Toxic tug-of-war

GOOSE BAY -- Hulking cement buildings and remnants of walls rise from amid towering fireweed, birch saplings and tall, marshy grasses in more than a hundred acres of land it seems time forgot, but with which vandals, partygoers and would-be ballistics experts have apparently become well acquainted.

A Cold War legacy

More than 100 acres of land in the once-wilderness borough was, in the 1950s, selected for use by the federal government as a Nike Hercules air defense artillery battalion. Two launch pads at the Goose Bay Nike site became operational in 1959, with other batteries moving into operation the same year in the Anchorage area, one at Site Summit overlooking Eagle River and one called Site Point, where Kincaid Park is now.

In addition to the two launch pads, the site held a bunkhouse and administration buildings, weapons storage bunkers, a maintenance control area with generators and boilers and other infrastructure.

After 20 years of use, the sites were closed down and deactivated. When the military pulled out of the site, the ownership of the site was split up several ways. The land housing the launch pads and maintenance control area -- about 20 acres -- was deeded to the University of Alaska. A portion of the land is owned by the Mental Health Trust Authority, and the land surrounding the administrative facilities and weapons bunkers were transferred to the state of Alaska's Department of Corrections for use as a minimum-security prison facility, then later turned over to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

According to historical information from DNR, the correctional facility was operational between 1983 and 1986, when asbestos was found in the prison living quarters. The site was used for another three years as a DOC training facility, and was vacated in 1989.

Toxic ruins

A 1989 memo from Keith Quintavell, DNR's Mat-Su area manager at the time, cautioned DNR's Southcentral region manager against allowing DOC to vacate the land without cleaning up the asbestos and other toxins that were found at the site.

"Considering the financial and manpower drain Goose Bay will be, I would like to emphasize one last time that we should not allow DOC to simply walk away from Goose Bay on July 1, 1989," Quintavell wrote. "We would require any other lessee to remain financially responsible after abandonment, why should we be willing to take over this responsibility from DOC?"

The department did vacate the land, and although it wasn't cleaned up, an effort was made to block access to the site.

"DOC's efforts consisted of trying to secure the site with gates and a fence, which, in a remote location like that, is not all that feasible," said DNR's Mike Sullivan. DOC has been out of the picture for about 10 years, Sullivan said, and since that time the several acres of the property which housed the bunkhouses, the administration portion of the facility and the weapons bunkers have been under the oversight of DNR.

Since that time, the land has been more regularly frequented by trespassers and a few wandering animals than by state workers. In 1996, Sullivan said, the friable, or easily crumbled and scattered asbestos was removed from the DOC site. But asbestos-laden materials are still on the property.

"The vast majority of remaining

asbestos is in cement board," Sullivan said. "It's still a hazardous substance that needs special handling."

Sullivan hopes it will be

removed next year. The department, he said, has $300,000 in capital improvement projects funding, a one-time appropriation from the Legislature that is earmarked for cleanup. It may not be enough -- the $300,000 figure came from a 1995 report done by an environmental contractor who estimated how much it would cost to remove the shell of the DOC building and all the remaining asbestos.

Because the report is a little outdated, Sullivan said, a portion of that money was used to update the scope of work and estimated costs. The updated report is due back in a couple weeks, Sullivan said, at which time DNR will be able to issue a request for proposals and go about selecting a contractor to perform the cleanup.

"We're hopeful the $300,000, if it won't do everything we want … that this takes care of our responsibility as far as the hazardous materials out there," Sullivan said.

What it likely won't be able to touch, Sullivan said, is removal of a sewer system on the property. That, he said, will likely be sealed for safety reasons, but left in the ground.

The unwanted burden

Sullivan said the appropriation is also not going to cover cleanup costs of PCBs and other contaminants in the soil that are in the site's landfill area -- a space it seems no agency wants to claim. Sullivan said the landfill may be on DNR's portion of the property, but surveys are not clear.

Robert Johnston, project manager with the Army Corps of Engineers, said the landfill may be one sticking point in the cooperation between the various agencies involved. When asked whether the landfill, since it was used by the military, fell under the Corps' jurisdiction, Johnston said the answer was complex.

"I'm not sure if it's my jurisdiction," Johnston said. "Historical documents say everybody used it. It's probably going to go into litigation to see who the responsible parties are."

A 1992 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation report lists about 20 volatile organic compounds and heavy metals found at the site, in addition to high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. Toxins found at the landfill site were not specifically listed, but most involved with the project believe they're there, mixed among the loose rolls of razor wire strung across the ground.

One down, more to come

Environmental Solutions, a hazardous materials cleanup company based in Anchorage, said they are waiting to hear exactly what DNR's project will entail. The company, this spring, completed nearly $70,000 in cleanup work at the portion of the site owned by the University of Alaska. Steven Brewer, the company's president, said the cleanup effort went well and, other than the danger of being hit by a stray bullet, the site is significantly safer.

The University of Alaska-owned land, which consisted of the launch pads and maintenance control buildings, needed significant cleanup. Structural beams had been removed from the maintenance building by looters, the roof had caved in and the floor was covered in more than a foot of asbestos-laden debris. Many of the facility's pipes were encrusted in protective asbestos and, throughout the property, holes were placed in the ground that provided access to underground utility corridors.

"All that has been cleaned up, and all the debris has been moved," said Kristi Sherman, University of Alaska's associate director of land management. "We really have cleaned up the whole site -- at least our part of the site."

Sherman clarified that, although underground tanks were installed by the federal government in the Nike site days, the university is not responsible for removing them.

"The feds are still responsible for removing all of that," Sherman said. "All the above-ground things, we cleaned up."

Sherman said she hoped the cleanup made the area unappealing to trespassers.

"Somebody, it looked like, was setting up a paintball operation out there," Sherman said. "All that's gone. It really looks worlds better -- it's as safe as we can make it."

Sherman said the miles of fence that once wound around the site will not be reinstalled, simply because it would serve little purpose and would likely be stolen in a matter of time. Since the area is remote and very accessible, Sherman said the intent of the project was to reduce any potential hazards to trespassers, as well as the animals that pass through the site.

"We did it because we can't keep trespassers out, and we didn't want people to get hurt," Sherman said. "I think we've done everything we can to make the place safer and hopefully less attractive to trespassers."

Although area residents voiced concerns at a local joint meeting between the Knik-Fairview Community Council and the Point MacKenzie Community Council that the removal project meant friable asbestos was traveling up the highway and potentially filtering into the air, Brewer said the hazardous materials were handled according to code. The material was wetted thoroughly, then placed into 6-mil bags and sealed. That bag was dropped into a second bag, to prevent puncture leakage, and sealed again. The materials were hauled to a specially designated, Environmental Protection Agency-approved landfill cell for hazardous materials, Brewer said.

Although the site looks significantly better, some of the real dangers still lurk in the ground. In addition to the landfill site, old underground storage tanks must be removed, and the land itself may have to be tested for contamination and cleaned up. The Corps holds some of the responsibility with that portion of the cleanup, and tests were done over the summer to see what contamination exists.

Johnston said the Corps has contracted with the Knik Tribe to manage some of the work at the site. Through the Native American Lands Environmental Mitigation Program, funding is available for tribes to clean up lands in their area. This summer, Portage Environmental contracted with the tribe to dig test pits, trenches and dry wells, as well as collect numerous soil samples around the underground fuel tanks, at vehicle maintenance shops and at the landfill site.

"So far, I haven't seen any final results," Johnston said. "They're due next week."

Once the final results come in, Johnston said, the data will be evaluated and a scope of work can be drawn up to address the cleanup.

"Then we'll start scoping for next year and see what we can do," Johnston said.

Johnston said the NALEMP funding can be used for any work specifically related to the FUDS -- Formerly Used Defense Site, but anything found to be on University or DNR land must be addressed by those groups.

A FUDS, Johnston explained, is simply a site that was used by the military within the last 40 to 60 years. The designation may depend on when the military stopped using the site. NALEMP funding has been available for the past five to six years, Johnston said, and has been useful for cleaning up some FUDS.

Johnston said NALEMP funding is also being used with success at a FUDS in Metlaketla. According to information from the U.S. General Accounting Office, Alaska has 599 FUDS properties that have been identified for potential inclusion in cleanup programs. Johnston said about $10 million each year is allocated for NALEMP funding, a mechanism that Alaska and other states have been able to use to clean up FUDS. Last year, Johnston said, Alaska brought in a considerable portion of that funding.

"We're bringing in about $6 million out of $10 million," Johnston said.

As much of the work as possible will be completed with NALEMP funding, Johnston said, but funding may be on the horizon from the Corps, as early as 2004 or 2006. But the funding that will be available, Johnston said, may not amount to much.

"The FUDS budget used to be $42 million a year," Johnston said. "It got cut down to $12 million. Our budget is shrinking -- and if we go to war, it'll shrink more."

The biggest threat

When asked if the remaining ground contaminants pose an ongoing threat, Brewer said knowledge -- and the activity of trespassers -- were the site's biggest dangers.

"The biggest thing is awareness," Brewer said. "As a hazard, it's probably not as bad as it looks. There is material down there -- but I think the biggest danger would be walking through there and getting a stick poked in the eye. The asbestos hazard has really diminished. The biggest hazard when I was sleeping out there in the motor home was the bullets zinging by."

Brewer said he spent about a week on the property, and spent nights in a motor home. At times, he said, he wasn't sure whether to sleep in the bunk or dive below the seats -- the bullets fired by trespassers veered close to the motor home numerous times. Brewer said the added danger was that the groups of shooters likely didn't know he was even there -- and likely weren't aware there were other shooters at the site. The foliage blocks visibility, he explained, and the numerous points of access mean people illegally come in and out of the site never knowing if anyone else is there.

That's the danger that Mat-Su Borough Assembly member Jody Simpson said she'd like to see abated. Simpson and Point MacKenzie Community Council President Art Scates began contacting the various agencies who oversee the site a couple years ago to see if anyone had plans for a cleanup effort. At the time, Simpson said, most of the studies that had been done detailing the history of the site and what was there had been shelved.

Simpson and Scates have made it a point to keep a running line of communication open with DNR and the university, as well as the DEC, which has taken on the role of overseeing cleanup at the site, and the EPA, which has also assisted in the cleanup oversight. The Army Corps of Engineers has also been consistently involved, an important facet because the federal agency is responsible for what's now considered a FUDS.

"I'm pleased the various agencies have stepped up to help us," Simpson said. "About two years ago when we started this … we didn't expect that this is the most crucial thing on their plates."

But the agencies have agreed to open a dialogue and begin working to clean up the site, something Simpson said she's thankful for simply because it will make the area safer for her neighbors and the people she represents at the assembly level.

"No matter what they do, people seem to get in there and mess around -- because of that, we think it's more of a priority," Simpson said. "We know it's a long-term project."

Working together for the future

Simpson said when she was elected to the assembly three years ago, she wasn't aware of the history lurking in her assembly district. Now that she does, she believes education is one of the best tools available.

"I think we all need to get educated about what, actually, toxic levels are down there," Simpson said. "I had no idea what was there -- I don't think people realize what's in their backyard."

Simpson said more people in the area have become involved in the cleanup effort or, at least interested to know what's going on at the site. In the interest of keeping the lines of communication open and not being a burden to the agencies involved, Simpson said she'd like to see a remediation advisory board created. Such boards, she explained, are quite common in areas where FUDS exist.

Federal funding is available to develop such a board, but Simpson said she's not sure the board needs to be on that scale. Currently, she said, many people are looking for information about what's going on at the site and the same information is being given out time and again. A board would allow the agencies involved to disseminate information through one point of contact and know it is being given to all the interested parties. In addition to helping ease the lines of communication, the board may provide a vehicle to help each entity know the status of work that affects their share of the property. That may be useful for the university property, for example, because they're presently not able to use their property until some of the cleanup is finished.

"Until the feds come in and clean things out, we're not leasing it," Sherman said. "We're not making any money off it, so it's kind of a drain."

Ultimately, everyone involved with the site seems to agree they're moving in the right direction. Scates said he's glad to see the progress at the site.

"From what I can see and gather, I think it's one heck of a lot better," Scates said. "I think headway has been made and I think we're going to see a significant amount of improvement."