the non-point source (NPS) program in 1987 and completed and
received EPA approval of the Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy in
1990. The NPS strategy delineates six source categories, of which ground water is
one, that are used to focus NPS activities. Other elements of the NPS program
include forest practices, mining, urban development, agriculture, Alaska Water Watch
citizens monitoring, and oil and gas development and production. EPA guidance
allows at least 10% of CWA Section 319 (NPS) grants to be reserved for use on
ground water protection projects.
2. Pollution Prevention Program
DEC created a Pollution Prevention Program in 1990 which is staffed at present with
4 people. The program focuses on projects that reduce waste at the source. Current
pollution prevention projects include helping coordinate a battery recycling program
among oil field service companies on Alaska's North Slope, and helping facilitate the
Green Star and Earth Star programs with the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and
29
-------
Alaska Center for the Environment. Green Star and Earth Star are voluntary programs
in which businesses commit to reducing their waste stream by incorporating specific
measures into daily operations.
3. Siting Criteria
a. Hazardous Waste Facilities
In addition to hazardous waste facility operation regulations, Alaska has regulations
for the siting of hazardous waste facilities. These regulations state that no person
may construct or operate a hazardous waste management facility, hazardous waste
UIC well, a PCB incinerator, or a chemical waste landfill without the required permit
or approval. Once a facility operator submits an application, the Commissioner of DEC
appoints an advisory committee. After the committee reviews the application, it
prepares a report on its findings and distributes it to the Commissioner, among others.
A hazardous waste management facility may not be located closer than 100 meters
to a sole source aquifer. A storage, treatment or disposal facility must be 150 feet
from a water supply point; an incinerator 1500 feet from a water supply point; and
a land disposal facility or UIC well must be 3000 feet from a water supply point. DEC
may, at its discretion, require a greater setback if necessary to protect public health.
In addition to other requirements, applicants for a hazardous waste land facility for a
chemical waste landfill must also include a proposed ground water monitoring program
that meets the requirements of RCRA (40 CFR 265.91 or 40 CFR 761.75), well logs
and a geotechnical report. (Test holes must be cased and abandoned holes must be
plugged in such a way as to preclude the possibility of transporting hazardous waste
to the sub-surface.)
Additional requirements under the Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 63.130) state
that an applicant must demonstrate to DEC that the naturally occurring geologic strata
are capable of preventing the release of waste to the environment for 1000 years, or
some demonstrated shorter time period in which the wastes would be transformed to
an innocuous condition. Specifically concerning ground water, the applicant must
show that there is a 90% probability that the thickness and permeability of the
geologic strata immediately surrounding the site will, for 115 years, prevent contact
with any aquifer suitable for use as a drinking water supply. The applicant is also
required to submit a ground water characterization; the location and identification of
all aquifers within a 500 meter radius of the proposed site; delineation on the
topographic map of the proposed active portions of the facility; identification on the
map of all domestic, municipal or industrial water wells within 5000 meters in all
directions of the property line of the proposed facility. The DEC has the authority to
approve or disapprove an application or approve an application with conditions.
30
-------
b. Wastewater Systems
Wastewater disposal systems must meet minimum separation distances outlined in
18 AAC 72.015 when near a water supply well. These minimum distances are set
forth in the table below. In specific permits, greater separation distances may be
required by the DEC when necessary to protect drinking water quality.
Table 7: Minimum Separation Distances Between Surface or Subsurface Drinking
Water Sources and Potential Sources of Contamination
(Measured horizontally in feet)
Potential Sources of
Contamination
Wastewater treatment works*,
wastewater disposal systemA,
privyA, sewer manhole and lift
station, sewer cleanout
Community sewer line, holding
tankA, other potential sources of
contamination8
Private sewer line, petroleum lines
and storage tanks0, and drinking
water treatment wastes0
Type of System
Class A &
B Systems
200
200
100
Class C
Systems
150
100
75
Private
Systems
100
75
25
Distance is measured from the nearest edge of the soil absorption system,
seepage pit, septic tank, holding tank or privy to a drinking water source
Other potential sources of contamination include sanitary landfills, domestic
animal and agricultural wastes, and industrial discharge lines
The minimum separation distances listed for petroleum storage tanks do not
apply to propane, nor to noncommercial quantities (less than 500 gallons) of
petroleum products that are stored in above-ground storage tanks or drums and
are necessary for the operation and maintenance of pumps, power generation
systems, or heating systems associated with a potable water well or other
potable water source. In this case, "petroleum products" refers to fuel and
lubricants
Drinking water treatment wastes include the backwash water from filters and
water softeners, and reject water from reverse osmosis units
31
-------
c. Solid Waste Facilities
There are few explicit siting criteria for solid waste facilities, only that no solid waste
shall be placed in surface water. In addition, for landspreading operations, a minimum
separation of six feet between the seasonal high water table and the land surface is
required. Other siting criteria are performance-based and left to the discretion of the
permit-writer.
4. Permitting Programs
a. Waste Water
The Waste Water Program is a permit program covering waste water disposal from
domestic and industrial sources. Each has its own set of regulations governing the
disposal permits, plan reviews and enforcement.
The program covers waste water discharges to water and land. One main objective
in permitting waste water disposal to land is to protect ground water from
contamination. As noted above in the discussion of Alaska's Groundwater Quality
Protection Strategy, failed domestic wastewater disposal systems constitute the
second largest source of ground water contamination in Alaska.
Both domestic and industrial waste water programs cover plan reviews and the
issuance of discharge permits. Engineering plans are required for both new and
modified facilities. The plans are reviewed for ground-water impacts, but a thorough
assessment of ground water impacts is not done. The state has design standards for
domestic discharge systems but there are no design standards for industrial systems.
For industrial systems, a permit is required prior to construction and design standards
may be stipulated in the permit. For industrial facilities, design standards are
established on a case by case basis. There are no regulations or guidance to cover
industrial discharges to ground water. In such cases, land application is considered
the treatment method. The state has been relying on other broad based state
authorities (i.e. mandate to protect the environment, AS 46.03) to protect ground
water from industrial waste water discharges.
Requirements for a domestic discharge system depends on the size of the system.
An engineering plan is required of all systems, but a permit is not required for an
on-site septic system less than 2,500 gallons per day. For systems handling more
than 2,500 gallons per day, the applicant must submit, along with the engineering
plan: information on the site's percolation ability, sub-surface absorption rate, and
nitrate analysis.
The discharge permits establish the effluent limits that must be met. While there are
ground-water standards, their application in a permit is not well understood. There
is little guidance or training on how to apply the ground-water standards in a
discharge permit, particularly with respect to points of compliance for septic systems
32
-------
in areas with shallow ground water.
The state has the authority to require ground water monitoring and is increasingly
requiring monitoring in permits.
Once an engineering plan is approved, and a state discharge permit is issued, there
is relatively little follow-up in terms of ensuring compliance with the standards and
conditions of the permits. In general, monitoring reports are not extensively reviewed
and there are few or no site inspections. The program has enforcement authority, but
it lacks staff and clear policy direction on enforcement issues. Therefore, there is little
enforcement or follow-up action.
The wastewater program lacks substantial data management and data tracking
systems. The central office has tried, with only limited success, to get the regional
offices to use a standardized permit tracking system. Each region uses its own unique
permits tracking system. Monitoring data are not entered in a centralized data
management system, although there is increasing interest in doing so. At least 17
facilities require ground water monitoring (or soon will) and ground water
contamination has been detected at least one of these. Since data have not been
summarized or stored in any readily accessible format, no better estimate can be made
at this time. The number of facilities adversely affecting ground water may be much
higher.
Municipalities may petition DEC to allow them to assume authority for domestic waste
water system plan review. To date, only the Municipality of Anchorage has assumed
this authority.
b. Solid Waste
Alaska's Solid Waste Program has the authority to regulate solid waste landfills in the
state. The Program regulates landfills primarily through permit and closure
requirements. There is also an inspection program to ensure compliance with permit
or closure requirements. There are believed to be approximately 750 municipal and
industrial landfills in the state requiring permits. Of those, approximately half have
permits.
The permit requirements cover design standards, and limit the type of wastes that
may be placed in the landfill. An applicant for a permit must submit specific
information including:
the type of wastes to be disposed;
location, population and geographical area to be served;
identification of major hydrogeologic and geological features;
the location of domestic wells within 1/2 mile of proposed site;
public water systems within 2 miles;
description of operating procedures;
33
-------
methods for controlling water pollution and engineering design standards
for containment structures; and
operation and maintenance plan.
Additional requirements are required for landfills: (1) serving a population greater than
2000 (annual average); (2) receiving five or more tons per day of municipal,
construction and demolition waste; (3) accepting wastes containing 10% or more
sewage, septage, sludge, fluid or soluble industrial wastes; (4) accepting drilling
wastes; or (5) which are deemed by DEC to have a "significant potential" for releases
(eg: of leachate) which will violate water quality standards or drinking water
standards. Included in this last criteria is any aquifer which "otherwise would be
suitable for use as a drinking water supply." For landfills falling under these
categories, an applicant must conduct a site evaluation that includes a ground-water
characterization. In addition, the applicant must submit a ground-water monitoring
plan that must meet state requirements set forth in 18 AAC 60.310. Finally, a
closure plan is required along with the permit application.
DEC may issue or deny a permit, after review of the application based on compliance
with air quality regulations, water quality standards, drinking water standards, and the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program. DEC may condition the permit to ensure
compliance with state laws and regulations. Conditions may include design,
construction, operation, and closure requirements. DEC may also require proof of
financial responsibility for compliance with closure and post closure requirements.
While ground-water monitoring is required in regulation at all larger (as described
above) landfills, DEC may require ground water monitoring at any landfill. There are
20 landfills where ground water monitoring is currently required.
Reporting requirements are minimal. The permittee is required to keep monitoring
records and is required to submit these records at a frequency specified in the permit.
However, reports are not encoded in any database. It is therefore effectively
impossible to determine which sites monitor ground water much less what the results
of such monitoring may be. The permittee is required to notify DEC within seven days
if contamination is detected above the applicable water quality standard. The
permittee is then required to determine extent of the problem and take corrective
action.
There are no specific requirements that landfills be lined and very few landfills have
been required to have liners. Facility siting criteria state that solid waste may not be
placed in surface water or in a location where surface water may flow through it.
Further, the facility must be sited and operated in such a manner that waste, leachate
or eroded soil do not cause violations of water quality or drinking water standards.
Inspections of landfills are conducted by DEC. All landfills that serve over 2000 are
34
-------
inspected three times a year. Monitoring data are not reviewed on a consistent basis.
For some landfills, the data are not reviewed at all.
The closure requirements state that 90 days after ceasing to accept waste, the facility
has to be closed down according to the closure plan specified in the permit. There
is no requirement that the operator notify DEC of closure. The site must continue
monitoring for at least five years, although this may be extend to thirty years.
Although there is a requirement for a permittee to conduct a site evaluation-including
a ground-water characterization, there is minimal guidance for DEC staff on how to
interpret the information supplied by the applicant. There is also no guidance for
evaluating the monitoring plans submitted by an applicant.
DEC is developing a data management system to track permits.
Coordination with the Facility Construction and Operation Division is minimal.
The program is currently rewriting Alaska solid waste regulations to conform with new
federal Subtitle D regulations "Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria" published in the
Federal Register October 9, 1991.
The solid waste program is totally state funded.
c. Underground Storage Tank Program
House Bill 220 established an underground storage tank program in Alaska. The
program established under the bill provides for financial assistance for owners and
operators to upgrade, test, and/or remove tanks. It also established a contractor
certification/licensing program for removers, testers, and installers, as well as a
leaking underground storage tank corrective action program. Finally, the law
established a Board of Storage Tank Assistance and charged it with developing
regulations and a program to "abate and prevent pollution from underground
petroleum storage tanks." The Board did develop underground storage tank
regulations, which were adopted in final form in August 1991. The regulations are
very similar to EPA's underground storage tank regulations. The Alaska program has
yet to be delegated to the state.
Owners and operators of underground storage tanks are required to register their
tanks with the state. This is separate from the federal program registration
requirement. There is a fee to register tanks, but it is reduced for tanks that meet
upgraded standards. Fees range from a low of $50 to a high of $500 per tank. The
State estimates that about eighty percent of underground storage tanks on its
database are registered, excluding federal and state-owned tanks, for which
registration fees are not required. There is a penalty assessed for non-notifiers. At
the time of registration, the owner is required to either perform a tank tightness test
35
-------
or conduct a site assessment to determine if the tank or associated piping is leaking.
The registration form includes information requests on the proximity of tank to
buildings and residences. It does not, however, require information on proximity to
drinking water wells or other types of wells.
The financial assistance part of the program provides financing to registered tank
owners to assist them in complying with federal and state requirements. The financial
assistance is available for tank testing, site assessments, and corrective action.
Currently, the financial assistance program is supported through an appropriation from
the state Legislature.
The Alaska UST program does not yet have a well-developed program to ensure
compliance with the state or federal underground storage tank requirements. It does
not carry out inspections on tank installations, removals, upgrades, nor does it follow-
up on leak detection reports.
Alaska's program is similar to EPA's in that it does not cover above ground tanks, nor
residential home heating oil tanks. The state has received contingency plans for an
uncounted number of above-ground fuel storage facilities. Data on these is not
routinely entered into any searchable database. Although some such sites may be
entered in the Contaminated Sites Database, information encoded there is limited and
even the number is indeterminate.
DEC maintains an automated data management system to track tank registration,
upgrades, closure, and clean up.
d. Underground Injection Control Program
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program was authorized by Part C of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA regulations promulgated in response to the
SDWA catagorized devices used to emplace fluids into the subsurface into five classes
of injection wells. Wells regulated under the UIC Program are classified by their type,
location, and depth, as follows:
Class I: used to inject hazardous waste or industrial and municipal fluids
beneath the lowest formation containing an underground source
of drinking water (USDW) within 1/4 mile;
36
-------
Class II: used to inject fluids (1) brought to the surface in connection with
natural gas storage operations, or conventional oil or natural gas
production and may be commingled with waste waters from gas
plants which are an integral part of production operations, unless
those waters are classified as a hazardous waste at the time of
injection, (2) for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas, or (3) for
storage of hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard temperature
and pressure;
Class III: used to inject fluids for extraction of minerals;
Class IV: used to inject hazardous waste into or above a formation which
contains an underground source of drinking water within 1/4 mile;
Class V: all injection wells not included in the other four classes.
EPA has delegated the regulation of Class II injection wells to the Alaska Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). There are currently no Class III wells in
Alaska. Class IV wells are no longer legal, and any such wells discovered are required
to be properly closed by EPA.
Class I Injection Wells:
There are three Class I wells, all on the North Slope and all three operated by
ARCO. The three wells are used for the disposal of non-hazardous industrial waste
generated at the Prudhoe Bay Field. The injection wells are not located near any
drinking water sources. Each of these wells has an EPA permit which requires
quarterly reporting about the fluid volume, fluid composition, and injection pressures.
EPA typically conducts an inspection of these injection wells annually. There have
been no significant compliance problems with any of these injection wells.
Class V Injection Wells:
EPA has inventoried and subclassified 2560 Class V injection wells throughout
the state of Alaska. Most of these (2086) are large on-site sewage systems (defined
as those that typically serve 20 or more people each day) which utilize a septic tank
and drainfield to treat/dispose of sanitary waste water. The next largest subclass of
inventoried Class V injection wells (252) are industrial waste water disposal wells.
A subclass listing of inventoried Class V injection wells appears in Table 8 below.
37
-------
Table 8: Inventoried Class V Injection Wells
Subclass
5W-32
5W-20
5X-28
5D-2
5D-4
5W-31
5W-11
5 A- 19
5W-12
5W-10
5X-26
5X-13
5F-1
Large septic tank and drainfield systems
Industrial waste water disposal systems
Automobile service fluid disposal devices
Storm water drainage wells
Industrial area storm water drainage wells
Large septic tank and disposal well systems
Large septic systems-undifferentiated
Cooling water return flow wells
Sanitary treatment plant effluent disposal
Large sanitary cesspools
Aquifer remediation wells
Mine backfill wells
Agricultural drainage wells
Total Inventory Subclassified
Number Inventoried
2086
252
59
48
38
20
17
13
5
5
5
1
1
2560
Inventory information was collected from a number of sources. Most of the
information came from a review of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) files. The remainder of the information came from responses to inventory
requests sent by EPA to trade associations, individual businesses, and federal
agencies, or through EPA field inspections. The EPA inventory effort has probably
identified most of the 5W-32 wells, many of the 5W-20 wells, but only a small
proportion of the other injection well subclasses.
Class V injection wells are currently authorized by rule rather than by individual,
group, or general permit. The conditions for operation are twofold. First, the
owner/operator must have submitted an EPA inventory form which requests very
minimal information such as name, address, and type of operation. No information
about injectate quality, injection rate, treatment capacity of soil or other geologic
materials, depth to ground water, etc. is required. Second, the owner/operator must
operate the injection well in a manner which prevents ground water from being
"endangered", defined as contaminated to the point of exceeding a primary drinking
water standard (see CFR 14.12). In order to ensure compliance, EPA may at any time
request information needed to determine whether or not an injection well is
38
-------
endangering a USDW (see CFR 144.27). Also, EPA may require an owner/operator
to obtain a permit (see CFR 144.25).
In order to obtain a Class V injection well permit, the applicant must
demonstrate that the injectate meets drinking water standards at the point of injection
or that the geologic materials within the unsaturated zone will attenuate the injectate
so that drinking water standards are not violated in any part of the USDW. There is
no national Class V permit application form or technical guidance document. Instead,
EPA Regions are on their own in terms of the information they request from
applicants, how they answer questions from applicants, and how they evaluate permit
applications.
EPA is currently focusing its compliance efforts on 5X-28 and 5W-20 wells
within the Kenai Penninsula, Fairbanks, and the greater Anchorage area. The people
in these areas depend heavily upon ground water (drawn mostly from shallow aquifers
of glacio-fluvial origin) which is susceptible to contamination from shallow injection
wells. Much of the state's population is centered in these areas, and they are easily
accesible from the EPA field office in Anchorage.
Over the past six months, an EPA UIC Program inspector based in Anchorage
has visited over 150 facilities with 5X-28 and 5W-20 wells. A number of these
facilities have been or will be required to either close their injection wells or apply for
a permit to continue operation. With few exceptions, owners/operators are choosing
to close these injection wells rather than seek a permit. Additionally, EPA has been
working to obtain closure of about 50 5X-28 wells inspected by EPA contractors
between 1988 and 1991.
In Fairbanks, EPA Region 10 is using UIC Program contact money made
available by EPA Headquarters toward the end of FY 1993 to identify all potential
sources of ground water contamination in an approximately one square-mile area in
the vicinity of the municipal water supply wellfield. This intensive inventory effort is
intended to identify a) what proportion of contaminant sources in the area are under
the purview of the UIC Program, b) what percentage of Class V injection wells in the
area are already inventoried, and c) which Class V injection wells should receive a
follow-up compliance inspection.
With regard to 5X-28 injection wells, EPA and ADEC have identified some
jurisdictional overlap. EPA has sole responsibility for Class V compliance efforts,
including approving injection well closure plans. However, some owners/operators of
5X-28 wells are also subject to ADEC action under state law which prohibits the
release of petroleum products to the ground or subsurface. In an effort to keep ADEC
informed of its actions at particular sites, the EPA UIC Program sends copies of key
correspondence to the appropriate ADEC Regional Office.
39
-------
EPA has not developed any national technical guidance for the closure of Class
V injection wells. Instead, each EPA Region is responsible for deciding what
constitutes effective closure. EPA Region 10 has taken the approach used by Region
9 and adopted as part of a national administrative order against the marketing arms
of 10 major oil companies. In short, this approach requires the cessation of injection,
the removal of visibly contaminated soil and other geologic materials, and testing to
see whether or not the contaminated material is a RCRA hazardous waste. But EPA
does not typically require ground water sampling beneath the site. ADEC has pointed
out that EPA might thus unwittingly approve closure plans at sites that have seriously
contaminated ground water without even knowing that the contamination exists. EPA
Region 10 agrees with this criticism, but thinks that in most cases the likelihood of
this occurrence is low. Further, EPA has alerted owners/operators of 5X-28 injection
wells that proper closure under EPA supervision does not absolve them from further
local, state, or federal action in the event that past injection practices have seriously
contaminated ground water.
Class II Injection Wells: The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC)
assumed primacy for regulating Class II underground injection wells from EPA in
1986. The AOGCC regulates exploration, development, production and abandonment
operations related to oil and gas wells, in addition to the underground injection of non-
hazardous materials associated with oil and gas wells. The agency receives a
$100,000 grant from EPA to run the program.
The Class II program covers three types of wells: disposal wells, enhanced recovery
wells and hydrocarbon wells. These wells are used to inject fluids below any
underground sources of drinking which are present. The regulations for the program
are to ensure that the wells operate such that fresh water sources are protected. As
of March 1993, there were approximately 688 permitted class II wells, the majority
of which are located on the North Slope, followed by Cook Inlet. AOGCC has a data
management system to track Class II wells.
Typically the wastes include produced water, drilling muds, or other non-hazardous
materials used in oil and gas development. The wastes are usually injected in strata
1,000 feet or more below the ground surface.
Two types of permits are issued under the Class II program. The first type is an area
injection order, which covers all wells in a field. The second type is a disposal or
injection order for a single well. The operator must demonstrate that the proposed
disposal or storage operation will not allow the movement of fluid into sources of
freshwater. The applicant must provide evidence and data to show that the proposed
disposal or storage well will not initiate or propagate fractures through the confining
zones which might enable the injection fluid or formation fluid to enter any freshwater
strata.
40
-------
An applicant for a Class II permit must submit an application providing all the required
information, including how the well is to be constructed, the injection zone, the depth
of the underground source of drinking water, and analyses of the water within the
receiving formation. The AOGCC staff of geologists and engineers then reviews the
application. The AOGCC has the authority to either approve or deny the permit.
Once issued, a permit is good for the life of the field.
The AOGCC has regulations covering requirements for well construction (casing and
cementing requirements), plus record-keeping and reporting (well logs; monthly report
on volumes injected and other data). To determine mechanical integrity of the well,
an operator must monitor the pressure in the tubing and casing on a regular basis.
The AOGCC also has regulations covering plugging and abandonment requirements.
An operator is required to submit an abandonment proposal for approval prior to the
expiration of the project. The regulations detail how an operator must plug and
abandon the well.
Finally, the AOGCC has the authority after approval by EPA to exempt a freshwater
aquifer from protection. The commission and EPA may designate a freshwater aquifer
exempt if the aquifer meets the following criteria:
a. It does not now or will ever be able to serve as a source of drinking
water because it is hydrocarbon producing; it is at a depth or location
that makes recovery for drinking water economically or technically
impractical; or it is so contaminated that recovery for drinking water is
economically or technically impractical.
b. The total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the ground water is more
than 3000 mg/l.
To apply for exemption of a fresh water aquifer, an applicant submits a letter that
includes sufficient data to justify the proposal and to substantiate that the criteria are
met. There are 11 exempt aquifers in the state: Granite Point, Swanson River,
Beaver Creek, Kenai Gas, Me Arthur River, Middle Ground Shoals, Trading Bay, Beluga
River, Prudhoe Bay Field-Western Operating Area, Kuparuk River Field/Milne Point
Unit, and Lewis River Gas Field.
e. Hazardous Waste Management Program
The goal of Alaska's Hazardous Waste Management Program is to eliminate risks to
human health and the environment from improperly managed hazardous waste.
Alaska's hazardous waste management program is similar to EPA's RCRA program,
but is more limited. Alaska is not authorized to administer the RCRA program,
however, it is working to build its capabilities to eventually administer an authorized
RCRA program. In the meantime, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
41
-------
between EPA and DEC, DEC cooperates with EPA in the implementation of the RCRA
hazardous waste management program.
The MOU outlines DEC's role in assisting EPA in carrying out the activities of the
RCRA program namely, permitting, compliance and enforcement activities, including
corrective action. DEC and EPA jointly issue permits to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. DEC has the primary role for conducting inspections,
while EPA has prime responsibility for taking enforcement actions for violations of
RCRA regulations.
There are 4 land disposal facilities, 13 transfer/storage facilities, 750 generators, 140
transporters (40 active) and 100 used oil burning or blending facilities.
DEC's authority for regulating hazardous waste facilities comes from AS 46.03.
These regulations, similar in scope to EPA's RCRA regulations, provide permitting and
enforcement authorities. Under AS 46.03 the state may issue notices of violation
(IMOVs) or compliance orders.
DEC follows EPA's guidelines for conducting inspections of hazardous waste facilities,
focusing on compliance with regulations, permit conditions, orders and corrective
action conditions. DEC's inspection capabilities are limited due to lack of trained
staff. Currently the 5 credentialed inspectors conduct about 35 inspection a year.
To encourage compliance, DEC carries out an education program. There is estimated
to be a large number of unregulated facilities. Alaska has a non-notifier initiative
under which they inspect categories of facilities likely to generate hazardous waste.
Regulated facilities are required to submit annual reports. This applies to small
quantity generators as well.
The hazardous Waste Program is in the process of converting over to RCRIS, an EPA
hazardous waste facility tracking system. Alaska also has its own manifest tracking
system, although this is being phased out due to funding cuts. Data from monitoring
wells at hazardous waste facilities does not go into a data management system.
DEC is folding pollution prevention requirements into hazardous waste permits and
enforcement actions.
f. Mining
The Division of Mining (DNR) administers the leasing of minerals and coal development
on state lands. It is responsible for issuing permits, monitoring requirements,
inspection and enforcement for surface coal mines. When coal mining will affect
aquifer recharge, areas may be designated unsuitable for surface coal mining. Ground
water investigation and monitoring regulations for surface coal mining are described
42
-------
in 11 AAC 90, Surface Coal Mining. Applicants must describe existing ground water
quality and its use in the proposed mining area and provide reclamation plans for the
protection of the hydrologic balance. The mining operation must be designed to
conform with performance standards on the following: the hydrologic balance; water
quality standards; acid-forming and toxic-forming spoil; ground water protection;
protection of ground water recharge capacity; surface and ground water monitoring;
hazardous coal processing waste water control measures; and alluvial valley floor
requirements.
B. Response Programs
1. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program
Alaska has been participating in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Program since 1987. The State's responsibilities under the program are identified in
the LUST Trust Cooperative Agreement between Alaska and EPA. The State is
authorized to: oversee responsible party cleanups; conduct emergency response
activities; conduct initial investigations of potential LUST sites; carry out enforcement
activities; and undertake corrective actions if necessary. Most of the efforts are on
oversight of responsible party cleanups.
As of March 31, 1993, the LUST program has identified 684 LUST sites in Alaska.
Corrective action (investigation or cleanup) is occurring at about 450 sites. The
responsible party is responsible for the investigation and cleanup of the site. The
LUST staff oversee the responsible party's work. The cleanup guidelines are those
established by state policy and regulations.
The state has a cleanup fund to use to pay for cleanups where there is no responsible
party or the responsible party is recalcitrant, or there is an emergency situation. The
State has developed a ranking system to rank sites for attention. The hazardous
ranking model is based on health risk, depth to ground water, distance to surface
water and toxicity of the leaking substance. The state has financed a number of
cleanups but still has about $45 million in unaddressed requests.
Cleanup levels are determined by use of a matrix found in formally-approved
department cleanup guidelines. It is at the discretion of the regional office, for the
region in which the site is located, to determine the point of compliance and when a
cleanup level has been achieved. Ground water sampling is required at sites where
a release is suspected or confirmed and where ground water is encountered in the
excavation. Soil samples are required for all UST removals. A current issue is the
treatment standard (drinking water MCL or aquatic life standard) for contaminated
ground water.
There is no formal requirement that the drinking water program be notified of a LUST
site in proximity of a drinking water source. Informal notification may occur at the
43
-------
regional office level.
With the passage of HB 220 in 1990, the Alaska Underground Storage Tank Program
was established. Part of the mandate of the UST program was to provide technical
and financial assistance to UST owners to help them comply with the new
regulations. The law directed that a Board of Storage Tank Assistance be formed,
composed of five public members and two members representing DEC and DOT. The
Storage Tank Assistance Fund received more than 6 million dollars in fiscal year 1991
but for several reasons most of this did not get spent during 1991 and was "rolled
over" to fiscal year 1992. About $5 million was appropriated in fiscal year 1993 and
the 1994 budget includes $4.5 million. In addition the board receives about
$500,000 each year from the registration fees and similar sources. However, the
Board will begin fiscal year 1994 with a backlog of more than $33 million in requests.
2. Contaminated Sites Program
Alaska has its own superfund-like program with state statutes providing clean up
authority and funding. The program has been in existence since 1990. The funds
come from a $.05/barrel surcharge on oil flowing through the pipeline. Access to the
fund for clean up at a site will be based on where the site ranks on the State's priority
ranking model. The state has developed a hazard ranking system distinct from EPA's
to list and rank sites. The state is required to recover cleanup up costs from
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), so there is an incentive for the PRP to do the
cleanup. The program has guidelines for remediation process. They are in process
of developing guidance for determining appropriate cleanup levels. Cleanup levels are
still at the discretion of the Regional Office supervisor.
For some ground water remediation projects, reinjection of treated water that exceeds
water quality standards may be permitted if the plume is well contained and the water
is reinjected into the contaminated zone. The policy for reinjection of treated water
is currently under development.
There were approximately 1300 sites on the state contaminated sites list as of March
1992. This includes LUST sites (684 as of March 31, 1993) and the sites on EPAs
CERCLIS list. To date the focus of the state's cleanup activity has been on site
investigation and oversight of PRP cleanups.
The state does not have a formal site discovery process. Most sites are identified by
complaint or as a result of the LUST program incentives.
The Contaminated Sites Program is addressing about 150 sites per year.
The Defense/State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMA) program was established
within the Contaminated Sites Program to oversee environmental investigation and
remediation projects at Department of Defense sites. The DSMA directs DOD to
44
-------
provide a grant equal to 1 % of its DERP costs to DEC for oversight. The program has
four staff at both the Southcentral and Northern regional DEC offices. The programs
oversee all department of defense environmental programs, including site restoration
activities at Elmendorf AFB, Eielson AFB, Ft. Wainwright, Adak and other DOD sites.
3. Suoerfund Program
EPA is responsible for implementing the Superfund program in Alaska as elsewhere
under the authority of "Superfund" legislation: the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act. The State of Alaska conducts pre-remedial Preliminary
Assessments (PA) and Site Inspections (SI) of sites suspected of past uncontrolled
hazardous substance disposal. This work is funded under a cooperative agreement
with EPA.
At this time there are approximately 240 sites on the CERCLIS list for Alaska. There
are six sites: three private and three federal, on the National Priority List. Three sites
are undergoing re-evaluation. There is no formal site discovery process. Sites are
usually identified by citizen complaints or department investigators. All sites listed
CERCLIS must undergo the PA process to determine whether or not further action is
required.
The purpose of PAs and Sis is to collect sufficient data to enable evaluation of the
site's potential for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) and, for those sites
determined to be NPL candidates, establish priorities for additional action. The sites
are ranked relative to other sites across the nation by a scoring process designed for
EPA called the Revised Hazardous Ranking System (RHRS). Sites that are determined
to require no further investigation under the CERCLA program remain on the CERCLIS
but are flagged with "no further action." These sites are then referred to the state
Contaminated Sites Program for possible investigation using state funding sources.
Currently there are six NPL sites in Alaska. Three are privately owned and three are
federal sites. At the present time there are ten sites in the Preliminary Assessment
stage and two sites having Site Inspections conducted. There are three sites that are
being evaluated under the RHRS which came into effect in December 1991.
The sites that are recommended for further action under the CERCLA program at the
SI stage are then turned over to EPA to determine whether they qualify for NPL listing
and remediation funded by the CERCLA program.
45
-------
C. Water Supply Programs
1. Drinking Water
18 AAC 80 establishes three classes of public water supply systems as follows:
A a system that regularly serves the same 25 or more persons for at least six
months of the year OR that is expected to serve "in the normal course of
events" at least 25 residents, 10 service connections used by residents or 13
or more bedrooms used by residents
B a system that is not Class A but is expected to serve "in the normal course of
events" at least 25 person each day or 10 service connections for at least 60
days of the year
C a public water system that is neither Class A nor Class B
There are roughly 510 Class A, 1100 Class B and 900 Class C drinking water supply
systems in Alaska. (There may be more because the state is not always notified
when a new system goes in.) Eighty-four percent of the identified public water
supplies in Alaska rely on ground water.
The majority of single family water systems use ground water. The state does not
regulate private systems. There is no accurate count of the number of private water
wells in the state. The Strategy estimated that about 104,000 Alaskans derive their
drinking water from private wells.
The drinking water program is responsible for ensuring that all public water supplies
meet the drinking water requirements. It does this through reviewing the monitoring
data reported by public systems for compliance with drinking water standards. The
program also reviews plans for new systems or modifications to existing systems.
The review includes evaluation of well construction plans and analysis of the water
source to ensure that it is an adequate source. Finally, the program provides technical
assistance to the operators of the systems. The assistance provided includes
interpretations of the regulations, answering questions on water quality testing and
results, providing training on operation and maintenance and conducting sanitary
surveys.
The state's ability to enforce the monitoring and reporting requirements is limited due
to lack of staff and resources. The program doesn't have the ability to enforce all
regulations at all systems at all times. In the SEA, it targets the regulations it will
enforce. The state responds to exceedances of MCLs and bacterial counts.
The state does require a minimum separation distance between surface facilities and
drinking water wells. The set back standard is a uniform standard and does not take
into account unique hydrogeologic conditions of the site; however, a greater
separation distance can be specified. (See Table 7)
46
-------
There are no requirements for systems to plan for future growth or for contingency
planning. The state does assist small systems to find other drinking water sources
when they need a better quality source.
The drinking water program is currently developing procedures for conducting
vulnerability assessments for ground water public water supply systems.
The drinking water program works with the FC&O program in several areas. The
FC&O is supposed to review FC&O-funded proposed projects for drinking water
systems for compliance with drinking water regulations. FC&O is responsible for
operator training and certification.
The state does have a data base (Revelation) to store the drinking water program
monitoring data and public water supply-specific information, and to generate reports.
2. Water Rights and Permitting
DNR's Division of Water manages ground water use through its authority to permit
water withdrawals, designate critical water management areas, require well logs,
impose water well construction requirements, and to do long range planning. This
authority comes from the Water Use Act (AS 46.)
Permits are required for all significant water withdrawals, which is 5,000 gallons per
day or 500 gallons per day for 10 days per year. The user must apply to DNR for a
permit. DNR can approve a permit provided the withdrawal is for beneficial uses and
is in the public interest. In considering the public interest, DNR considers the effect
of the withdrawal on fish and game resources and on public health. DNR may
condition a permit to ensure state water quality standards and/or drinking water
standards are met. It also may condition the permit to ensure compatibility with the
coastal zone management plan. DNR coordinates with DEC on the review of permit
applications.
Once a permit is issued, the permittee is required to meter his/her withdrawal and
submit records to DNR on a specified schedule (either monthly, quarterly, or annually).
The permittee (or the well driller) is also required to submit a well log after the well
is drilled.
Not all water users who withdraw a significant amount of water obtain permits;
however, DNR does not know how extensive this is. Additionally, not all well
construction projects submit well logs to DNR.
Water well data that is required is defined in the regulations. Well construction and
closure requirements are also defined in the regulations.
47
-------
DNR has the authority to inspect and take enforcement action to ensure compliance
with permit, well log requirement, well construction, and closure procedures,
however, there is little enforcement. The approach DNR takes to ensure compliance
is one of cooperation.
3. Critical Water Management Program
DNR may establish critical water management areas (CWMA) to protect a water
resource that is threatened by over-appropriation or contamination. DNR may restrict
activities or uses within a critical water management area.
The criteria for designating a CWMA are outlined in the Department's regulations.
The DNR may designate a CWMA if there is or might be an imminent water shortage
in the area. This shortage may be caused by over appropriation, drought, saltwater
intrusion, or a chemical or toxic contamination rendering the water source unusable.
A state or local agency or 25% of permittees within an area may petition DNR for
such a designation. Once a designation has been made, DNR may restrict or deny
new applications for withdrawals, seek voluntary cutbacks among existing permittees,
or require conservation measures. DNR is required to prepare a management plan.
To date there has been 1 CWMA designated. It is in Juneau and is due to salt water
intrusion.
D. Other Programs that Influence Groundwater
1. Facilities Construction and Operation (FC&O)
Alaska's Facility Construction and Operations Program (FC&O) is similar to EPA's
municipal facilities program. It is essentially a grant program to support the
development waste water treatment systems, solid waste facilities, and drinking
water systems. In addition, this program runs the Construction Grants Program and
the State Revolving Fund Program.
The FC&O program includes three separate financial support programs: the Village
Safe Water Program, the Municipal Matching Grants Program, and the Construction
Grants Program.
The Village Safe Water Program is for the design and construction of wastewater
treatment systems and solid waste facilities for the small communities in the state
(2nd class or less). The program works closely with the Public Health Service.
Funding for the Program comes from funds appropriated by the legislature and from
EPA's Indian set-aside funds.
The Municipal Matching Grants Program is designed to fund 50% of the non-federal
cost of drinking water, waste water treatment, and solid waste facilities for Alaskan
communities organized under Alaska law. The design and construction work is the
responsibility of the community applying for the grant. The funds also may be used
48
-------
for water quality studies that are directed to identify and solve water quality problems.
Communities develop proposals and submit them to FC&O. FC&O decides which
projects will be funded, however in the last few years the legislature and the
Governor's Office have wanted to name the projects to be funded. Funds for this
Program are appropriated by the legislature.
The Construction Grants Program is an extension of the Municipal Matching Grants
Program, with the main difference being that Construction Grants funds can't be used
for drinking water systems or solid waste facilities.
The Construction Grants Program is rapidly being replaced by the State Revolving
Loan Fund Program to support the construction of waste-water treatment projects.
Each year the state develops a list of projects for funding from all the projects
proposals submitted. Projects must go through a review process to ensure
compliance with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. During this review
process, ground-water impacts are evaluated. FC&O has required ground-water
monitoring on some projects.
The FC&O Program also runs the Operator Training Program. An operator of a waste-
water facility has to be licensed and must pass a test to be licensed. Any operator
of a drinking water system serving a population greater than 500 is required to be
certified. FC&O provides a training program, as does the testing and issues licenses.
For remote rural villages, FC&O runs the Remote Maintenance Operator program. The
program provides an experienced maintenance operator who makes the rounds of
remote villages and assists local operators. The remote maintenance operator can
look around a site, identify problems at a facility and recommend repairs. The position
is for assistance, not for enforcement.
For all projects there is a plan review process. FC&O assesses ground water impacts
as part of the review process. The program is still on the learning curve in terms of
evaluating ground-water impacts. FC&O will require a ground-water characterizations
as part of the project plan submittal, but only if deemed necessary. To address
ground-water concerns, FC&O has the authority to condition the grant to ensure
ground-water protection measures are addressed. For example, if a project is in a
ground-water recharge area, FC&O would require the design and the facility to include
a liner. Typically, such conditions would be part of a permit, such as a waste water
discharge permit, but in cases where a project does not require a permit, FC&O could
condition the grant.
There are few specific siting requirements that have to be met. For the most part, the
appropriateness of the siting is based on the "best professional judgment" of the
reviewer. The siting requirements that do exist pertain to the coastal zone
management program (6 AAC 80), earthquake zones, and the set back or separation
distances specified in waste water disposal regulations. A common problem in Alaska
49
-------
concerning siting is that initially the site of the project is isolated, but in time
population moves in around the facility thus creating/raising the risk of impacts from
a facility.
FC&O does coordinate to some extent with the Solid Waste Program and the Drinking
Water Program on project reviews. It is the responsibility of the Drinking Water
Program and the Solid Waste Program to ensure that a project complies with their
regulations. And it is the responsibility of the community sponsoring the project to
comply with the appropriate regulations (applicable permits, etc). FC&O coordinates
with the Solid Waste Program and the Drinking Water Program through project plan
reviews and getting these programs to sign off at major decision points. FC&O is
working on improving coordination with these programs.
2. Pesticides
Alaska's Pesticide Program is managed within the DEC'S Division of Health. Alaska's
agricultural pesticide use seems minimal when compared to the more agriculturally
oriented states in EPA Region 10. Agricultural chemical use is limited to several
clearly defined areas of the state; the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Delta-
Clearwater-Fairbanks area, Kenny Lake, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. In contrast,
other types of pesticide use in the state are not minimal, but are also in relatively
defined areas and industries. For example, large volumes of biocides are utilized by
the oil and gas industry and large volumes of sanitizers and disinfectants are used in
the seafood industry. These volumes directly reflect the size of the industry.
Agriculture represents a small industry in Alaska with over 50% of the cash revenues
being generated from greenhouses and nursery operations. Greenhouses are a
significant agricultural "use" of fungicides and insecticides in the state, but most
practice integrated pest management (IPM) and utilize their pesticides frugally. In
contrast, the large revenues generated from the oil and gas industry make it a very
significant non-agricultural "user" of pesticides. Urban or homeowner use of
pesticides is suspected to be high, but exact figures do not exist due to the lack of
a state registration system compounded with just three formal "pesticide use" surveys
completed and published in the last decade.
In 1989, 10,610 tons of fertilizer was reported to have been used in the state, of
which 4,863 tons was of the nitrogen-urea classification, locally produced in Alaska.
There is currently one urea fertilizer-producing establishment in the state, located on
the Kenai Peninsula. There are no pesticide-producing establishments in the state.
Alaska's pesticide control program has the authority to control the use of pesticide in
the State. Its authority includes certification of applicators and of dealers of restricted
use pesticides; record-keeping requirements; investigating citizen complaints; market
place, use, records inspections; permitting public and aerial pesticide projects; and
storage and disposal of pesticides.
50
-------
Certification and training requirements apply to anyone who uses a restricted use
pesticide or who supervises the use of a restricted use pesticide, or uses or supervises
the use of pesticides for commercial purposes. There are currently 14 certified
applicator categories. To be certified a person must demonstrate knowledge of
pesticide regulations, hazards, and safety by passing a written or oral exam
administered by the Pesticide Program or the Cooperative Extension Program. Material
covered in the exam includes labeling comprehension, safety and environmental
factors, and knowledge of pesticides and types of formulations, and worker protection
for both the private and commercial applicator. Ground water concerns are covered
in the certification training requirements and every test includes a section relating to
ground water protection. Certificates are good for three years and may be renewed
by completing a recertification course and passing an exam. Because of the large size
of the state, the Pesticide Program and the Cooperative Extension Program share in
the certification responsibilities and have an excellent working relationship.
Dealers of restricted-use pesticides must keep records showing the type and amount
of each restricted use pesticide purchased from the manufacturer; an inventory of
restricted-use pesticides; and the names and address of each purchaser of restricted-
use pesticides and proof of certification. The brand name, EPA registration number,
amount, intended use and date of purchase of each restricted use pesticide must also
be recorded. There are just a few restricted use pesticide dealers in the state.
Commercial applicators are required to keep records of all uses of restricted use
pesticides and must make the records available to the Pesticide Program upon request.
Private and commercial pesticide applicators must properly dispose of empty pesticide
containers. Commercial applicators must store pesticides according to the label
instructions and state regulations. Disposal of pesticides is a major problem. There
is no hazardous waste disposal facility within the state and shipping out of state is
very expensive. In order for the state to better regulate pesticide disposal, there
needs to be a pesticide disposal facility. Cooperatively run "SPRING CLEANUPS"
have been very beneficial in alleviating disposal problems, but only organized boroughs
have been able to take advantage of these programs thus far due to the high cost of
the projects.
A permit is required for any pesticide application by a state agency or local
government; for any aerial pesticide application; or any pesticide application to the
water of the state. The permit application must include the pesticide and any
adjuvants to be used, location, purpose of application, copies of labels and MSDSs,
public notice, and methods of excess pesticide disposal. All applicators must be
certified, and there must be sufficient precautions planned to protect the public health
and the environment. A permit may be denied for, among other reasons, inadequate
precautions to protect the environment. The Pesticide Program has the authority to
add conditions, require monitoring, or control any measure it feels is necessary to
51
-------
protect human health and the environment. There is no pesticide registration program
in the state, nor are there any additional state labeling requirements. The permitting
process is done in concert with the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
The state is in the process of developing a pesticide management/monitoring program
and has assembled a multi-agency work group to help develop it. The state has also
on a very small scale begun sampling private and commercial wells for the presence
of the more common pesticides. While there is no program now to address urban
pesticide users, the state hopes to expand its "outreach" program to the homeowner
through the school system and state fairs. The state also maintains a 24-hour toll-free
telephone information/reporting line (800-478-2577) as part of the further extension
of its "outreach" program to all Alaskans.
The Cooperative Extension Service provides training for applicators. The Service has
a soil testing program, although it is not extensively publicized. The Service has a
successful integrated pest management (IPM) program. There is a good working
relationship between the Cooperative Extension Service and the pesticide program.
The Pesticide Infrastructure group addresses pesticide-related concerns, among which
are ground water issues of monitoring, data collection, and pollution prevention. The
group was organized by DEC Division of Environmental Health and is composed of
representatives from DEC, DNR/Division of Agriculture, Municipality of Anchorage, US
Forest Service, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Cooperative Extension Service,
private citizens, USGS, DOD, Borough officials, and other groups and agencies.
3. 401 Certification Program
The National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is
not delegated to the State of Alaska and thus is run by EPA. However, Alaska does
have a role in the issuance of NPDES permits in that Alaska must certify that the
conditions of each NPDES permit meet the state's water quality standards for the
receiving waters.
Alaska reviews the draft permit prepared by EPA to ensure the effluent will meet the
state's water quality standards.
Permits for facilities within the coastal zone, which includes most permits, go through
a multi-agency coordinated review process. The intent of this review process,
coordinated by the Division of Government Coordination, is to ensure that the project
is consistent with the state's coastal zone management plan. In particular, the state
must determine that the effluent meets its water quality standards, set the mixing and
deposition zones, and ensure through permit conditions that the project is not in
conflict with sensitive coastal areas.
In general, ground water impacts have not been an issue with NPDES permits because
52
-------
most NPDES permits have been marine or surface water discharges. If there were a
potential for ground water impacts, they would look more closely at the permit.
However, such reviews do not include ground water characterization. They may
require some monitoring.
Federally-permitted dredge and fill projects under Section 404 also must certify that
such activities will protect ground water quality.
Potential ground water impacts are evaluated for those projects that involve land
application of waste water.
For mining operations, Alaska has liner requirements for the leach pads and tailing
ponds and intends to develop regulations for heap leach mining operations.
PART V. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 5: Coordinating information collection and management to
measure progress, evaluate priorities, and support all ground water-related programs:
Overview
Several state, federal, and local agencies, and the University of Alaska currently
collect ground water information in Alaska. In addition, ground water information is
collected by researchers, consultants, business, and industry. No central storage of
groundwater data currently exists. A workgroup of hydrologists from DEC, DIMR and
USGS are working to develop a set of "Minimum Data Elements for Groundwater,"
an essential first step in the development of a rational coordinated information
management system. DEC'S Commissioner signed a General Management Order on
June 30, 1993, establishing the "Elements" as a department requirement for
collection of ground water data. This section describes existing databases and ground
water data management systems in the state system.
A. Current Ground Water Data Management
1. DEC Tracking Databases
Most of the databases at DEC which store ground water data were established to
track the existence and progress of permits and facilities. Typical fields are site
location, operator, permit number, and permit expiration date. Only the drinking water
database stores analytical water quality information systematically. Most of the
existing ground water quality data are in manual (i.e.: not computerized) files and are
hence not readily accessible. The contaminated sites database contains some
analytical information but it is limited and in a "comment" field. ("Comment" fields
can be read on-screen or printed but cannot generally be used by the database
program to make selections.) The contaminated sites database contains data on LUST
sites, CERCLIS (Superfund) sites, some above-ground fuel storage sites, and other
53
-------
known contaminated sites.
For the most part, DEC databases are maintained by the program and in the region
which they serve. Accessing these data therefore requires contacting each program
in each region to obtain each particular sub-set of data. Limited staff coupled with
often apparently unlimited demands have resulted in Alaska as elsewhere in the
assignment of a lower priority to staff duties not considered absolutely essential.
Therefore, even where databases exist, the data therein may be far from current.
DEC'S Division of Information Services is currently conducting a GIS User Needs
Assessment to identify the needs of all of DEC'S divisions, programs and regions. GIS
applications will be proposed to meet those needs and the proposals will be ranked
for priority for implementation.
2. DEC Drinking Water Database
The Drinking Water Program at DEC maintains a database for all public water supply
wells. The database contains numeric values for concentrations of monitored
constituents, as well as textual site-specific information such as location, owner, type
of facility, etc. The program utilizes the computer database program Revelation. The
program is formatted to receive latitude and longitude information, however, to date,
these data have not been entered for the systems.
3. DEC Contaminated Sites Database
The contaminated sites database contains information on the sites on state's
contaminated sites list (currently 1300 including LUSTs and some military sites.) It
contains basic information (facility name, owner, etc.), information used in the hazard
ranking, and a record of actions regarding the site.
The database is updated on a continual basis and is maintained in the regions. The
regional offices send monthly updates to Juneau where they are entered into the
master database.
In the database, sites are assigned a Reckey number in which key information is
contained in numerical form, including: site location, program which is responsible for
administering the site, and date the site was reported.
4. DNR Groundwater Data Management Program
DNR is the agency within the state with the mandated responsibility for storing and
maintaining water data. The largest database stores well log information. Anyone
installing a well is required to send well logs to DNR. Many monitoring wells have
locational attributes (latitude/longitude) which are entered into the database.
However, there is no requirement for latitude/longitude on well logs.
DEC collects the well logs from on-site septic and water system approvals, public
54
-------
water systems, and site investigations. In most areas, DEC does not routinely send
well logs to DNR for entry into the database.
DNR does not maintain a statewide water quality database, although it does maintain
databases for project-specific purposes. The well log database does not include water
quality data.
DNR is only beginning to develop GIS capabilities. DNR maintains an extensive GIS
database for state lands. The state does not have extensive GIS equipment and it has
been available to DNR on a limited basis.
5. USGS Database
A small but significant percentage of data relating to ground water quantity, well logs,
and aquifer tests are organized and readily accessible in the Ground Water Site
Inventory system (GWSI) of the USGS. GWSI can store most parameters for a site
that involve ownership, location, well construction, pump tests, field measurements
of water quality and individual measurements of depth to water. A separate database
is used for continuous measurements of water levels that is managed by a database
system that the USGS refers to as ADAPS.
Water quality information, for both surface water and ground water, is stored in the
QWDATA database. The same connections exist between QWDATA and GWSI in
that a query of GWSI can then lead to a retrieval of information from QWDATA. A
program is now under way to develop the next generation of these databases on a
national basis.
Extensive GIS data bases are also available from the USGS, primarily from the Alaska
Field Office of the EROS Data Center.
B. Interaaencv Ground Water Data Management Initiatives
1. Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water
With the goal of establishing a data standard, an interagency ground water data group
was organized in November, 1992, to develop guidelines for a minimum set of data
elements for ground water. These guidelines will outline the minimum information
which should be collected whenever ground water is monitored in Alaska. The
implementation of such data standards will facilitate data exchange among agencies.
The guidelines will address information in four areas:
1) Site,
2) Well construction, hydrologic and water level,
3) & 4) Water chemistry
Parts 1 and 2 are currently being implemented throughout DEC under a DEC General
Management Order requiring their use. Parts 3 and 4 are still in development.
55
-------
Hydrologists representing DEC, DNR and the USGS are participating in this
interagency effort which is being facilitated by DEC. Adoption and implementation
of these standards over the next few years may resolve many of the current gaps in
information.
2. DNR/DOW and USGS Cooperation
Many years ago, the state decided to utilize the existing USGS database to store well
log and aquifer data. For more than 15 years DNR has borne much of the costs of
building this database. Over the years, the database has been utilized by hundreds
of public and private entities to obtain information and conduct research. The USGS
and DNR carefully control the flow of data into the database to assure data quality.
Access to retrieve data, however, is available to any agency or individual. For
incidental users this usually means verbal or written requests to USGS or DNR.
Regular users, whose needs justify the time and effort required to learn the retrieval
procedures, may access the data on-line.
The DNR and the Water Resources Division of the USGS developed a statewide
program for water-data collection and hydrologic studies called AWARE (Alaska Water
Resources Evaluation). The AWARE 5-year plan is an effort to coordinate water
resource activities in Alaska. A memorandum of agreement between DNR (DGGS) and
USGS states the need for a comprehensive program to provide for coordination of
water-data collection and water resources study activities in Alaska. The
memorandum specifies that a 5-year plan for such a program be prepared, reviewed,
and updated annually.
The AWARE plan was prepared by DNR and USGS hydrologists and water managers
using input from other state and federal agencies, particularly the Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management. The progress, status,
and future needs for data collection and hydrologic studies in Alaska were primary
considerations. State and federal agencies besides DNR and USGS provided input into
the plan.
3. DEC use of USGS data
The USGS and DEC have been coordinating in Fairbanks on data management and
retrieval. A DEC staff member recently received access to and training on the USGS
GWSI database. The staff member will access the database for the DEC Northern
Regional Office. During the last fiscal year, using Section 106 grant funding, USGS
staff designed and assembled a data management system for DEC that is fully
compatible with the USGS database. Thus, data from the USGS GWSI can be
downloaded into DEC computers for use. On the same grant, a GIS system was
installed at DEC which is available for use with the USGS GWSI data. DEC staff are
still learning how to utilize the system. After the system is on-line in the Northern
Regional Office, it is anticipated that it can be installed and used at the other DEC
regional offices.
56
-------
4. Water Management Council Water Data Issues Group
Early in 1992, the Water Management Council created the Interagency Water Data
Issues Group. A meeting of the Group, including representatives of several state and
federal agencies, was chaired by DNR on March 19, 1992. The Group's goals were:
(1) to identify major issues facing Alaska regarding the collection, management and
dissemination of water resources data, (2) to recommend working subgroups to
address these issues, and (3) to formulate tasks and target dates for the subgroups.
The results and recommendations were presented in "Interagency Water Data Issues
Group: Work Session Report" prepared by Jim Munter and published in June, 1992.
There has been no further action specifically by this Group or any of the subgroups,
although the efforts of DEC, DNR and USGS to develop a minimum set of data
elements for ground water addresses a key issue raised by the Group.
PART VI. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 6: Improving public education and participation in all aspects
of ground water protection, so as to achieve support of the state's protection goal,
priorities, and programs.
A. Education
1. DEC Workshops and Presentations
The Ground Water Program in DEC has organized and sponsored public ground water
workshops. The workshops have focused on providing technical training in ground
water investigation, contaminant remediation, and wellhead protection to the
community of environmental regulators, consultants, and industry. The Program gives
frequent presentations on ground water and ground water protection.
2. Development of Educational Materials
The Groundwater Program used EPA funds for the development of educational ground
water handouts and fact sheets on a variety of topics that the Cooperative Extension
Service produced. The materials are distributed through the DEC, the Cooperative
Extension Service, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
Several programs within DEC have developed guidelines for regulators and the public
on subjects including the following: monitoring well installation and decommissioning;
underground storage tank abandonment; preparation of Quality Assurance Program
Plans; developing and conducting site investigations; ground water and soil
remediation; and Minimum Data Elements for Ground Water.
Other educational initiatives of the program are:
development of an interactive computer program about ground water for use
in elementary schools,
57
-------
production of a water quality video,
purchase of ground water flow models and training of volunteers statewide to
conduct presentations with them,
production of a ground water/hydrologic cycle poster, and
development of a packet for private well owners about wellhead protection and
pollution prevention.
B. Public Participation
Public participation takes place in the form of ground water task forces and
committees throughout the state. There are active ground water task forces in the
Kenai Peninsula, MatSu and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs, in Anchor Point and in
Anchorage. Other communities with a public participation component of ground
water protection efforts include Nome, Juneau, Kodiak, Homer and Delta. Other
forma of public participation include the opportunity to comment on the development
of guidance, regulations and water quality standards.
58
-------
REFERENCES
EPA 1992: Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; December 1992; EPA 100-R-93-001
EPA 1991: Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1991; EPA
DEC 1990A: Alaska's Groundwater Quality Protection Strategy; Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation; 1990
DEC 1990B: Alaska Water Quality Assessment 1990, Section 305(b) Report to EPA;
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 1990
DEC 1988: Review of the Regulatory Framework for Groundwater Quality Protection
in Alaska; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 1988
Munter and Maynard 1987: Extent of groundwater contamination in Alaska; Munter,
J.A. and D.L. Maynard; Alaska DGGS Report of Investigations 87-16; 1987, updated
May 1988
Harding Lawson 1989: Comprehensive Inventory Report: Potential Waste Disposal
Sites and Other Reports/Complaints; Harding Lawson; 1989
Montgomery 1990: Conceptual Model of Groundwater Resources from Big Lake to
Palmer; James Montgomery Engineers; 1990
DEC 1991: Contaminated Site Report, Vol 1-4; Shannon and Wilson for the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 1991
USGS 1991: Location Maps and List of U.S. Geological Survey Reports on Water
Resources in Alaska, 1950-1990; U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-60
59
-------
APPENDIX A: Sites Where Impaired1 Groundwater has been Documented
Source: 1992 Water Quality Assessment Report
SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
ANCHORAGE AREA
Alaska Sales & Service
Eastchester Texaco
Mapco 5010
ML&P Maintenance Facility
Municipal Light and Power
Fourth and Ingra
Municipal Light and Power
Willow Park Housing
Chevron 2555
Mapco 5009
Texaco 1006 W. 5th
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 18
T13N R3W 18
T13N R3W 18
T13N R3W 18
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
PP, M, CL
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
1 "Impaired" is defined in the 1992 305(b) assessment report: "A waterbody or segment
of a waterbody has definitive and credible documentation of a violation of State water
quality standards, or documentation of impairment of designated uses, as established in the
Water Quality Standards."
60
-------
j SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT J
315 E. 2nd Ave
Ship Creek Railroad Yard
Ship Creek Railroad Yard
Chevron Bulk Plant
Tesoro Bulk Plant
Chevron Tank Farm
Mapco 5021
Standard Steel & Metals Co.
Air Van Lines/North America
Howard Cooper Construction
Former Super Suds
Anchorage Chrysler Dodge
Chevron 6378
Merrill Field Landfill
Merrill Field Landfill
Merrill Field Landfill
Merrill Field Landfill
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
T13N R3W 18
T13N R3W 18
T13N R3W 7
T13N R3W 7
T13N R3W 7
T13N R3W 7
T13N R3W 6
T13N R3W 9
T13N R3W 9
T13N R3W 10
T13N R3W 13
T13N R3W 16
T13N R3W 16
T13N R3W 16
T13N R3W 17
T13N R3W 20
T13N R3W 21
UST
SPILL, LAND
SPILL, LAND
PETRO
PETRO
PETRO
UST
AHAZ, SW
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
SW, MLF
SW, MLF
SW, MLF
SW, MLF
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL, M
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL, M
PP
O/S, O/V, CL, M
O/S, O/V, CL, M
O/S, O/V, CL, M
O/S, O/V, CL, M
61
-------
] SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
Unocal 4581
Unocal 5580
Mapco 5001
Norgetown Laundry & Cleaners
Mapco 5007
Mapco 5014
Chevron 8111
Chevron 7324
Kim's Service Station
Wendy's (Chevron 1581)
Former postal facility on Arctic
Chevron 5799
Mapco 5012
AWWU Homestead Acres
Mapco 5004
Defense Facility Mgmt Office
Petro Product s
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
T13N R3W 19
T13N R3W 19
T13N R3W 22
T13N R3W 22
T13N R3W 23
T13N R3W 24
T13N R3W 26
T13N R3W 28
T13N R3W 28
T13N R3W 29
T13N R3W 30
T13N R3W30
T13N R3W 31
T13N R3W32
T13N R3W 32
T13N R3W35
T12N R3W4
UST
UST
UST
UIC
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
PP
PP
PP
CL
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
62
-------
1 SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT J
Young's Auto Parts & Service
Anderson Trucking
Oehrli's Texaco
Mapco 5006
Parker Drilling
AWWU Pump Station #12
Chevron 7764
Butler Aviation
Sunrise Bakery
Thrifty Car Rental
Mapco 5015
Former Liquor Store
Seair AK Airlines/Sea Auto
Unocal 5057
Troy Air
Butler Aviation AFSC #4
AK Aviation Heritage Museum
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
T12N R 3W4
T12N R 3W 5
T12N R3W7
T12N R3W8
T12N R3W 18
T12N R4W 15
T13N R4W 23
T13N R4W 24
T13N R4W 24
T13N R 4W 25
T13N R 4W 25
T13N R 4W 26
T13N R 4W 27
T13N R4W34
T13N R 4W 34
T13N R 4W 34
T13N R 4W 34
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
PETRO
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
PETRO
UST
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
63
-------
| SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
Garrett's Tesoro
Butler Aviation Anchorage
Int. In-Flight Catering Co.
Div. Parks Glen Alps Chugach
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
Anchorage
T13N R 4W 36
UST
PETRO
UST
ST
PP
PP
PP
Coli
FAIRBANKS AREA
McCall Property
Northside Grocery & Gas
The Office Place
Saupe Enterprises
Alaska Chevron
Willner's Texaco Bulk Fuel
Petroleum Sales
Nerlands/Alaska Feed Co.
Sourdough Express
Van Gas (Suburban Propane)
Alaska Railroad Right-of-Way
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
T1S R1E 28
T1S R1W 2
T1S R1W 2
T1S R1W3
T1S R1W 3
T1S R1W 3
T1S R1W 3
T1S R1W 3
T1S R1W3
T1S R1W 3
T1S R1W3
AHAZ, SW
UST
UST
PETRO
UST
PETRO
UST, SHOP
SHOP
UST
UST
UST
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP, M
PP
PP
PP
64
-------
1 SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT J
Mapco 17
Earthmovers of Fairbanks
UAF Physical Plant
UAF Geist Rd. Wells
University Car Care Center
Seven-Eleven, College/Univ
Fairbanks Aero Services
Alaska Railroad Yard
MUS Public Safety Bldg.
Kelly's Firestone
Westmark Hotel
MUS Power Plant
Mapco Express 18
Seven -Eleven
Mapco 22
Westours Bus Maintenance
Inspection Services &Testing
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
T1S R1W4
T1S R1W4
T1S R1W 6
T1S R1W 6
T1S R1W7
T1S R1W8
T1S R1W 8
T1S R1W 9
T1S R1W 10
T1S R1W 10
T1S R1W 10
T1S R1W 10
T1S R1W 11
T1S R1W 11
T1S R1W 15
T1S R1W 15
T1S R1W 15
UST
AHAZ
UST
UST, SPILL
UST
UST
PETRO
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST, UIC
UST
PP
PP, 0/V
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL, O/V
PP
65
-------
1 SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
Petrolane
Former Texaco Station
Westours Bus Maintenance
Airport Fire Training Pit
Sophies Apartments
Sophies Apartments Floor Drain
B&B Truck and Auto Repair
ERA Aviation
Lynden Transport
Ben Lomand Runway Fueling
Five Star Auto Care Center
Miller Salvage
North Star Terminal #2
Sunshine RAE/Alaska Explos
Fairbanks Landfill
Water Wells on Holt Road
Lucky Sourdough
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
T1S R1W 15
T1S R1W 15
T1S R1W 15
T1S R1W 16
T1S R1W 17
T1S R1W 17
T1S R1W 17
T1S R1W 19
T1S R1W 21
T1S R1W 21
T1S R1W 22
T1S R1W 22
T1S R1W22
T1S R1W 23
T1S R1W 26
T1S R1W
T1S R1W
UST
UST
UST
LAND
UST
SHOP
SHOP
UST
UST
AHAZ, UST
UST, SHOP
SW
PETRO
SHOP, UST
MSW
SPILL
LUST
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP
PP, CL, M
PP,CL, M
PP
PP
PP, O/V
PP
M
CL
PP
O/V, CL
M
PP
66
-------
[ SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT j
USF&WS Airport Hangar
Airport Mall Facility
Friendship Air
Craig Taylor Equipment
Grant Mine
Barricades & Safety Equipment
Stage Stop Station
Million Subdivision, Lot 4
Badger Mobile Home Park
Mapco Refinery
Arctic Surplus
Petro Star Refinery
Tootie Street - North Pole
Nike site at Chena Lakes
Beaverbrook Mall/Sourdough Fuels
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
Fairbanks
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
North Pole
T1S R2W 23
T1S R2W 24
T1N R1W 10
T1N R2W33
T2S R2E 10
T2S R2E 14
T2S R2E 14
T2S R2E 16
T2S R1E 21
T2S R2E 21
T1S R1E 34
UST, SPILL
UST
UST
UST
MINE
SHOP
UST
SHOP
ST
PETRO
AHAZ
PETRO
UST
UST
UST
PP
PP
PP
PP
CN, As
PP, M
PP
PP, CL
PP, Coli
PP
PP, CL, PEST
PP
PP
PP
PP
1 KENAI PENINSULA AREA
67
-------
SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
Sarge's Multi Service Station
S.J. Chapman SID
Trading Bay Road Jobber
HEA Homer Facility
Paul Banks Elementary
Sunny's Chevron
USDA Kenai Lake Work Ctr
Former Laidlaw Transit
Coastal Drilling
Former Unocal Bulk Plant
Poppy Lane Gravel Pit
Soldotna Landfill
Naptowne Trading Post
Sterling Chevron
Swanson River Oil Facility
Mile 81 Sterling Highway
Nikiski Airstrip
Anchor Point
Anchor Point
Kenai
Homer
Homer
Homer
Seward
Soldotna
Soldotna
Soldotna
Soldotna
Soldotna
Sterling
Sterling
Sterling
Sterling
Nikiski
T5S R15W4
T5S R15W4
T5N R11W 5
T6S R13W 20
T6S R13W 16
T6S R13W 20
T4N R1W 25
T5N R11W 26
T5N R10W 29
T5N R10W 32
T5N R11W 27
T4N R11W 12
T5N R8W 17
T5N R8W 7
T7/8N R9W
T5N R8W 18
T8N R12W 36
UST
UST, SHOP
SPILL
UST
UST
UST
UST
AHAZ, UST
AHAZ
PETRO
AHAZ, SW
MSW
SPILL
UST
PETRO
UST
AHAZ
PP
PP
PP, CL
PP
PP
PP
PP
CL, PP
CL, PP
PP
PP
CL, O/V
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
68
-------
LSITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT J
Chevron Refinery
Unocal Ammonia Urea Plant
Mile 22.5 North Kenai Road
McGahan Utilities
Nikiski
Nikiski
Nikiski
Nikiski
T7N R12W 16
T7N R12W 27
T7N R12W 16
T7N R12W 1
PETRO
ISW, SPILL
UST, SPILL
SHOP
PP
N, As
PP
CL
RURAL AREAS
FAA Settles Airport
Settles Lodge
Scott Property
Valdez Creek Mining Co.
L&PSD Chignik Bay School
Peter's Creek Tesoro
Chugiak 4WD Specialties
Cordova Electric Cooperative
Kanakanak Hospital
Unocal 5773
Eagle River Auto Parts
Bettles
Settles
Big Lake
Cantwell
Chignik Bay
Chugiak
Chugiak
Cordova
Dillingham
Eagle River
Eagle River
T24N R18W 18
T24N R19W 16
T17N R3W32
T20S R1E 13
T15N R1W9
T15N R1W8
T13S R56W 36
T14N R1W 11
T14N R1W 1
PETRO, SHOP
PETRO, UST
UST
UIC, AHAZ, SW
ST
UST
SHOP, UIC
SPILL
SPILL
UST
UST
PP
PP
PP
PP
Coli
PP
CL, O/V
PP
PP
PP
PP
69
-------
SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT |
Laidlaw Bus Barn
Eaglecrest Manor Apartments
Former Com. Site - Moses Point
Sourdough Roadhouse
Harold's Air
Galena High School
Gustavus Airport
Usibelli Mine
Mile 251 Parks Highway
Hatcher Pass Independence
Kraft's Department Store
FAA Airport
City of Marshall
Minto School
Moose Creek - Al Cory Drive
Crown Point Lodge
Sheep Mountain Lodge
Eagle River
Eagle River
Elim
Gakona
Galena
Galena
Gustavus
Healy
Healy
Wasilla
Kodiak
Lake Minchumina
Marshall
Minto
Moose Creek
Moose Pass
MP 113.5 Glenn
T14N R2W 1
T9S R17W 21
T9S R2W 25
T9S R9E 6
T8S R10E 32
T40S R59E 5-8
T12S R6W 20
T20N R1E 28
T27S R19W 32
T12S R24
T1N R8W 28
T2S R3E 29
T4N R1W 24
T20N R11E 20
UST
ST
AHAZ, ISW
SPILL
SPILL, UST
SPILL, PETRO
AHAZ
UST
SPILL
UST
UST
AHAZ
PETRO
UST
SPILL, UST
UST
UST
PP
N
CL, 0/V, M
PP
PP
PP
PP, CL, PNA
PP, CL, M
PP
PP
PP
PP, PEST
PP
PP
PP, O/V
PP
PP
70
-------
|_SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT j
Dunbar Siding - Alaska Railroad
Fisher Fuel Tesoro Station
Old Seal Processing Plant
Susan B. English School
Seldovia Landfill
Trading Bay 91 Spill
Tanana Hospital
Togiak Fisheries
Westmark Inn
ADOT/PF Northway Maint. Camp
Chevron Bulk Tank Plant
Mile 433 AK RR
Palmer
St. Paul Island
Seldovia
Seldovia
Shirleyville
Tanana
Togiak
Tok
Tok
Valdez
T35S R131W
T8S R14W 31
T11N R12W 28
T4N R22W 17
T13S R67W 12
T18N R12E 13
T13N R20E 11
T3S R6W 31
SPILL
UST, SPILL
SPILL
UST
SW
PETRO
PETRO
SPILL
UST
PETRO
PETRO
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Ft. Richardson
Fort Wainwright
Near Fairbanks
Near Anchorage
Near Anchorage
Near Fairbanks
T14N R3W 34
T13N R2W 5/6
T1S R1E 17
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
71
-------
1 SITE NAME
LOCATION
T/R/SEC
SOURCE
POLLUTANT
Adak
Amchitka Naval Station
Campion Air Force Station
Cape Romanzof Radar Site
Clear Air Force Station
Coast Guard Facility
Dutch Harbor Naval Ops. Base
Fort Yukon White Alice Site
DOD Indian Pump Station
King Salmon AFS Tank Farm
USCoast Guard Support Center
Kotzebue Air Force Station
Air Force Tank Farm
Coast Guard Loran Station
Whittier Tank Farm
Adak
Amchitka
Galena
Near Paimiut
Anderson
Cordova
Dutch Harbor
Fort Yukon
Indian
King Salmon
Kodiak
Kotzebue
Nome
Tok
Whittier
T95S R195W
Rat Islands Map
T7S R8W
T73S R118W
T10N R1W 5/6
T17S R45W 22
T28S R20W
T16N R9W 27
T11N R34W 26
T18N R13E 19
PETRO, AHAZ
Numerous
AHAZ, PETRO
AHAZ, PETRO
AHAZ
UST
Numerous
AHAZ, PETRO
UST
PETRO
Numerous
Numerous
PETRO
UIC, SPILL
PETRO
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
Numerous
PP
Numerous
PP, CL
PP
PP
Numerous
Numerous
PP
PP, CL
PP
72
-------
KEY
Source
UST - Underground storage tank
PETRO - Petroleum handling facilities
SPILL - Surface spill of petroleum
UIC - Underground injection well
MLF - Municipal Landfill
AHAZ - Abandoned hazardous waste facility
SW - Solid waste facility
SHOP - Shop floor drains, etc.
MINE - Mine
LAND - Land application
ST - Septic tanks
Substance
PP - Petroleum products
CL - Chlorinated solvents
M - Metals
PEST - Pesticides
0/V - Volatile organic compounds
PNA - Poly nuclear aromatics
CN - Cyanide
N - Nitrate
As - Arsenic
Coli - Fecal coliform
73
------- |