The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About100-212• STATE OF ALASKA • ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION WELL COMPLETION OR RECOMPLETION REPORT AND LOG 1a. Well Status: oil F� Gas F] SPLUG Other ❑ Abandoned [_]✓ , Suspended ❑ 20AAC 25.105 20AAC 25.110 GINJ ❑ WINJ El WAG ❑ WDSPL [ No. of Completions: 1b. Well Class: Development Exploratory Service 0 Stratigraphic Test 2. Operator Name: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 5. Date Comp., Susp., or Aband.: 4/1/2015 12. Permit to Drill Number: 100-2120 3. Address: 222 W 7th Ave., Suite 13, Anchorage, AK 99513 6. Date Spudded: 5/26/1950 13. API Number: 50-287-10004-00-00 4a. Location ofWell (Governmental Section): Surface: 392' FWL, 1,367' FNL, S3 T1S R1W UM Top of Productive Horizon: 392' FWL, 1,367' FNL, S3 T1S R1W UM Total Depth: 392' FWL, 1,367' FNL, S3 T1S R1W UM 7. Date TD Reached: 7/29/1950 14. Well Name and Number: Umiat Test Well 4 8. KB (ft above MSL): 419' GL (ft above MSL): 418' 15. Field/Pool(s): 842100 Umiat Area 9. Plug Back Depth(MD+TVD): I 12' MD / 12' TVD 4b. Location of Well (State Base Plane Coordinates, NAD 27): Surface: x- 747520.31' y- 5,629,342.96' Zone- 5 TPI: x- 747520.31' y- 5,629,342.96' Zone- 5 Total Depth: x- 747520.31' y- 5,629,342.96' Zone- 5 10. Total Depth (MD + TVD): • 840' MD / 840' TVD 16. Property Designation: AA -081726 11. SSSV Depth (MD + TVD): N/A 17. Land Use Permit: N/A 18. Directional Survey: Yes LJ No ,, (Submit electronic and printed information per 20 AAC 25.050) 19. Water Depth, if Offshore: N/A (ft MSL) 20. Thickness of Permafrost MD/TVD: 840' MD / 840' TVD 21. Logs Obtained (List all logs here and submit electronic and printed information per 20AAC25.071): N/A 22.Re-drill/Lateral Top Window MD/TVD: N/A 23. CASING, LINER AND CEMENTING RECORD WT. PER GRADE SETTING DEPTH MD SETTING DEPTH TVD HOLE SIZE CEMENTING RECORD AMOUNT CASING FT TOP BOTTOM TOP BOTTOM PULLED 11-3/4" Unknown Unknown 12' 33' 12' 33' 15" 12 sx Cal -Seal 24. Open to production or injection? Yes F-1 No P-1 If Yes, list each interval open (MD+TVD of Top and Bottom; Perforation Size and Number): Open Hole: 33' MD / 33' TVD - 840' MD / 840' TVD A6wc'6►eo RECEIVED MAY 2 9 2015 ylll l AOGCC 25. TUBING RECORD SIZE DEPTH SET (MD) PACKER SET (MD/TVD) 26. ACID, FRACTURE, CEMENT SQUEEZE, ETC. Was hydraulic fracturing used during completion? Yes No DEPTH INTERVAL (MD) AMOUNT AND KIND OF MATERIAL USED 27. PRODUCTION TEST Date First Production: N/A Method of Operation (Flowing, gas lift, etc.): N/A Date of Test: N/A Hours Tested: N/A Production for Test Period Oil -Bbl: N/A Gas -MCF: N/A Water -Bbl: N/A Choke Size: N/A Gas -Oil Ratio: N/A Flow Tubing Press. N/A Casing Press: N/A Calculated 24 -Hour Rate Oil -Bbl: N/A Gas -MCF: N/A Water -Bbl: N/A Oil Gravity - API (corr): N/A 28. CORE DATA Conventional Core(s) Acquired? Yes ❑ No 0 Sidewall Cores Acquired? Yes ❑ No `D✓ If Yes to either question, list formations and intervals cored (MD+TVD of top and bottom of each), and summarize lithology and presence of oil, gas or water (submit separate sheets with this form, if needed). Submit detailed descriptions, correchips, photographs and laboratory analytical results per 20 AAC 25.071. MINED JAN 2 9 2016 Form 10-407 Rev'se 10/2012 CONTINUED ON REVERSE Submi riginal only i!%Is�l� / _ / 3 _l& ��/� RBE q AUG - 3 2015 29. GEOLOGIC MARKERS (List all formations and markers encountered): 30. FORMATION TESTS NAME MD TVD Well tested? ❑ Yes Q No If yes, list intervals and formations tested, briefly summarizing test results. Attach separate sheets to this form, if Permafrost - Top Ground Surface Ground Surface needed, and submit detailed test information per 20 AAC 25.071. Permafrost - Base 840' 840' Formation at total depth: N/A 31. List of Attachments: Summary of daily operatins, schematic, photos of well head. 32. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact: Rob Brumbaugh @ 907-271-4429 Email: rbrumbau@blm.gov Printed Name: Wayne Svejnoha Title: Branch Chief, Breanch of Energy and Minerals Signature: c Phone: 907-271-4407 Date: 5/28/2015 J'J INSTRUCTIONS General: This form is designed for submitting a complete and correct well completion report and log on all types of lands and leases in Alaska. Submit a well schematic diagram with each 10-407 well completion report and 10-404 well sundry report when the downhole well design is changed. Item 1b: Classification of Service wells: Gas Injection, Water Injection, Water -Alternating -Gas Injection, Salt Water Disposal, Water Supply for Injection, Observation, or Other. Multiple completion is defined as a well producing from more than one pool with production from each pool completely segregated. Each segregated pool is a completion. Item 4b: TPI (Top of Producing Interval). Item 8: The Kelly Bushing and Ground Level elevations in feet above mean sea level. Use same as reference for depth measurements given in other spaces on this form and in any attachments. Item 13: The API number reported to AOGCC must be 14 digits (ex: 50-029-20123-00-00). Item 20: Report true vertical thickness of permafrost in Box 20. Provide MD and TVD for the top and base of permafrost in Box 28. Item 23: Attached supplemental records for this well should show the details of any multiple stage cementing and the location of the cementing tool. Item 24: If this well is completed for separate production from more than one interval (multiple completion), so state in item 1, and in item 23 show the producing intervals for only the interval reported in item 26. (Submit a separate form for each additional interval to be separately produced, showing the data pertinent to such interval). Item 27: Method of Operation: Flowing, Gas Lift, Rod Pump, Hydraulic Pump, Submersible, Water Injection, Gas Injection, Shut-in, or Other (explain). Item 28: Provide a listing of intervals cored and the corresponding formations, and a brief description in this box. Submit detailed description and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Item 30: Provide a listing of intervals tested and the corresponding formation, and a brief summary in this box. Submit detailed test and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Form 10-407 Revised 10/2012 T FTy� Unit States Department of theInterior �A..�«a. Y s BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT �AACH 3 Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.gov RECEIVED In Reply Refer To: MAY 2 9 20 Umiat No. 4 Well (AK 932) AOGCO May 28, 2015 Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7a' Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 Subject: Umiat Test Well No. 4, Report of Sundry Well Operations for Final Plug and Abandonment Dear Mr. Schwartz, Please find the attached from 10-407 and supporting documentation for the final plug and abandonment of the Umiat Test Well No. 4. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, please contact Rob Brumbaugh by email at rbrumbau@blm.gov or by phone at (907) 271-4429. Sincerely, =veinoha Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Enclosure(s): Well Completion Report Form 10-407; Umiat No. 4 Final wellbore diagram after P&A; Umiat No. 4 Photographic documentation and summary of P&A; Umiat No. 4 1 15" HOLE 10 - 3/4" HOLE 1 8" HOLE 1 6" HOLE Ground Level 11-3/4" Unknown Weigh & Grade Cemented w/ 12 sx Cal - Seal Tubing cut - and dropped Cable Tool Fish in bottom of well Base of Permafrost @ 840' 4' MD / TVD 33' MD / TVD ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... 425' MD / TVD 692' MD / TVD 840' MD / TVD Cemented w/ 17.7 sx Arctic Set III Top of Bentonite Plug @ 70' Fresh Water @ 102' Depth of Formation @ 201' Rods cut and dropped in well inside tubing Lat: 69.3878711 N I Long: 152.0801289 W I Datum: NAD27 US Navy East: 747,520.31 us ft I North: 5,629,342.96 us ft I Zone: ASP 5 Umiat Test Well #4 Section: 1111Townshi : 1S Ran e: JW Meridian: Umiat FWL: 392' FNL: 1,367' ELEV: 418-1 RKB: 1' API # 50-287-10004-00-00 Spud Date Completion Date Status Date I Status Permit to Drill # 100-2120 26 May 1950 29 Jul 1950 1 1 Apr 2015 1 Abandoned IssuE DRAWN BY: S p L ST E N,P Comments: Post -final abandonment. Well cut off S below GL. DATE: 27 April 2015 Lucas Munisteri REVISION: a Not to Scale DATE: 5 May 2015 Legend ❖:❖: ..... Cement Drilling Fluid Brine / Water Formation Fluid Lat: 69.3878711 N I Long: 152.0801289 W I Datum: NAD27 US Navy East: 747,520.31 us ft I North: 5,629,342.96 us ft I Zone: ASP 5 Umiat Test Well #4 Section: 1111Townshi : 1S Ran e: JW Meridian: Umiat FWL: 392' FNL: 1,367' ELEV: 418-1 RKB: 1' API # 50-287-10004-00-00 Spud Date Completion Date Status Date I Status Permit to Drill # 100-2120 26 May 1950 29 Jul 1950 1 1 Apr 2015 1 Abandoned IssuE DRAWN BY: S p L ST E N,P Comments: Post -final abandonment. Well cut off S below GL. DATE: 27 April 2015 Lucas Munisteri REVISION: a Not to Scale DATE: 5 May 2015 • • BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT UMIAT TEST WELL 4 API Well Number: 50-287-10004-00-00 Permit to Drill Number: 100-2120 Field: NPRA Township: 1S Range: 1W Section: 2 Meridian: Umiat Latitude: 69.3878711 Longitude: -152.0801289 Datum: NAD27 Spud: 5/5/1950 Completion Date: 7/29/1950 Status Date: 9/29/2006 Status: Shallow Plug FINAL PLUG AND ABANDON REPORT On 1 April 2015 the final abandonment of the Umiat Test Well 4 was completed when the 11-3/4" inch casing was cut off 3' below ground level. A marker cap was then welded to the conductor of the well and the site was returned to the original grade with no surface sign of the well. ARRIVAL STATUS PHOTO 1: INITIAL WELL CONDTION DEPARTURE STATUS PHOTO 2: FINAL WELL CONDTION WORK PROCEDURE 28 March 2015 Safety meeting in JHA review. Arrive on location and excavate around well. See Photo 1. 31 March 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review for rigging up. Cut well off 3' below ground level. See Photo 3. 1 April 2015 Safety Meeting & JHA review thawing well and overhead loads. Remove ice to 12 feet and fill with cement and weld marker plate on. See Photos 4, 5 and 6. 2 1 0 9 WELL OPERATIONS PHOTOS CUTTING OFF WELL HEAD PHOTO 3: CUT CASING OFF PHOTO 4: THAW CASING 0 0 PHOTO S: FINAL TOP OF CEMENT CEMENT AND CAP WELL PHOTO 6: WELD CAP ON OUTER CASING 41 P KvR_":::-�.N�_.4v..ti..vvL +.'4'a lriNtix w-� a��. _... •L �� Pue.�LSut r4.:'.n: ib;.ffiv •k.�+- 5a..� `� _ - y„�,_ -n-- • S IE STA E 3rd f')""ERN0'R `3 r �� I T A IRN i,V1„ Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Dear Mr. Kelly: March 6, 2014 �? %Ve;si Sevenili Avanue Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3572 Ps a;P-,, : 90-17,279 ,1 3 i 6NED MAR 12 N14 The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) agrees with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on taking the opportunity to remediate a portion of the wells in the Umiat Field during this winter exploration season. The four wells (Umiat 44, 48,#9 and 410) are ready for final wellhead cutoff as they have been P & A'd to surface with cement and only need wellheads removed, topped off with cement (as needed) and capped. This will bring the wells into full compliance with AOGCC regulations. AOGCC and BLM engineering staff have discussed the wells and AOGCC staff have requested sundries from the BLM staff for the four affected wells. Umiat #1 and #3 and #11 require rig work to get them to a final P & A status and will not be worked on this winter. Sincerely, /1-' 'V' - Cathy P. oerster Chair ENT OF l F i United States Department of the Interior PAIRF U OF LAND MANAGEMENT Arctic Yi(J 'dl Otficc 1.�0 Ave http://www.blm.gov Cathy Foer sLer Chair. Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Commission W. 7'h Avernnc, SLiite 100 Anchor&2c. Alaska 99501-35' Q Unlist Wellhead Removal Dear lids. Foerster. SCANNED MAR 12 2014 Ivo -2.\Z a wraarew�w�v �:m J MAR 0 5 2014 The Bureau of Land Management has a window of opportunity to remove the wellheads at Umiat #4, #8, #9, and #10 before the end of the 2013-2014 winter season. The BLM and AOGCC discussed these wells on November 13, 2013 at the AOGCC's office, but not in a public forum. At the meeting, it was concluded the only wells requiring additional work at Un iat was Umiat #l, #3, and #11. The BLM is seeking verification of this conclusion from the AOGCC, prior to removing the aforementioned wellheads. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at (907) 474- 2368. Sincerely, Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager o>r r • THE STATE Department of Environmental 011-1LASKL'1 GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2014 February 4, 2014 A0GCC Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Article No.: 7012 2210 0002 1216 2391 Wayne Svejnoha BLM — Division of Resources 222 W 7th Ave, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program File: 320.38.010 SCANNED 0 2 2014 Re: Potentiall Responsible Party Notice Letter and Information Request NPRA Legacy Wells - General Hazard ID: 26125 Ledger Code: 14339387 Dear Mr. Svejnoha: 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.5105 This letter is to advise you that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has identified the 136 legacy wells within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) as potential contaminated sites. Some of these wells require extensive cleanup of oil and other hazardous substances released to the environment. Since you are identified as a current or past owner and/or operator of these sites, please be advised you may be financially responsible or liable for the investigation and /or cleanup of any hazardous substance contamination that might be present. Alaska Statute 46.03.822 establishes who is liable for contamination. Records available to the ADEC indicate that you meet one or more of the following criteria: » owned or controlled the hazardous substance at the time of its release; » own(ed) or operate(d) the property or facility from which the release occurred; » owned or operated property at which the hazardous substance came to be located; and » arranged for transport, disposal or treatment of hazardous substances that were released. Site History From 1944 through 1982 the US Government drilled 136 wells to explore for oil and gas resources in the NPRA. It is our understanding that other federal agencies and some private companies may have operated or managed these sites in the past. We have also been informed that 23 of these well have been conveyed to public and private entities. The ADEC currently lists 14 of the 136 legacy wells on our database of contaminated sites. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is identified as the responsible party for the following sites. Wayne Svejnoha 0 2 February 4, 2014 • BLM Cape Halkett Drill Site (File # 300.38.108) • BLM East Simpson #2 (File # 300.38.109) • BLM East Teshekpuk Drill Site (File # 300.38.110) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program, is working with ADEC under the Defense States Memorandum of Agreement on cleanup actions at the 11 Umiat test well sites. BLM is identified as the landowner in our records, and as such is identified as a potentially responsible party in addition to the Department of Defense: C Umiat Test Wells 1-11 (File # 335.38.001) The information contained in these files is part of the public record. Our databases are accessible on the Internet at: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/db_search.httn Additional Actions Needed ADEC sent a letter on July 11, 2013, identifying an additional 15 legacy well sites with confirmed releases (enclosed). As stated in the letter, ADEC recommends that BLM develop a plan to address known, suspected, and unknown releases at the legacy well sites, in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. We expected a response to this letter before now. Please respond to this letter within 30 days. After we receive and review your response we will determine what additional actions will be taken regarding each site with known or suspected contamination. In addition, with your response, please complete and return the enclosed questionnaire requesting more information about past operators. In accordance with Alaska Statute Title 46, ADEC is authorized to provide regulatory oversight for any contamination response efforts initiated by the responsible party. However, if response actions by the responsible party are not satisfactory to ADEC, we may then assume the lead role in the investigation and cleanup efforts. In the event that State response actions are necessary, the responsible parties may be held financially liable for any response actions taken by the State. Alaska Statutes 46.04.010 and 46.08.070 establish cost recovery procedures for certain costs, including oversight activities, incurred by the State in responding to pollution incidents. If you are determined to be a responsible or liable party, ADEC may bill you at a later date for our expenditures associated with this pollution incident. Expenses for which we may seek reimbursement include: Staff time associated with general or technical assistance; work plan review; project oversight; general project management; legal services; interest; travel; equipment and supplies; and any contracting costs. Pursuant to Alaska Statute 46.08.075, the State may also file liens against all property owned by a person who is responsible or liable for State expenditures. Please respond in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter addressing your intended actions with respect to this pollution incident. If you believe someone else is responsible for this pollution incident (e.g., a past owner or operation of the site) or if you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Fred Vreeman at (907) 451-2181. The attached "ADEC Information Request" describes the minimum information expected in your response. Additional information may needed to evaluate the risks and responses required at each legacy well site. Sincerely, Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager G:\SPAR\CS\Contaminated Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.docx Wayne Sveinoha Enclosure: 0 3 • ADEC Information Request Concerning Contaminated Sites BLM Legacy Wells Dispute letter date July 11, 2013 February 4, 2014 cc: Bud Cribley, Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lynn Kent, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lori Aldrich, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADEC Response Fund Administration GASPAR\CS\Contarr nmted Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.doe% 0 0 ADEC INFORMATION REQUEST Concerning a contaminated site(s) Re: Legacy Well Sites in and near the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) Please precede each answer with the number of the question to which it corresponds. Please direct any questions concerning this information request to Fred Vreeman, Contaminated Sites Program, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709; Phone: 907-451-2181. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. Provide name and company affiliation of the person answering the questionnaire. 2. Provide copies of all studies, reports, and supporting information (including preaquisition assessments and work done on behalf of other parties) which you have knowledge of which address past and/or present environmental conditions at the site. Identify the name, title, address, and phone number of the party(s) who are responsible for preparing the studies or information. Information which has been previously submitted to ADEC need not be submitted again (unless specifically requested in a subsequent communication) if you can provide the name of the office (and name and title of the DEC officer if known) to whom the report was previously provided. 3. Provide a description of any ongoing or planned investigations or cleanup work at the site. Identify the names, titles and phone numbers of the individuals responsible for preparing the studies or information. 4. Provide a description of known releases at the site (date of occurrence, quantity released, type of substance released, etc.) and a description of corrective measures that were taken. Provide information on any suspected releases which may have or are occurring. 5. Describe the nature of past and present operations at the site. In particular, any actions that may have caused the release or threat of release at the site. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including major structures, water wells, fuel or waste storage systems, drainage or septic systems, etc. 6. Provide a list of any permits issued by the Department which relate to activities at the site and a list of RCRA identification numbers (U.S. EPA identification numbers) which may be held. 7. Identify persons to whom you leased all or a portion of the property and describe the nature of their operations. 8. Identify the person(s) who used the site for disposal of substances deposited there, if any. 9. Provide copies of manifests for any hazardous waste and/or petroleum contaminated materials taken to or from the site. 10. Provide a list of persons and their phone numbers and addresses of persons who have knowledge about the use of hazardous substances at the site. 11. Provide information regarding the existence of insurance coverage for damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances and copies of all such insurance policies, both currently in effect and in effect during the periods of activity in question. 12. Describe the acts or omissions of any person, other than your employees, agents, or those persons with whom you had a contractual relationship, that may have caused the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the site. a. In addition, describe all precautions that you took against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third parties. 13. Describe the care you exercised with respect to the hazardous substances found at the site. 14. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including structures, wells, drainage systems, etc. THE STATE July 11, 2013 'ALASKA GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL Wayne Svejnoha Supervisory Minerals & Energy Specialist 222 W 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: BLM Legacy Wells Dispute Dear Mr. Svejnoha: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.2155 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — Contaminated Sites has reviewed the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report dated February 2013, containing updated information on the status of the 136 Legacy Wells located in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska (NPR -A), and the draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaslm. 2013 Legacy Weiss Strategic Plan dated May 2013. ADEC has also reviewed the response by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGC). We concur with the response by ACIGC and have no further comment regarding the priorities. We do have comments about the investigation and cleanup plans presented in the report. With this letter we arc outlining regulatory requirements related to the environmental work that is proposed and required as part of these cleanups. ADEC is concerned that the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan prepared by the BLM does not include either assessment of the contingency for assessment of known, likely, or unknown but possible contaminant releases. In addition, BLM plans for surface cleanup of these wells should be made clear in the plan. At least one of these legacy wells has extensive PCB contamination and has resulted in a multi-year cleanup totaling tens of millions of dollars. At others, solid waste disposal practices have resulted in releases to the environment with estimated cleanup costs in the hundreds of millions. Known releases documented in the records we reviewed include crude oil, gasses, refined oil and fuel, drilling fluids that include various organics, metals, and other chemicals, and unknown contaminants from drums and other containers observed to be damaged and abandoned at the various well sites. There are 13 legacy well sites with known releases currently on the DEC contaminated sites list. Many of these are in the process of being addressed, cleaned up, and closed. From our Waited records review there are 15 additional legacy well sites with confirmed releases. These should be prioritized for initial records reviews and then added to the BLM contaminated sites list under our cooperative agreement. Suspected releases include fuel releases from operations, storage, and fuel spills at the sites, impacts to various surface water bodies from spilled fluids during drilling and breaches of containment at reserve and flare pits, continued surface runoff from drilling fluids uncontained at several sites, and down -hole substances that were ejected from the holes over time or during blowouts or drilling operations. 1 Wayne Sve noha ? July 11, 2013 Y The.BLN-1 plan to address these known, suspected, and unknown releases at legacy well sites is notably absent from the documents presented to date. The three primary regulatory agencies that need to be involved in the plan are ADEC — Contaminated Sites, Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, and ADEC — EH/Solid Waste. Other agencies will need to be consulted. as well. Below we provide recommendations for a coordinated plan using the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sites in a consistent and coordinated project which fulfills all of the regulatory requirements so that the sites do not need to be re -visited in the fu=e xvhen they are closed after this project. Attached are our comments on each specific well. The acronyms used on the list include terms that are typically used in a CERCLA type investigation however they are also suitable for investigations conducted under the State of Alaska cleanup rules. These include the following; Historical Records Review (HRR) 'chis is recommended for almost all of the well sites. Much of the information required for these reviews is already contained in various reports and appendices or in BLM files. The Historical Records Review should document the type of releases that might have occurred from drilling operations as well as historical use of the site, and should capture all available information on the drilling fluids used and any product produced or released. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. A Preliminary Assessment is a limited scope investigation that provides an assessment of information about a site and its surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that require further investigation. The PA is a CERCLA defined document and typically does not require sampling. Site Inspection (SI) If the PA recommends further investigation, then an SI is necessary. The SI is a CERCLA defined document, and it is analogous to an initial report of contamination under state cleanup rules. On some legacy well drillings sites it is evident now that an Sl is required just from a review of the reports. An SI investigation typically includes the collection of samples to determine what contaminants are present at the site and whether they are being released into the environment. An approved site specific workplan is required under both CERCL-A and 18 AAC 75 prior to SI sampling. The SI typically is not intended to develop a full site characterization, but is limited to determining the presence or absence of a release. If contamination is found after completion of the HRR, PA, and SI then a RI/FS under CERCLA, or a Site Characte-rizatiowlteportandcleanup-Alas,under-l-fi-AAC7iis`required. -- ----- - -- — --------- - DEC recommends that BLM incorporate into the strategic pian the processes outlined in this letter. A team of agencies composed of AOGC, DEC -CS, EPA as required, and DEC -EH should address regulatory and technical requirements for these well closures. By cooperating and working together with the regulatory agencies BLM will save time and expense, and regulatory uncertainties will be avoided. The strategic plan should reference a project to prepare a generic workplan. DEC suggests that BLM utilize the generic UFP-QAPP workplan format for the required environmental work. If properly prepared, the workplan could encompass most of the investigations and cleanups required at these sites over multiple years. At other multi -site projects we have found this to be an effective way to reduce uncertainties and risk in these types of investigations. A very small site specific FSP could then be developed as BLM approaches each drilling site. Regulatory decisions made during workplan development would provide more certainty in the planning process for cleanups. G:\SPAR\CS\federal F2cilitie3\Ci%ih2n 1-cdcrrt Agr=ics\DOl\B[.Ni\1'roiens\lxgAey Wells\7 11 13 Luter to KIN on lxbxy wells.doex Wayne Svejnoha 3 0 July 11, 2013 Please review the attached list of specific sites. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 907-451-2181 or by email at fred.vreeman@alaska.gov. I look forward to working with you as the Federal Government fulfills its requirement to clean up these well drilling sites in Alaska. Sincerely, y' Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager Enclosure: SPAR Response with Legacy Wells cc: Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Cathy Foerster, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program GASI'AR\CS\Fedcrrl Fo61ibLy\Gvi6n Falctul AgcnnCs\DOI\BI.N1\Proitcts\lA'6.1' q W03\7 11 1314tur to Aim\I on Ug2cy Wclls.doex Well Name operator I RP I Land Simpson Core Test #5 1! Na 1 BLM Simpson Core Test #6 US Na I BLM Simpson Core Test #7 us Na 1 Bl. M Sin son Core Test 98 US Navy 113LM Si son Core Test #9 U5 Na I BLM Sinwson Core Test #1f) U.S Navy! BLM Core Test #11 AOGCC Subsurlaca I BLM Core Test #12 FUSNa a I BLM Core Test #16 a I BLM Core Test #17 US Na 1 BLM Core Test 018 US Na I BLM Core Test #19 US Na 1 BLM t Core Test #20 US Navy 1 BLM i Gore Test #21 2S Na 1 BLM I Core Test #22 US Na 111•LM I Core Test dnlf fluids left in hole i BLM Core Test �#2vy I BLhA n CareTest #25 US Na Y I BLM K Core #1 US Navy i BLM 1 -t- *1 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 2013 Risk Ity CSP Status I Fito tllHazid Rolea5e7 Nnne f+lone IYOMWil Low RNooe ane None Unused, Unused, I None Unused, i None Uncased, None None None None (None Unknown Unknown Page 1 of 14 •I AOGCC Subsurlaca AOGCC Surface SPAR W arkgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, S1 no data no data Need HRR. PA. SI no data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessnsenl & workplan drillin 11uids left in hole no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work an drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill Ifusd assessment & work Ian dnlf fluids left in hole no data Need PA ncf drill fluid assessmcnf &work Ian dnllxs fluids tett rn hale no data well skelch provided by Need PA ind drill fluid BLM not consistent with assessment & work Ian AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work Ian dnflin fluids left in hole no data Need PA and 51 ind 13611 fluid assessment. workplan rid sampling stressed debfis, partially as blowout and fire rove elated site areas Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & workplan dn lling fluids left in hole no data geed PA ind drill fluid assessment & wOTk Ian drij I ing fluids teff in hole no data Need PA incl dfifl nutd assessment & work Ian drillin fluids left m hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin ituids left in hole no data Need HRR. PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids felt in hole ria data Need PA incl dnll fluid assessment & work larx drillin fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids Teff in hole no data Need PA ind dnll fluid drflfing fluids and ball assessment & Workplan peen hammer left in hole no data overshot, drill collar, rock revegelated —131 Need HRR, PA bit, and N -reds left in hole can't find it Review Report as PA. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling Not abandoned, waste on surface. Veg ----_— , ,raw,, plunaed to surface site not cleared •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LisLxlsx Page 2 of 14 is • vi nce o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status file #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead tell as Umiat 43 US Navy I BLM I FUDS None pending dos 335.38.00113092 Yes. see file 'Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #4 US Navy I BLM / FUDS None pending dos 335.38.001!3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umial 98 US NaMy I BLM I FUDS None pendinq dos 335.38.001/3D81 'Yes, see_ _file Plugged BLM in 2004 incomplete historic sile? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #1'0 US Navyj BLM_I FUDS None pendingdos 335.38.00113082 Yes, see fila Plu ed by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 7868'. Drilling Cleanup. Photos - evidence mud and diesel to Awuna #1 USGS I BLM Medium None None Yes of erosion into lake surface. > 100 _Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud Wood , metal, assessment. Surface Plugged to 2039'. Diesel plastic debris. Fast Simpson #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface. >10D Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with Wood and metal Drilling mud assessment debris. Pylons - Photos straw areas of no Plugged to 2047'. Diesel Tankage for lk ' #1 USGS / 8LM Low None None Yes ve elation. to surface. flammable fluids Need HRR. PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1400'. Drilling Wood and metal Koluktak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None LYes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1894'. Diesel Wood and metal Ku am 91 USGS I BLM Low None None Unknown Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, Sl with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment_ Surface Plugged to 4464'. Drilling Wood & metal Kuyanak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Clean mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show Plugged to 1840'. Diesel Plastic and metal Lisburne 41 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes stained soil to surface debris. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 8192'. Drilling Wood and metal North Iii ok $1 USGS I BLM Low None INone Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris - Page 2 of 14 is • Well Name Peard South Meade #1 1 RP 1 Land 1BLM BLM #1 4USGS ! BLM SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Usl.xlsx ;013 Risk &W CSP Status File XlHazkl T Page 3 of 14 AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface WAR Workgroup Notes Status r Status � deed HERR, PA SI with iampling. Dining mud rssessment- Surface ;leanup. Site photos show areas of stressed iegetalion. No issues Plugged to 2232'. Diesel Wood and metal soled in USGS re ort. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment Surface Plugged to 2026'. Diesel Wood and metal Cleanup. to surface debris. P Ions Add to She list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Od reported bubbling to the surface within reserve pit in 1982. Oily residue and sheen observed adjacent to east side of reserve pil, down hole material at the Plugged to 1875. Diesel Wood and metal surface to surface debris. P ons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, S) with sampl'uig. Drilling mud assessment - Surface Cleanup. Reserve pit berm had breaches anowirrg water to exit. Oil - stained sediment was observed above the Plugged to 1478'. Diesel Wood and metal waterline of the I. to surface debris. Site photos may show hydrocarbon sheen on Plugged to 2600'. Drilling Wood and metal water in well cellar mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Berms have been breached an allow water to flow out of reserve piUllare pit. Rising bubbles of ail observed in Hare pit 1484. Photos Show Plugged to 1825'. Diesel Metal debris. ra.. v-1 v.nnnralinn to Surface ... 0 •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Page 4 of 114 0 0 vi encs o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator 1 RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fHazld Release? SPAR Workgroup Motes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Sl wrlh sampling. Drilling mud assessment Surface Cleanup. Breaches in berm allow water to flow into and out of reserve pit, sheen on Plugged to 2700' Diesel Wood and metal West Dease #1 USGS l BLM Low None None Yes surface water in well cellar to surface debns. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR,. PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Water flows into the pits through breaches on the eastern berm and out of the pits through breaches on the northern and western berms. Downhole material Plugged to 228'9'. Drilling Wood and metal South Harrison Bay #1 USGS f BLAB Low None None es Present at surface mud & diesel to surface debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampliing. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation noted and apparent in site pholos. Plugged to 2443'. Drilling West Fish Creek #1 USGS 1 BLM Low None None Yes Drilling mud around well mud & diesel to surface Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment, Surface Cleanup. High TPH Plugged to 1977'_ Drilling wellhead sticking concentrations underneath mud under plugs. Diesel up. Wood debris. Fast Simpson #2 USGS 1 BLM I Low _ Active 300.38.10912691 Yes, see file the rig inundation to surface Pylons South Barrow 94 US NavyiNorth Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well - no data South Barrow #5 USAF - BLM Unknown None None None. Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #& US Na /Norlh Sto Burg None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data South Barrow #9 US NavyfNarih Slop2 Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, Sl no data no data _ South Barrow #10 US Navyfflorlh Sto Bora None None None Unknown Need Surface Status com ted gas well no data South Barrow It12 US Na /North Slope Baro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA. Sl no data no data BLM well skMh not consistent with AOGCC South Barrow #14 US NavyMorth Sloe Boro None None one Unknown Nsed HRR. PA, St data no data Need PA ind drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US NavyiNotih Slope Bora None None None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill !turd tubing in well. no perfs, Soulh Barrow 017 US Na /North Sloe 13ora None None None jUnknown assessment & work fan I unknown fluid, I no data Page 4 of 114 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xisx Page 5 of 14 •I E CYfuu .v v AOGCC Subsurface A Surlaco TEHILM T013 Risk CSP Stilus File #IHaaid Historic Rekeasa7 SFAR YUnrkgroup Nates 5latus at US $1<ntus Well Name flperatar f RP f Land Mgriority Unknown Need Surface Status corn feted as well no data 5aulh Barrow #18 US Na INorlh Slo a Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data Walak a #1 USGS! Unknown None None None rsg 890`. Multiple cement plugs of unknown volume. Shallowest None None Unknown _ Need HRR, PA, SI SOD' no dada Gubik #1 US Na d Ur#cnown Low Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA. SI with sampling. csg Q SOD' Well blowout Drilling mud assessment. from zone al 1SOT during Surface Cleanup. Photos plugging operations show disturbed/ slashed Plugging never completed after blowout. no data Gub* #2 US Na ! Unknown Low None Nora es areas two downhole Dement plugs of unknown depth Mone None Unknown Need MR. PA. Sl and volume no data Grandstand #1 US Navy 1 Unknown None Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA, SI with sampling. Dnliing mud assessment. Surface Cleanup Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location, Upon completion of the 2nd well. the sediment was pushed back into ft reserve pit.. Area does not appear to be revegetaling. perhaps from the presence property plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment None None Yes surface status no data W 7 Foran #1 " USGS I Unknown Low on Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Slressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Active 306.3$.108f2689 Yes. see file site underwater abandoned at surface corwsele debris under 5' of water, Cape Halken #1 " US Na (Unknown Low None Unknown !Need HRR, PA. SI es to 27' open C_s Min a Veloei #1 U5 Na f t3LM one None csg @ 31" 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and Core Unknown Need HRR. PA, SL barrel left rn hole. neve etaled Ournalik Core #i US Na / BLM None -No obsery None !None Page 5 of 14 •I E SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisi.xlsx Page 6 of 14 • • WI F3nCe Q BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface ADGCC Surface Well Name Operator t RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan for St with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drift pipe Oumalik Care #2 US Navy 1 ULM Low None None yes ve elation and rock hit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Si with Sampling open csg & other Drillip) Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup_ Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on melat, conciele Oumalik Core 011 US Navy t BLM Low None None Yes surface (__q to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal 0umalik Core #12 US Navy I BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data —__—debris _„ debris buried by landslide. Need HRR, PA, St, Well not no dala on Sentinel Hill #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None Unknown ap panent in site Rholos Csq to 3t1'. underwater status Need IQR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open crag slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and S imp son Core Test #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No appears healthy lett in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface_ Veg 76'01 Csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hate no data Need HRR. PA, Sl. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste an surface. Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Sim sun Core Test #3 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, ordrilling waste on surface. Veg --60' of crag, drilling fluids Sim eson Core Test #4 US Nayy t BLM Low Norse None No apecars healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25% open csg sticking Songsoncore Test #13 US Na 1 BLM Low None None No appears health dritin fluids IeR in hole_ out of round Need HRR, PA, SI. Vegetated, no evidence of crag cemented @2D'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 US Navy ! BLM Low None None No release. drillin fluids left in hole out of ground Page 6 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx ism son Core Fest #26 t=vrdence or Medium AOGCC Subsur(aen ADGGC Surface 13LM 2013 Risk CSP Status File WHazid Historic Retease7 SPAR Wwkgroup Notes Status Status Well Name operator r RP 1 Land Mgr Priority Unko Need HRR, PA. SL US Na ! $LM open casing None Nave Vegetated. no eV4dence of cog set shallow; drilling slicking nut of Low No release- fluids left in hole round Simpson Core Teri #14a US Na !BLM Low None None & weilhead slick Need HRR. PA, SI crude nil left in hole open casing Need HIR, PA, Workplan Vegetated, no e+wdence of csg cemented 12181; slicking out of openrigd ng No release. drillingfluid left in hole round Simoson Care Tesl #15 US Na !BLM Low None None d wooden cellar, Need HRR, PP, SL Sate a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal ism son Core Fest #26 US Na ! BLM Medium None None res Sim san Core Test 027 US Na J 13LM IJone None None Unko Sim son Gore Test #28 US Na ! $LM Low None Nave Yes clmnnnn Core Tesl #29 US Navy! BLM Low Norte No No Simpson Core Test 030 US Na 1 !BLM Core Test #30a JUS,Navy 1 BLM Low `None f'tone n Gore Test #31 JUS Navy/ BLM None Page 7o(14 photos appear to show oil at surface, from a natural csg Q 350'. Completed in oil seep, seep, also drilling mud in oil well Open perfs. At 1welhead sticking sacks on the tundra one lime capable of up_ metal debris PI u ed b BLM in 2004. unassisled flow. and rustingbarrels 'Need HRR, PA, St. Site photos appear to show Oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @i02;dnllutg fluids nn oily ground; csg seep- Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & weilhead slick vin 2004 crude nil left in hole out of ground Need HIR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling- openrigd ng ❑rilling Mud Assessment . out grouunnd in Surface Cleanup. Site d wooden cellar, photos appear to show a p le of drilling mud about a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal 160 feel tram the welt tell in hole debris. Solid waste Need HRR, PA, Sl_ No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or dri" waste on surface. Veg csg cemented at 1S2'; open csg. Wood a ears healthy dnknq fluids lett in hole and metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. frilling mud at surface. but well is also in the middle of a large in oil seep; Open oil seep and surrounded by cog sticking up; pooled oil. Plugged by BLNI csg cemented A150'; wood & metal see Holes in 20514- drillin fluids left in hole detail on oily ground; tog Need HRR. PA, Sl. Well is wellhead slick in the middle of a large oil seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100% out of ground. pooled oil. Plugged by 131. dulling mud left in hole. wellhead leaking see noses in 2004 gas blowout at 423' gas Need HRR, PA, St. Leaky valve replaced in 2001, little evidence of contamination following valve on city ground; rig replacement- Plugged by csg cemented at 100'; & wellhead stick see notes BLM in 20174 iddifing fluids, left in hole out o1 round SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 • • yr enco o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator f RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File glHasid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR PA, Workplan csg Cemented at for Sl with Sampling. 1028', cement plugs a1 Drilling Mud Assessment. 6387' and 5520'. Fish in Surface Cleanup. Drilling hole, drilling fluids Iefs in No data. Open Simpson Test Welt #1 ak US Navy1 BLM Low None INone yes muds near wellhead hale casing Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling. Dolling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, melel, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy I BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TO. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. rasing cemented at 48; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas 0mv and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will Filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek 91 US Navy f BLM Low None Nano No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented a[ 53';hole left tilted with fresh water, Wolf Creek 02 US Navy 1 BLM Low Noire None No Need HRR. PA. Sl. fish in hole csg cemented at 107'; No data bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735 and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Nayy I BLM Low None None No Meed HRR, PA, SI. 661, No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg slicking out of Drilling mud assessment ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core test #1 US NaMy I BLM High None None Yes polential for cornlamrna[ion diesel left in hole nisling barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Two open csg, wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000', wood & metal Kaolak 01 US Navy I BLM t ow None jNone lNo Potential for hurried landfill. fdriltingluidsieftin hole debris Page 8 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 181-11119013 Risk Well Name Operator f RP ! land Mgr Priorlty CSP Status File 1NHazid #1 1 U Navy 19LM #1 JUS Navy/ umatik Ill US Na I BLM Low None None as[ Oumalik #i US Na !BLM Low None None #1 N East Topagoruk #1 USN l BLM Knifeblade #1 US Navy! BLM Page 9 of 14 Subsurface `AOGCC Surface SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. open flange Q Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Gas well. Open ports. ground level. Mud pile overgrown with Drilling fluids and Metal & wood v , etallon and lichen tubulars lett in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling csg cemented at 502'; open casing slicking out of waste on surface. Veg plug at 3470 to 3511'; ground. Wood appears heall drilling nuids left in hole debris. Open casing below Add to Site list. Need HRR, ground level. PA, SI with sampling- Revegetated. Drilling mud assessment. Numerous metal Surface Cleanup. Debris csg partially cemented at I support structures and drilling muds. Stressed 2762'. Plug at 2543% sticking up. vegetation Dridin mud left in hole Concrete debris, plate welded to pipe: l' of pipe rsg cemented at 1100'. sticking up - Need HRR. PA. SI. Drig fluids left in hole Wooden debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Driving mud assessment. open csg broken Surface Cleanup. Downhole material present csg cemented at 6073'. off and sticking up: at surface, area mostly original hole drilled to wood, metal, revegetated. Diesel still 7154'& junk len; concrete and other occupies the ground sidetrack hole left wilh debris. rusting dreulatioir lines. drillina fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Dolling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of tsg 10 1100'; pkig al open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049% drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, teller. No offical reserve pit plug: unknown fluids in metal, and glass noted o en hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, stales that there was no metal, and glass debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420% debris - •I 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Welts Lisl.xlsx Paye 10 of 14 0 0 w once a BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status v F Status open casing sticking up. Wood, metal, & concrete debris rusting Need NRR, PA, SI. Reports barrels. One indicate solid waste csg cemented to 45';fish marked flammable Knileblade #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No drums in hole hazard. open casing slicking up; metal & Krideblade #2a US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. csq cemented at 38% concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI including learning assessment. Site partially No wellhead. submerged intermittently csg cemented at 80; Metal. Solid waste North Simpson Test Wel 4 US N2n I BLM Low None None No during the summer dri0ing fluids left in hole ? No dala crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, St. Surface csg cemented at 685'; Wood and metal Umiat 01 US Navy J BLM I FUDS Medium Cleanup co 335.38.00113090 Yes, see file Cleanup drillinq fluids left in bole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented a1486; revegelaled wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #i t US Na I BLM I FURS Low pending dos 335.38.00113083 Yes, see file Clea 490'; sticking u csg cemented at 7206'; vVefNwad- Gravel various plugs from 8250' pad revegetaled 7 South Sirnpson 01 US Navy I BLM Low None None Yes Need HRR, PA, SI. to surface No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Large quantifies of ferrous oxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, and barium sulfate were added to drilling muds. Stains apparent in photos. BLM field camp an site. Walls between the reserve and Pare pits have eroded. Wellhead and Water flows into surface gravel pad. ? No Wook #1 USGS I BLM Low lNone Name Yes water during break22L no data data Paye 10 of 14 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lrsl.xlsx BLM 2x13 Risk Well Name 10porator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status I File #IHazid Arca- Barrow Cure #1 US Na l til.M Avak 01 US Navy I BLM Barrow Bi R' #1 US Na I BLM Barrow Cafe Rig Test 91 US Na I BLM #2 I US Navy I BLM #1JUS N,a I BLM H' h NOr1e None Test Well #1 US Test Well #2 US Barrow Test Wetl #31115 Na IN©r1h Slo c Bora IAedium None None Unknown Page 11 of 14 Subsurface -FAOGCC Surface SPAR IWorkgfoup Notes Status _ ___ araiu5 Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface Cleanup, Photo CIMG0218 csg cemented at 53` shows area of disturbed tubing hung to 708': hole open casing vegetation that should be heft filled with drilling mud slicking up; wood & investi algid durin Sf and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR. PA, St. Surface csg cemeoled at BIF. sticking up; wood & Cleanu-. lu set at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing 7? No Cleanup no data data Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR. PA, SI. 'Surface open casing 77 No Cteanu no data data Need HRR, PA, St with sampling. trilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on Not abandoned, site -slowly revegelatmg site not igred, More information on drilling open casing 7? No mud specifics rs being researched no data data Need 1lRR, PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud wellhead leaking assessment. Surface cemented Csg to gas!? Wood & Cleanup- Cellar does not 1270;slotted liner to metal debris. Area retain water 1956': tbg to 1939 affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA. SI. Drilling Csg cemented at mud assessment. Surface 441'.hole Iell willed with open pipe; metal & Cleanup- On mads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling Csg cemented al 2260'; mud assessment- Surface periorated liner to TD. wood, metal & Cleariu . fln road s stem lin Completed well. Conerete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling +csg cemented at 10461: open c5g slinking mud at surface. Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal surface wafer in well cell larQuids and wafer. de" 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Well Flame Operator I RP I Land Mgr BLM 201$ Risk Priority CSP Status File #ltiazid yr once oF— Historic Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes AOGCC Subsurface Salus g AOGCC Surface Status no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None None lUnknown Need HRR, PA. not in AOGCC database Monlht Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our fist of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Cumalik Foundalion Test b US Navy I BLM None-uncased hC None jNane Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed From our irsl of wells of Concern In < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None lNone Unknown Need HRR. PA, not m AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no c5g. no APF#. Odubut. 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased ht Nune lNone Unknown Need HRR, PA, nal in AOGCC database Monthiv Meetin no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our Ilst of wells of con cam in < 501, no csg, no APi#. October, 2012 Oumatik Foundation Test 0 US NavyI BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Moral Meeting no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Ournalik Foundation Test 4US Navy I BLM None4xwased h_j None None Unknown I Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Month Meetin Page 12 of 14 0 Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxisx Well Name BLM 2013 Risk Operator f RP I Land Mgr Priority Historic CSP Status Fife #IHazld Rslease7 AOGCC subsurface Status �__ - -_-�� . A013CC Surface Status no dala. Likely SPAR 1Norkgroup Nates revegelaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50'. no csg, no AP IN, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test US Na!q BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA. not w AOGCC database MonthlyMeeiin no data. Likely revegelated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 501. no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundalion rest U5 Na I BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monihl lAeeli no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from aur fist of wells of concern in 0urn alik Foundation Test US Na 18 LM None -encased fi None None ilnknown Need HRR. PA, < 50', no csg. no API#, not in AOGCC database October, 2012 Month! Meetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern In < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundat'Gon Test US Na I BLM None encased h Nome None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not m AOGCC database Month! Meeting property abandoned per then -applicable South Banow #7 US NEILM 2LI None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, ro erl lu ed re s no data to support proper Um -Qt 02 US N Noire Pendin Clo 335.30.001/3078 Yes, see file Plu d to surface abandonment no data to support proper Uncal #5 Ummt #9 Urrval A66 Umial #T Atiaaru Point#1 U5 US US Na I BL M US Na I BLM USGS/BLM None Pendin Hi h -PCB cleanu Active None Pendia None tPendi Mane Clo 3L5 313.00113079 335.38.00113093 Cao 335.3$.00113080 Clo 335 38 001I3091 None Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes. see lite No Plu ed E4 surface property plugged and abandoned pfupedy plugged and abandoned property plugged and abandoned Need HRR. PA,Plugged by properly plugged and BLM in 2009. abandoned abandonment suriaoe site remediated surface site remediated suriacx V le remediated surface site remediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxlsx Page 14 of 14 0 vrcTon`ce o BLM 2813 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator i RP 1 Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fFlaxid Releases SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA. SI with workplan and sampling. Chilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Two large breaches on the south side of the berm allow water out of the reserve pit. Plugged properly plugged and surface site Drew Point #1 USGS 1 BLM None None None Yes by BLM in 2410. abandoned remedialed On Site list Need HRR, PA, 51 with workplan and sampling. [frilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and dolling muds/cutlings were released onlo the Poe of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp aril drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy 1 BLM None Active - waits 3Q0.38.11012652 Yes, see file waste. abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton $P USGS f BLM None None None No Plu ed b BLM in 20fl5. abandoned rernediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF 1 BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface sile South Bartow 911 US Na INorih Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 013 US Na lNerlh Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HHR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #15 US Na !North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #19 US Na 1Nrarlh Sloe Baro None Nana None Unknown Need HRR. PA, abandoned remediated Properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 1x20 US Na Worth Slope Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed Need HRR, PA, dolling mud assessment, containment assessment, possible releases. Breaches allow wafer to flow into and aul of property plugged and surface site Watakpa #2 USGSI BLM None None lNone lyes I reserve and flare pits. labandoned irernediated Page 14 of 14 0 THE STATE July 11, 2013 GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL Wayne Svejnoha Supervisory Minerals & Energy Specialist 222 W 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: BLM Legacy Wells Dispute Dear Mr. Svejnoha: C) co'rtse1,"vatto r Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program SCONED APR U I ZU14 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.2155 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — Contaminated Sites has reviewed the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report dated February 2013, containing updated information on the status of the 136 Legacy Wells located in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska (NPR -A), and the draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan dated May 2013. ADEC has also reviewed the response by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGC). We concur with the response by AOGC and have no further comment regarding the priorities. We do have comments about the investigation and cleanup plans presented in the report. With this letter we are outlining regulatory requirements related to the environmental work that is proposed and required as part of these cleanups. ADEC is concerned that the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan prepared by the BLM does not include either assessment or the contingency for assessment of known, likely, or unknown but possible contaminant releases. In addition, BLM plans for surface cleanup of these wells should be made clear in the plan. At least one of these legacy wells has extensive PCB contamination and has resulted in a multi-year cleanup totaling tens of millions of dollars. At others, solid waste disposal practices have resulted in releases to the environment with estimated cleanup costs in the hundreds of millions. Known releases documented in the records we reviewed include crude oil, gasses, refined oil and fuel, drilling fluids that include various organics, metals, and other chemicals, and unknown contaminants from drums and other containers observed to be damaged and abandoned at the various well sites. There are 13 legacy well sites with known releases currently on the DEC contaminated sites list. Many of these are in the process of being addressed, cleaned up, and closed. From our limited records review there are 15 additional legacy well sites with confirmed releases. These should be prioritized for initial records reviews and then added to the BLM contaminated sites list under our cooperative agreement. Suspected releases include fuel releases from operations, storage, and fuel spills at the sites, impacts to various surface water bodies from spilled fluids during drilling and breaches of containment at reserve and flare pits, continued surface runoff from drilling fluids uncontained at several sites, and down -hole substances that were ejected from the holes over time or during blowouts or drilling operations. Wayne Svejnoha 2 July 11, 2013 The BLM plan to address these known, suspected, and unknown releases at legacy well sites is notably absent from the documents presented to date. The three priman, regulatory agencies that need to be involved in the plan are ADEC — Contaminated Sites, Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, and ADEC — EH/Solid Waste. Other agencies will need to be consulted as well. Below we provide recommendations for a coordinated plan using the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sites in a consistent and coordinated project which fulfills all of the regulatory requirements so that the sites do not need to be re -visited in the future when they are closed after this project. Attached are our comments on each specific well. The acronyms used on the list include terms that are typically used in a CERCLA type investigation however they are also suitable for investigations conducted under the State of Alaska cleanup rules. These include the following; Historical Records Review (HRR) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. Much of the information required for these reviews is already contained in various reports and appendices or in BLM files. The historical Records Review should document the type of releases that might have occurred from drilling operations as well as historical use of the site, and should capture all available information on the drilling fluids used and any product produced or released. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. A Preliminary Assessment is a limited scope investigation that provides an assessment of information about a site and its surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that require further investigation. The PA is a CERCLA defined document and typically does not require sampling. Site Inspection (SI) If the PA recommends further investigation, then an SI is necessary. The SI is a CERCLA defined document, and it is analogous to an initial report of contamination under state cleanup rules. On some legacy well drillings sites it is evident now that an SI is required just from a review of the reports. An SI investigation typically includes the collection of samples to determine what contaminants are present at the site and whether they are being released into the environment. An approved site specific workplan is required under both CERCLA and 18 AAC 75 prior to SI sampling. The SI typically is not intended to develop a full site characterization, but is limited to determining the presence or absence of a release. If contamination is found after completion of the HRR, PA, and SI then a RI/FS under CERCLA, or a Site Characterization Report and cleanup plan under 18 AAC 75 is required. DEC recommends that BLM incorporate into the strategic plan the processes outlined in this letter. A team of agencies composed of AOGC, DEC -CS, EPA as required, and DEC -EH should address regulatory and technical requirements for these well closures. By cooperating and working together with the regulatory agencies BLM will save time and expense, and regulatory uncertainties will be avoided. The strategic plan should reference a project to prepare a generic workplan. DEC suggests that BLM utilize the generic UFP-QAPP workplan format for the required environmental work. If properly prepared, the workplan could encompass most of the investigations and cleanups required at these sites over multiple years. At other multi -site projects we have found this to be an effective way to reduce uncertainties and risk in these types of investigations. A very small site specific FSP could then be developed as BLM approaches each drilling site. Regulatory decisions made during workplan development would provide more certainty in the planning process for cleanups. (_•\CUAA F—i—I A—r;eq\r)ni\BT.M\Proiects\Le¢acv Wells\7 11 13 Letter to BLM on Legacy Wekdocx Wayne Svejnoha 3 July 11, 2013 Please review the attached list of specific sites. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 907-451-2181 or by email at fred.vreeman@alaska.gov. I look forward to working with you as the Federal Government fulfills its requirement to clean up these well drilling sites in Alaska. Sincerely, Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager Enclosure: SPAR Response with Legacy Wells cc: Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Cathy Foerster, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program G:\SPAR\CS\Federal Facilities\Civilian Federal Agencies\DOI\BLM\Projects\Legacy Wells\7 11 13 Letter to BLM on Legacy Wells.docx SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 1 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Simpson Core Test #5 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Simpson Core Test #6 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #7 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #8 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #9 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #10 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data well sketch provided by Need PA incl drill fluid BLM not consistent with Simpson Core Test #11 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #12 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drillinQ fluids left in hole no data Need PA and SI incl drill fluid assessment, workplan incl sampling stressed debris, partially Simpson Core Test #16 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown areas qas blowout and fire reve etated site Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #17 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #18 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #19 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #20 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Simpson Core Test #21 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #22 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #23 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #24 US Navy / BLM None-Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid drilling fluids and ball Simpson Core Test #25 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None INone Unknown assessment & workplan peen hammer left in hole no data overshot, drill collar, rock revegetated -- BLM Ik ik uk Core #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA bit, and N -rods left in hole can't find it Review Report as PA. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg Not abandoned, Square Lake #1 US Navy/ BLM I Low INone INone INo jappears healthy Plugged to surface site not cleared Page 1 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 2 of 14 vience o —a-_ _ �_�_=n—I BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status _- �— plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #3 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3092 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #4 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #8 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3081 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #10 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3082 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 7868'. Drilling Cleanup. Photos - evidence mud and diesel to Awuna #1 USGS / BLM Medium None None Yes of erosion into lake surface. > 100 Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud Wood, metal, assessment. Surface Plugged to 2039'. Diesel plastic debris. East Simpson #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface. >100 Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with Wood and metal Drilling mud assessment. debris. Pylons. Photos show areas of no Plugged to 2047'. Diesel Tankage for Ik ik uk #1 USGS / BLM Low None INone Yes vegetation. to surface. flammable fluids Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1400'. Drilling Wood and metal Koluktak #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1894'. Diesel Wood and metal Ku rua #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Unknown Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 4464'. Drilling Wood & metal Ku anak #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show Plugged to 1840'. Diesel Plastic and metal Lisburne #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes stained soil to surface debris. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 8192'. Drilling Wood and metal North Ini ok #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface Idebris. Page 2 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 3 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI with T sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Site photos show areas of stressed vegetation. No issues Plugged to 2232'. Diesel Wood and metal North Kalik ik #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes noted in USGS report. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 2026'. Diesel Wood and metal Peard #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Oil reported bubbling to the surface within reserve pit in 1982. Oily residue and sheen observed adjacent to east side of reserve pit, down hole material at the Plugged to 1875'. Diesel Wood and metal South Meade #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes surface to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Reserve pit berm had breaches allowing water to exit. Oil - stained sediment was observed above the Plugged to 1478'. Diesel Wood and metal Seabee #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes waterline of the pit. to surface debris. Site photos may show hydrocarbon sheen on Plugged to 2600'. Drilling Wood and metal Tula eak #1 USGS / BLM Medium None None Yes water in well cellar mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Berms have been breached an allow water to flow out of reserve pit/flare pit. Rising bubbles of oil observed in flare pit 1984. Photos show Plugged to 1825'. Diesel Metal debris. Tunalik #1 USGS / BLM I Low None I None IYes I stressed vegetation lto surface Pylons Page 3 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 4 of 14 yr ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Breaches in berm allow water to flow into and out of reserve pit, sheen on Plugged to 2700'. Diesel Wood and metal West Dease #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes surface water in well cellar to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Water flows into the pits through breaches on the eastern berm and out of the pits through breaches on the northern and western berms. Downhole material Plugged to 2289'. Drilling Wood and metal South Harrison Bay #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes present at surface mud & diesel to surface debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation noted and apparent in site photos. Plugged to 2443'. Drilling West Fish Creek #1 USGS / BLM Low None None Yes Drilling mud around well mud & diesel to surface Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. High TPH Plugged to 1977'. Drilling wellhead sticking concentrations underneath mud under plugs. Diesel up. Wood debris. East Simpson #2 USGS / BLM Low Active 300.38.109/2651 Yes, see file the riq foundation to surface Pylons South Barrow #4 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #5 USAF - BLM Unknown None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #6 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data South Barrow #9 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data South Barrow#10 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #12 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data BLM well sketch not consistent with AOGCC South Barrow#14 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI data no data Need PA incl drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US Na /North Sloe Boro None INone None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill fluid tubing in well, no perfs, South Barrow #17 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown assessment & workplan unknown fluids no data Page 4 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Welts List.xlsx Page 5 of 14 BI_M 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status South Barrow #18 US Na /North Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status com leted aswell no data Walak a #1 USGS / Unknown None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data csg @ 890'. Multiple cement plugs of unknown volume. Shallowest Gubik #1 US Na / Unknown Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI 800' no data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg @ 800'. Well blowout Drilling mud assessment. from zone at 1800' during Surface Cleanup. Photos plugging operations. show disturbed/ stained Plugging never Gubik #2 US Navy/ Unknown Low None None yes areas completed after blowout. no data two downhole cement plugs of unknown depth Grandstand #1 US Navy/ Unknown None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI and volume. no data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location. Upon completion of the 2nd well, the sediment was pushed back into the reserve pit,. Area does not appear to be revegetating, perhaps from the presence properly plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment W T Foran #1 '* USGS / Unknown Low None None Yes surface status no data On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Cape Halkett #1 — US Na / Unknown Low Active 300.38.108/2689 Yes, see file site underwater abandoned at surface concrete debris under 5' of water, Min a Velocity #1 US Navy/ BLM one one one Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI csg to 27' 1 open csg csg @ 31'. 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and core Oumalik Core #1 US Navy/ BLM None -No observa None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI. barrel left in hole. reve etated Page 5 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 6 of 14 BLM2013 Risk v- ence of— fBLM Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Status Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? W SPAR orkgroup Notes Status _ Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drill pipe Oumalik Core #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes vegetation and rock bit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. open csg & other Drilling Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup. Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on metal, concrete Oumalik Core #11 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes surface csg to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal Oumalik Core #12 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data debris buried by landslide, Need NRR, PA, SI. Well not no data on Sentinel Hill #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown apparent in site photos r-sg to 30'; underwater status Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open csg slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and Simpson Core Test #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg 76' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None lNone No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #3 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg –60' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #4 US Navy / BLM Low None INone No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, S1. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #13 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy drilling fluids left in hole out of ground Need HRR, PA, SI. Vegetated, no evidence of csg cemented @20'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 1 US Navy/ BLM Low INone lNone INo release. ldrilling fluids left in hole lout of ground Page 6 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 7 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status a Need HRR, PA, SI. _ _ open casing Vegetated, no evidence of csg set shallow; drilling sticking out of Simpson Core Test #14a US Na / BLM Low None None No release. fluids left in hole ground Need HRR, PA, SI. open casing Vegetated, no evidence of csg cemented @18'; sticking out of Simpson Core Test #15 US Na / BLM Low None None No release. drilling fluid left in hole ground . Need HRR, PA, SI. Site photos appear to show oil at surface, from a natural csg @ 350'. Completed in oil seep; seep, also drilling mud in oil well. Open perfs. At wellhead sticking sacks on the tundra. one time capable of up. metal debris Simpson Core Test #26 US Navy/ BLM Medium None None Yes Plugged by BLM in 2004. unassisted flow. and rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Site photos appear to show oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @102';drilling fluids on oily ground; csg seep. Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & wellhead stick Simpson Core Test #27 US Navy/ BLM None None None Unknown 2004. crude oil left in hole out of ground Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. open csg sticking Surface Cleanup. Site out of ground in photos appear to show a wooden cellar; pile of drilling mud about csg @110'; drilling fluids wood & metal Simpson Core Test #28 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes 100 feet from the well left in hole debris. Solid waste Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented at 152'; open csg. Wood Simpson Core Test #29 US Navy / BLM Low None None No appears healthy drilling fluids left in hole and metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. Drilling mud at surface, but well is also in the middle of a large in oil seep; open oil seep and surrounded by csg sticking up; pooled oil. Plugged by BLM csg cemented at150'; wood & metal Simpson Core Test #30 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. drilling fluids left in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. Well is on oily ground; csg in the middle of a large oil & wellhead stick seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100'; out of ground, pooled oil. Plugged by BLM drilling mud left in hole; wellhead leaking Simpson Core Test #30a US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. gas blowout at 423' gas Need HRR, PA, SI. Leaky valve replaced in 2001, little evidence of contamination following valve on oily ground; csg replacement. Plugged by csg cemented at 100'; & wellhead stick Simpson Core Test #31 1 US Navy/ BLM None INone INone IYes,seenotes jBLMin2004. 1drilling fluids left in hole I out of ground Page 7 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx vi encs of BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator! RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan csg cemented at for SI with Sampling. 1028';cement plugs at Drilling Mud Assessment. 6387' and 5520'; fish in Surface Cleanup. Drilling hole; drilling fluids left in No data. Open Simpson Test Well #1 ak US Navy/ BLM Low None None yes muds near wellhead hole casing. Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, metal, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy! BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TD. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. casing cemented at 48'; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas flow and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented at 53';hole left filled with fresh water; Wolf Creek #2 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. fish in hole No data csg cemented at 107'; bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735' and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. 661' No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg sticking out of Drilling mud assessment. ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core Test #1 US Na / BLM High None None Yes potential for contamination diesel left in hole rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Two open csg; wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000'; wood & metal Kaolak #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No l Potential for burned landfill. drilling fluids left in hole debris Page 8 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 9 of 14 vi ence o - - -_--- - —z --�.-� - a - BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Iflforkgroup Notes Add to Site list. Need HRR, Status z _ Status _I PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. open flange @ Surface Cleanup. Drilling Gas well. Open perfs. ground level. Mud pile overgrown with Drilling fluids and Metal & wood Meade #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No vegetation and lichen tubulars left in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open casing stressed veg, or drilling csg cemented at 502'; sticking out of waste on surface. Veg plug at 3470 to 3511'; ground. Wood Titaluk #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears heal hy drilling fluids left in hole debris. Open casing below Add to Site list. Need HRR, ground level. PA, SI with sampling. Revegetated. Drilling mud assessment. Numerous metal Surface Cleanup. Debris csg partially cemented at support structures and drilling muds. Stressed 2762'. Plug at 2543'. sticking up. Oumalik #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes ve etation Drilling mud left in hole Concrete debris. plate welded to pipe; V of pipe csg cemented at 1100'. sticking up. East Oumalik #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. Drilling fluids left in hole Wooden debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. open csg broken Downhole material present csg cemented at 6073% off and sticking up; at surface, area mostly original hole drilled to wood, metal, revegetated. Diesel still 7154' & junk left; concrete and other occupies the ground sidetrack hole left with debris. rusting To a uruk #1 US Navy / BLM High None None Yes circulation lines. drilling fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of csg to 1100'; plug at open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049'; drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, celler. No offical reserve pit plug; unknown fluids in metal, and glass East To a oruk #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No noted I open hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, states that there was no metal, and glass Knifeblade #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420'; debris. Page 9 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 10 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status open casing sticking up. Wood, metal, & concrete debris. rusting Need HRR, PA, SI. Reports barrels. One indicate solid waste csg cemented to 45';fish marked flammable Knifeblade #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No (drums) in hole hazard. open casing sticking up; metal & Knifeblade #2a US Navy / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. csg cemented at 38'; concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI including leaching assessment. Site partially No wellhead. submerged intermittently csg cemented at 80'; Metal. Solid waste North Simpson Test Well # US Na / BLM Low None None No during the summer drilling fluids left in hole ? No data crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, Sl. Surface csg cemented at 685'; Wood and metal Umiat #1 US Na / BLM / FUDS Medium Cleanup con 335.38.001/3090 Yes, see file Cleanup drilling fluids left in hole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented at 486'; revegetated wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #11 US Na / BLM / FUDS Low pending clos 335.38.001/3083 Yes, see file Cleanup 480'; sticking up csg cemented at 7206'; Wellhead. Gravel various plugs from 8250' pad revegetated ? South Simpson #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes Need HRR, PA, Sl. to surface No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Large quantities of ferrous oxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, and barium sulfate were added to drilling muds. Stains apparent in photos. BLM field camp on site. Walls between the reserve and flare pits have eroded. Wellhead and Water flows into surface gravel pad. ? No Ini ok #1 USGS / BLM I Low lNone I None IYes lwater durinq breakup. no data Idata Page 10 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 11 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes, Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface Cleanup. Photo CIMG0218 csg cemented at 53'; shows area of disturbed tubing hung to 708'; hole open casing vegetation that should be left filled with drilling mud sticking up; wood & Arcon Barrow Core #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Yes investigated during SI and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface csg cemented at 816'; sticking up; wood & Avak #1 US Navy / BLM Low None None No Cleanup. plugset at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing ?? No Barrow Big Rig #1 US Na / BLM None -debris pla None None Unknown Cleanup. no data data Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing ?? No Barrow Core Rig Test #1 US Na / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Cleanup. no data data Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on site -slowly revegetating. Not abandoned, More information on drilling site not Geared, mud specifics is being open casing ??No Barrow Core Rig Test #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None researched no data data Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud wellhead leaking assessment. Surface cemented csg to gas!! Wood & Cleanup. Cellar does not 1270';slotted liner to metal debris. Area Iko Bay #1 US Navy / BLM • High None None Yes -Report note retain water 1950'; tbg to 1939' affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling csg cemented at mud assessment. Surface 441';hole left willed with open pipe; metal & South Barrow Test Well #1 US Na /North Slope Boro Low None None unknown Cleanup. On roads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI. Drilling csg cemented at 2260` mud assessment. Surface perforated liner to TD; wood, metal & South Barrow Test Well #2 US Na /North Slope Boro Low None None unknown Cleanup. On roads stem tubing. Completed well. concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling csg cemented at 1046'; open csg sticking mud at surface, Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal South Barrow Test Well #31 US Na /North Slope Borol Medium INone INone Yes Isurface water in well cellar fluids and water debris Page 11 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 12 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status _ r Status_ no data. Likely - revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test 4 US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hcI None lNone Unknown lNeed HRR, PA, Inot in AOGCC database IMonthly Meeting Page 12 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 13 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Votes Status Status no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Na / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meetin properly abandoned per then -applicable South Barrow#7 US Na / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, properly plugged re s no data to support proper Umiat #2 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plugged to surface abandonment no data to support proper Umiat #5 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plugged to surface abandonment properly plugged and surface site Umiat #9 US Navy / BLM Hi h -PCB cleanu Active 335.38.001/3093 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #6 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3080 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #7 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3091 IYes, see file abandoned Iremediated Need HRR, PA, Plugged by properly plugged and surface site Ati aru Point #1 USGS / BLM None None None No I BLM in 2009. abandoned remediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 14 of 14 vi ence of— BLM 2013 Risk Historic IAOGCC Subsurface �AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator/ RP! Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPARlRrorkgroup Notes Status Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with workplan and sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Two large breaches on the south side of the berm allow water out of the reserve pit. Plugged properly plugged and surface site Drew Point #1 USGS / BLM None None None Yes by BLM in 2010. abandoned remediated On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with workplan and sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and drilling muds/cuttings were released onto the ice of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp and drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy / BLM None Active - waiti 300.38.110/2652 Yes, see file waste. abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton #1 USGS / BLM None None None No Plugged by BLM in 2005. abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #11 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #13 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #15 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #19 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #20 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated Need HRR, PA, drilling mud assessment, containment assessment, possible releases. Breaches allow water to flow into and out of properly plugged and surface site Walak a #2 USGS/ BLM None None None Yes reserve and flare pits. abandoned remediated Page 14 of 14 a� L C<f4 �rMC' r1F�f.�. 's. 3 � Well Ranking Before identifying the risks associated with the legacy wells, the BLM reviewed the list of wells to determine ownership and well status. A break -down of the 136 is as follows: • 39 are uncased core holes that did not penetrate oil and gas zone, have naturally collapsed, and have blended harmlessly into the landscape. • 33 were either transferred to the North Slope Borough through the Barrow Gas Field Act of 1984 or were conveyed to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. • 20 wells are being used to by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for climatic temperature and permafrost studies (see Appendix B). • 7 wells are plugged (6 at Umiat, Square Lake #1). • 37 wells that require further evaluation. Following the 2003 field season, members of the legacy well team met to determine criteria for evaluating the risks associated with the above mentioned 37 wells and ranking each well based on these risks. For consistency purposes, the group devised a series of questions to assist in the process: • What is the condition of the existing pad and pits? (e.g. any indication of contamination?) • Is there any solid waste (old equipment, piping, barrels, etc.) or potential hazardous material conditions? • Did the hole penetrate known oil or gas stratigraphy? • Did the well have oil or gas shows, and if so, is the well capable of flowing? • Is the well near human activity, and if so are there conditions present that pose a risk to people? • What is the condition of the wellhead? Have there been any previous problems or repair work? Does the well (in its current condition) pose a risk? • What is the surficial condition of the existing pad and pits? Is contamination a possibility? • Does the presence of unplugged wells have the potential to negatively impact anticipated development? Each of the 37 wells are described in the following pages. Descriptions are ordered in terms of the ranked priority based on the above stated criteria and the concerns identified. Umiat Wells The early Navy wells in Umiat rank at the top of the list. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. Natural oil seeps were discovered at Umiat by early explorers. This discovery, along with the detection of seeps at Cape Simpson, motivated the U.S. Navy to conduct a drilling program. Umiat and the Simpson Peninsula were the primary exploration targets in the mid to late 1940s. The Umiat seeps are still visible today. Their locations tend to shift over time. The seeps are currently active in Umiat Lake, just off the northeast portion of the airstrip and in a channel of the Colville River. 22 ,EP The 11 Umiat wells were drilled from 1945 to 1952. These wells are a concern for BLM due to their close proximity to human activity. Umiat is not a village, but serves as a camp for seismic crews: Umiat is also the primary hub for recreational activities in eastern NPR -A and western CAMA (Central Arctic Management Area). It has one of the few airstrips on the North Slope maintained year-round and is a popular location for purchasing aircraft fuel (Figure 10). The Umiat wells all lie within 2 miles of the camp, with the exception of Umiat #1, which is approximately 5 miles to the northwest. After the U.S. Navy completed drilling operations in 1952, the U.S. Air Force assumed custodial responsibility at Umiat and established the 8,000 -acre Figure 10: Umiat is a popular stopping point for Umiat Air Force Station. In Tune of aircraft. 1955 the Air Force returned the facility to the U.S. Navy. Since Umiat is a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) is responsible for the reduction of risk associated with surficial hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste. The COE has conducted extensive surface investigations in the area and has identified contaminants at several locations. Varying levels of barium, petroleum, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) were identified at the wellsites, the landfill, and the nearby slough (U.S. Army COE, 2003). Contamination levels were compared to the Alaska Department of Environmental cleanup standards and were used as a screening level. The COE has conducted site remediation at two well locations, Umiat #2 and #5 (Figure 11), and has plans to continue the surface clean up. To facilitate site remediation, the COE plugged wells #2 and #5 in 2002, but plugging the remainder of the wells is the responsibility of the BLM. Four wells were plugged by the BLM in the Winter/Spring of 2004. After the removal of wellheads #2 and #5, the State of Alaska Historic Preservation Office asked the BLM to leave all existing surface objects (wellheads, tanks, pipes) onsite and intact, because of their potential Figure 11: Umiat #2 and #5 prior to removal and historic value. The Alaska Heritage remediation. Photo taken August 2001. Resources Survey (AHRS) included the Umiat wells in an inventory of all reported historic and prehistoric sites within the State of Alaska. This inventory of cultural resources includes objects, structures, buildings, sites, districts, and travel routes generally more than 50 years old. Therefore, the wellheads for the other Umiat wells will be left in place after plugging is completed. 23 • Umiat #9 Umiat #9 was spudded in June 1951 and completed seven months later in January 1952. The well is cased to a depth of 1,257 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the western extent of the producing field. It was also the first hole in which oil-based muds were used in the Umiat area. Umiat #9 is located about half mile to the north-northwest of the Seabee pad. The drill hole penetrated several known oil and gas formations; Ninuluk, Chandler, Grandstand and Topagoruk. Hydrocarbon shows were prevalent within both the Grandstand and the Topagoruk formations. Multiple sands were perforated and tested. Production exceeded 217 barrels per day, thus seemingly showing the benefit of using an oil-based mud. However, the muds did Figure 12: Aerial view of Umiat #9. not allow the different formations to be distinguished. Cement was used in an attempt to "plug back" and isolate individual formations. Samples were taken and sent to a Bureau of Mines lab where the chemical tracer (used during drilling) was measured and the various sandstone samples were examined. This allowed a study of the different lithologies be conducted. The tracer Aroclor used in the well has raised concerns about PCB contamination. However, the well was allowed to flow for seven weeks at 200 barrels per day (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956) prior to shutting it in, possibly purging the potential contaminants. As it stands today, insufficient energy exists in the reservoir for the well to flow to surface and the wellhead has no pressure on it. The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the next 20 years and the well has the potential to leak to surface if development occurs and may adversely affect future development. Surficial wastes around Umiat #9 could present an issue. As was common with early Navy drilling, a gravel pad was not created. Wooden debris exists around the wellhead and there is a pile of drilling muds directly to the north which is void of vegetation (Figure 12). Samples taken by the COE from around the wellhead detected elevated levels of diesel range organics (DRO), residual range organics (RRO) and PCBs (U.S. Army COE, 2003). 24 0 • The wellhead is equipped with two bull plugs, a flange and a 2 3/ -inch nipple. There are no fresh water aquifers in the area, but due to potential contaminants downhole and existing contaminants on the surface, the well does pose a risk to human health and the environment in its current condition. Umiat #6 Umiat #6 was spudded August 1950 to test the southern limits of the Umiat anticline. The hole was drilled to a depth of 825 feet. The well was cased to 35 feet and a 42 -foot cement plug was placed on the bottom of the well in order to stop water influx from sands at the base of the permafrost. The well encountered very poor shows in the Killik Tongue (Chandler Formation) and a productive sand in the upper Grandstand Formation. Oil recovered in open -hole pumping tests was produced at rates averaging 53 barrels of oil per day. Insufficient energy exists in the reservoir for the well to flow to surface and there are no fresh water aquifers present. Major caving of the; hole occurred and the well was backfilled with mud (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the next 20 years and the well has the potential to leak to surface; if development occurs and may adversely affect future development. The well lies about 500 feet to the northwest of a gravel spur road which connects the Colville River to the eastern edge of the Umiat airstrip. The well is located in wet tundra adjacent to an empty 55 -gallon drum. The well is left open with 8 5/8 -inch casing to the surface. It has no gauges, valves or a cover plate. Two thermistor protrude to the surface and rests on the lip of the casing. This well poses no threat to human health or the environment unless development occurs. Umiat #7 Umiat #7 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 1,384 feet, cased to 1,196 feet and completed as a dry hole. It was the southern most well drilled on the _ Umiat anticline. The objective was to further delineate the southern A extent of the producing Figure 13: Umiat #7 summer and winter photos. field. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Chandler and Grandstand formations. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in gallons. The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. The sands encountered in Grandstand are downdip of the productive reservoir and are water bearing. Minor gas shows were encountered at 260 feet (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the 25 0 • next 20 years but since the well is located below the oil/water contact it has less potential to be adversely affected or affect future development. The wellhead assembly consists of 7 -inch casing (with collar) clamped inside 11 3/ -inch casing at a total height of 30 inches (Figure 13). Surrounding the open hole is wet tundra with no indication of remaining debris or other surficial issues. The hole poses no threat to humans or the environment. The well location is currently situated on Alaska Dept. of Transportation land that was transferred in 1966, but the well remains the property of the BLM. Additional Ufniat Work Umiat has been a site of recent cleanup projects. The cleanup process began in 1994 with the removal of about 1,000 drums, some containing petroleum and transformer oil with PCBs, from the main gravel pad. Another 200 cubic yards of PCB -contaminated soil was removed in 1998 along with 60 cubic yards of lead -contaminated soils. In 2001, 50 cubic yards of PCB soil was excavated with an additional 10 cubic yards removed the following year by the Corps of Engineers (U.S. COE, 2003). J.W. Dalton #1 J.W. Dalton #1 was drilled in 1979 to a depth of 9,367 feet. It is cased down to 8,898 feet and plugged back to 1,530 feet. (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey-J.W. Dalton, 1982). The primary objective of the well was to detennine if hydrocarbons were present within the Sadlerochit and Lisburne Groups. Gas shows were encountered in trace amounts in the Ivishak Formation, and the Lisburne and Endicott Group. Poor to good oil shows were discovered in the Ivishak Formation and in the Lisburne Group. A drillstem test of the Lisburne Group recovered 22 barrels of oily water (Gyrc, 1988). This well has been a USGS monitor well since its completion in 1979. Approximately 230 barrels of diesel fuel were placed downhole to act as a neutral medium for collecting wellbore temperatures. In the summer of 2004, warmer temperatures, wind, and wave action eroded 200 feet of the coastline adjacent to the well (Figures 14, 15). This erosion placed the J.W. Dalton #1 well and reserve pit precariously close Figure 14: Photo of J.W. Dalton taken October 26, 2004. Soil cracking is occurring around the wellhead and the north and east side of the cellar is exposed. Figure 15: J.W. Dalton wellhead with pilings. Photo was taken August 2000. 26 to the edge of the Arctic Ocean. As a result, casing is now exposed to a depth of 15 feet on the present day beach (Figure 16). The top of the diesel is approximately 60 feet below the present beach level. The reserve pit has been breached on the northwest coiner from the advancing shoreline (Figure 17). The pit is known to contain chromium, cobalt, zinc, and barium. However, chromium, cobalt and zinc were detected in background levels, due to the east -west water movement into and out of the pit. Barium is a constituent of the drilling muds and is consolidated with other Figure 16: J.W. Dalton with exposed conductor (left), and rat hole (right). The mouse hole (not pictured) is completely exposed. sediments (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992). The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2), on a tract currently closed to leasing. This well is in danger of becoming engulfed by the ocean. The diesel fuel in the well and reserve pit contaminants raises concerns. The concerns can be eliminated by pumping out the diesel, or displacing the diesel with water and adding a bridge plug and cement to close off the hole. The casing would be cut off below surface. The diesel would be disposed of at the nearest Figure 17: Aerial view of the breached reserve pit. facility. If necessary, the reserve pit could be excavated down to remove contaminated soils, which would be placed into Super -Sacks and hauled out by Cat -Train for grinding and injection into a Class II well or other approved disposal site. In its current condition, the well does not pose a threat to humans or the environment, but if the casing were to break in its exposed condition, the diesel fuel would, over time, leak into the ocean. The release of heavy metals from the reserve pit may pose an immediate risk to human health and the environment. The pit was sampled October 26, 2004, and results are pending. 27 wesl°I>aas�' E x j' NO i `i � Min '� q rY pson#13 E Simptm nvpkn #18 Sa Slmp80n #14 & 14A mpson o i% �...��impSOAM1 31ropwn At el. - ..Simpson 030 & 3DA a1=•2S15rfipsOn #1 " r 4_ Map WcaUo i { »-'$"t •+rte- p` i�` 1 4 Q 1 Figure 18: Simpson Peninsula showing well locations. Simpson Core Test #26 Simpson Core Test #26 was drilled in the middle of one of the larger, active oil seeps in NPR -A (Figure 19). The Navy described this location as Seep 3. The hole reached a total depth of 1,171 feet and was cased to 350 feet. The well encountered one very poor gas show and one productive oil sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. In production tests, the well flowed at rates averaging 110 barrels of oil per day (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). Other formations encountered include the Gubik, Seabee, and Grandstand Formations. as bubbles have been observed around the base of the casing since the 2000 field season. Bob Burruss of the USGS, sampled and analyzed gas from Simpson Core #27 which is part of the same oil field, located less than half mile to the east. His findings showed the gas to be biogenic methane indicating that microbial alteration (breakdowns) of the hydrocarbons has generated the gas. Additionally, oil sampled in the well was extremely biodegraded. Simpson Figure 19: The wellhead is located in the center of Core #26 has a wellhead flanged to the the photo. The green color liquid defines the area of active seepage. The orange color is oil -eating casing, a 2 -inch line pipe, and four bacteria. wing valves and will likely flow oil if 28 0 0 the valves are opened. Access to the wellhead is limited by the depth of oily -water surrounding its base (Figure 20). There are no concerns with contaminating fresh water aquifers if the well is left unplugged, but the well could potentially flow oil and cause damage to surface resources if the well equipment corrodes or, through human intervention, the well is opened or damaged. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased, receiving a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The area around the wellhead looks to have been bulldozed in an attempt to collect the seeping Figure 20: Simpson Core #26 drilled in the middle of an oil. The scraped -up earth was oil seep. Depth of the oily -water prohibits access to the then used to build berms around wellhead. the depression. Light amounts of trash appear to have been buried in these berms. The Navy cleaned up the site in the late 70s, removing most of the drums and other debris, but solid wastes, including half barrels and other drums can be found in the wet tar that fills the depression. Simpson Core Test #31 Simpson Core Test #31 is a shallow core test drilled in 1951 to a depth of 355 feet and o collect a core to view the material at the bottom of the seep. The well does not meet standard oil and gas exploration well definitions. The casing is not cemented in place and the well is probably not capable of holding substantial pressure. The well encountered a few sands with shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. In 65 hours of testing, this zone flowed oil to the surface at rates averaging 125 barrels and 2,000 - Figure 21: Simpson Core #31 is located within an 4,000 CubiC feet of gas per day. active oil seep. Flowing pressure was measured at 60 29 psi. The well also penetrated the Gubik and Seabee Formations, which were unproductive (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. A drilling pad does not exist as the well was drilled in an active oil seep, which remains active today (Figure 21). The Simpson Peninsula contains few permanent settlements, but a multitude of summer camps. The well had been a source of fuel for the inhabitants as evidenced by a 10 -foot extension pipe hooked up to the wing valve. The extension allowed for the oil to flow down the pipe and collect in a bucket. In 2000, BLM learned that oil was seeping out of a corroded swedge on the wellhead. The potential harm was mitigated by the fact oil was seeping into a natural oil seep. In June 2001, BLM spent $35,000 to remove the old wellhead and install a new master valve and needle valve. Oil and gas samples were taken by the USGS prior to the replacement. There are no fresh water aquifers in the well so there are no risks to sub -surface resources but there are risks to surface resources if the well is left unplugged. Oil will flow to surface if the wellhead or casing corrodes or if the well is left open. There are no solid wastes or hazardous materials (besides the natural oil) that would present a concern or pose a risk to the health and safety of the land and people. Simpson Core Test #30A Simpson Core Test #30A is an oil well drilled in 1951 to a depth of 693 feet and cased to 152 feet. The well encountered some very poor gas shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. The well was bailed and averaged oil rates of 6 barrels per day during bailing tests (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The wellhead consists of casing swedge, a nipple, and a brass gate valve and will flow oil to surface if the valve is opened. There are no sub -surface fresh water aquifers at risk. However, if the well is left unplugged it could pose a risk to surface resources. In its current state, oil could flow to surface if the well is damaged, corroded, or the valves are opened. Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the bubbling around the base of the casing. When the valve is opened, the bubbling subsides. This indicates a small leak around the base of the casing or through a hole in the casing. The gas was sampled by the USGS and has been identified as reservoir -produced biogenic gas. While the well does pose a risk, it is mitigated by the fact that the well is drilled in an active, natural oil seep. 30 0 Simpson Core Test #30 Simpson Core Tests #30 and #30A were drilled about 100 feet apart in the same oil seep. The seep is part of the same regime that contains Cores #26 and #27. These wells were drilled to gain an understanding of the producing field limits and to help determine underlying structure. Simpson Core #30 is an oil well drilled in 1951 to a depth of 1,500 feet. No plugs were set and the well was cased to 102 ft. The hole encountered the same formations as Cores #26 and #27; Gubik, Seabee, undifferentiated Ninuluk/Seabee, and the Grandstand with a few poor gas shows and one productive sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. Poor oil shows were also noted in the deeper Grandstand Formation. During production tests of the shallow oil sand the well was bailed at rates averaging 5 barrels of oil per day (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). Figure 22: Light trash is present in the seep between Cores #30 and #30A. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The well was left with sheared, open casing above ground. Even though the well produced oil 50 years ago, it is static today. This suggests the hole has collapsed below the shallow casing. There are no fresh water aquifers in the well, however, since the well was drilled to a reservoir with sufficient energy to flow oil to surface, the well should probably be considered a risk if left unplugged. This well would probably be plugged by placing a 100 foot surface plug downhole to eliminate risks to surface resources. The potential risk is alleviated by the fact that the well is drilled in an active, natural oil seep. There is no drill pad as the Navy drilled within the seep and camped on the tundra. Some light trash is present in the seep between the Core #30 and Core #30A, which may prove difficult to clean (Figure 22). The well lies three tenths of a mile from both Core #26 and #27 (Figure 18). Simpson Core Test #27 Simpson Core Test #27 is an oil well that was spudded February 1951 and completed one month later. Total depth of the well is 1,500 feet, with casing down to 102 feet. Oil was encountered at a depth of 380 feet and was bailed at a rate of 3 barrels per day. The core test encountered the same formations as Simpson Core Test #26, with a few very poor gas shows and one productive oil bearing sand in the Ninuluk/Seabee undifferentiated formation. Oil-based muds were used from the drilling depth of 325 to 661 feet. At that point the oil was displaced and the drilling crew resumed using water based muds. 31 0 Figure 23: There is no surface debris present at Simpson Core #27. Additional crude was added downhole at a depth of 1,320 feet. The drill pipe was stuck and the two front derrick legs collapsed below the four -foot extension in an effort to free the pipe. The drilling muds in place were re -circulated during the repair process. In an attempt to free the pipe, 73 barrels of crude and 23 barrels of diesel were used to replace the muds and the pipe was worked free. The oil was gradually replaced by mud as the drilling continued, however, some oil remained in the hole after completion. The crude used downhole came from Simpson Core Test #26 (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). There are no fresh water aquifers in the well so there are no risks to sub -surface resources but there are risks to surface resources if the well is left unplugged. Oil could flow to surface if the well equipment corrodes, the well is damaged, or left open. This potential risk is mitigated by the fact that the well is drilled in an inactive, natural oil seep. The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. There is no existing pad. The wellhead consists of 8 5/8 -inch casing, a flange and a brass gate valve. The casing was set in a small inactive oil seep. It will flow oil to surface if opened. There is no surface debris present at Core #27 (Figure 23). The well poses little threat to human health and the immediate environment around it in its current condition. Simpson Core Test #29 Simpson Core Test #29 is a dry hole drilled in 1950 to a depth of 700 feet and cased to 152 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the limits of the producing field encountered at Core #26. A very poor oil show was identified in the Seabee Formation. The productive sand present in the other Simpson Cores does not exist in this well. The test hole also penetrated the Gubik and Grandstand Formations. No oil was recovered from this well (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is grouped higher on the priority list due to its close approximation to Simpson Cores #26, #27, #30 and #30A (Figure 18). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development if left unplugged since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The well was left with 8 '/z -inch casing, open to the atmosphere at a height of 6 inches. Thermistor cables protrude from the casing. It is located in a four-by-four foot wooden 32 0 cellar filled with water. A drilling pad was never established. There is some light trash around the wellhead including drill pipe, and various sized wooden scraps. A small barrel pump and other small debris can be seen in the casing and within the cellar (Figure 24). This well poses no threat to the human population or the environment. Umiat #1 0 Figure 24: Simpson Core #29 Umiat #1 was spud in 1945, and completed in 1946. Total depth reached was 6,005 feet and the well was cased to 685 feet. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons and a few poor gas shows in the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, Grandstand, and Topagoruk Formations. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are located five miles to the east. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in pints and officially recorded as a trace. Lab tests determined the oil to be of a different type of crude oil than that found in the productive Umiat wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. No fresh water aquifers exist in the Umiat area, so this well poses no threat to sub -surface water resources. There is no pressure on the wellhead and it is fitted with a blind plate, a 2 -inch nipple and a brass gate valve (Figure 25). The well is located on an unleased tract at the crest of a hill that divides the north and south forks of Seabee Creek. Future development is unlikely because of its location outside the Umiat structure. Left unplugged, the well poses no threat to the environment and has no potential to adversely affect future development. The surficial landscape is dominated by willows with the exception of three piles of drilling muds that are located to the east and north of the wellhead. Vegetation is absent on the slick, clay - type material. The COE tested the piles and found them to be contaminated with barium, Figure 25: Umiat #1 is located about 5 which is not surprising given that barite is a miles from the Umiat airstrip. corm -non drilling fluid component. Through sampling, the COE determined the barium has not migrated down the hill and poses no danger to the Seabee Creek drainage (Ecology and Environment, 1999). There is no 33 0 0 indication of stressed vegetation down -gradient from the drill muds. Additionally, solid waste in the form of steel framing and scrap metal are near the wellhead. The solid wastes pose no threat but are unsightly. Umiat #11 Umiat #11 was spud June 1952 and completed two months later. The well reached a total depth of 3,303 feet with 486 feet cased. One cement plug was placed at 440 feet. The objective was to test production possibilities of the Grandstand Formation on a fault that parallels the Umiat anticline. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Seabee, Ninuluk, and Grandstand Formations but no oil or gas was recovered during production tests. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are over one mile to the south. The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract is located on lease AA -084141 but there is little possibility of the well interfering with future development due to its location outside the Umiat structure. The well was drilled in the alluvial plain of Bearpaw Creek, 0.6 miles from Umiat #8. A drilling pad was never created as operations consisted of mounting the drill rig on a sled and then placing it on top of large timbers that were secured to pilings (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). A pile of unvegetated drilling muds is present 30 feet west of the wellhead in between the wellhead and the creek. The wellhead consists of a 10 3/ -inch open-ended casing with a collar sticking up inside a 30 -inch conductor that is filled with water. Minor wood debris can be found around the wellhead. The well poses no risk if left unplugged. Wolf Creek Area Three test wells were drilled in the Wolf Creek area. The wells were drilled in the early 1950s with the intent of testing the northwest -trending Wolf Creek anticline structure. Wolf Creek #1 and #3 (Figure 26) are located at the crest of a hill with about 250 feet of relief from the valley. Wolf Creek #2 is located about one and one- third miles north within the Wolf Creek valley. Wolf Creek #2 and #3 are open holes but Wolf Creek #1 is equipped with a wellhead. Figure 26: Wolf Creek #1 after adding a new ball valve to the wellhead. August 2004. Wolf Creek #1 Wolf Creek #1 is a gas well drilled in 1951 to 1,500 feet and cased to 48 feet. The well encountered very poor gas shows in the Killik Tongue and productive sands in the Grandstand Formation. The well produced at rates up to 881 MCFPD in open hole tests 34 0 0 of the Grandstand. The well is equipped with a blind plate, a 2 -inch nipple and a brass gate valve (Figure 26). There is a small gas leak in the threaded wellhead flange and, if the valve is opened, the well will flow about 10 MCFPD but the pressure is so low it does not register on a gauge. In its current condition, the well does not appear to pose a risk to surface or sub- surface resources. The drill pad is shared with Wolf Creek #3. Throughout the pad, there are some wooden pilings, metal anchors and scrap metal. The scraps should not be considered hazardous in this remote region. The leaking gas is of minor concern, however given the weak gas pressure and remote location; the overall risk is very minimal. Wolf Creek #2 Wolf Creek #2 is a dry hole. The well was drilled in 1951 to 1,618 feet and cased to 53 feet. It is located roughly 1 '/ miles north of the other Wolf Creek test wells. The purpose of drilling was to determine if the gas -bearing sandstone beds previously encountered in Wolf Creek #1 would contain any oil. The records indicate a very poor gas show was encountered in the Killik Tongue but no oil or gas was recovered in production tests (Collins and Bergquist, 1959). The hole also penetrated the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, and Grandstand Formations. Figure 27: Wolf Creek #2 had casing cut off at ground level. The well is located on an unleased tract within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale for the tract and near-term development is unlikely. The wellhead consists of a plate welded onto the 11 3/ -inch casing cut off at ground level (Figure 27). There is no existing drill pad. Solid wastes consist of a few empty 55 -gallon drums upstream along the upper floodplain of the creek. The well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. Wolf Creek #3 Wolf Creek #3 is a gas well. The well was drilled in 1952 to a depth of 3,760 feet and cased to 625 feet. It is deeper than the other two Wolf Creek wells because its primary purpose was to test the Grandstand Formation (the producing formation around Umiat, 35 miles to the west). The Grandstand Formation produced from four different sands. In 35 0 0 open hole flow tests of the well produced at rates up to 445 MCFPD. The gas appeared to be sufficient to supply a small camp, but not of commercial proportions (Collins and Bergquist, 1959). Two plugs were set in the well above the Grandstand Formation. The top of the shallowest plug is inside the casing at 554 feet. In addition to the Grandstand, the hole penetrated the Ninuluk, Chandler, and Topagoruk Formations. Upon abandonment, the hole was filled with oil-based drilling muds and left open to the environment. A total of 103 barrels of crude were used. The well is located on an unleased tract within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale for the tract and near-term development is unlikely. The well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. The drill pad is shared with Wolf Creek #1. There is some minor debris at the site as noted in the Wolf Creek #1 description. The wellhead was cut off six inches from the ground surface. This allows seasonal precipitation to accrue in the hole and spill over the sides, but the well poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources and has no potential to adversely affect future development. Fish Creek #1 Fish Creek #1 was drilled by the Navy in 1949 near an oil seep. Total depth of the well was 7,020 feet. The well was plugged back to approximately 2,550 feet, drilled to a new total depth of 3,018 feet and cased to 3,017 feet. The well was drilled to test a large gravity anomaly that suggested the possible presence of petroleum -bearing rocks and some structural anomaly that might be a trap for oil. Very poor oil shows were identified in the Topagoiuk Formation at depths from 5,550 - 6,000 feet and a productive sand was reported at 3,000 feet. The well is not a flowing well but was pump -tested at rates averaging 12 barrels of oil per day through a gravel -packed completion. It also produced a small amount of methane gas. The hole encountered the Gubik, Shrader Bluff, Tuluvak, and Seabee Formations. Current condition of the wellhead is that it has no pressure at surface and consists of two wing valves and a master valve. The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2) on lease AA -081857 where, in 2004, ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. drilled an exploratory well within seven miles. The target of the exploration is in the Upper Jurassic at depth of approximately 8,000 feet and it is not likely that this unplugged well will adversely affect development in the area. The recent Alpine Satellites EIS approves oil and gas development in this area. ConocoPhillips has proposed roads and a drilling pad less than eight miles from this well and will likely be 36 9 0 producing by 2008. Given the low level of risk, the plugging of this well should be postponed until infrastructure is established. Surficially, there are still some solid wastes present. The drilling pad and cellar construction consists of concrete reinforced with steel matting. The concrete, matting, and pilings are still in place today, albeit heaved by permafrost (Figure 28). Several 55 - gallon trash drums filled with debris are located off the concrete pad. Other light debris is also present within 500 feet of the pad. The oil seep is located about 1.5 miles to the southwest of the well site and is inactive. The USGS 305-I reports the dimension of the seep as being 6' x 20' (Florence and Brewer, 1964), however, BLM personnel located the seep in 2001 and noted its dimension to be 3' x 6'. Simpson Core Test #28 Simpson Core Test #28 was drilled in September 1950 to a total depth of 2,505 feet and cased to 110 feet. Despite the depth, the hole did not encounter any hydrocarbon shows. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. A drill pad does not exist, however a large area of disturbance is visible. The wellhead consists of open casing inside a wooden cellar. There is considerable solid waste near the well. These include: numerous metal pilings, drill pipe, large wood fragments (spool, plywood, timbers), and some partially crushed drums. The solid wastes are unsightly, but pose no threat to humans or the environment. Simpson Core Test #13 Simpson Core Test #13 was drilled in the summer of 1949. It was a relatively shallow test and did not generate any significant oil or gas shows. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Seabee and Grandstand Formations at depths of 1,079 - 1,084 and 1,138 - 1,148 feet (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). No oil or gas was recovered during production tests. The well is over three miles north of the Simpson Core wells that penetrated productive Grandstand sands. Total depth of the well reached 1,438 feet. The top 26 feet are cased and the hole was filled with water-based drilling mud. Fresh water aquifers were not encountered. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. 37 A drilling pad does not exist. Seven-inch casing was cut off at ground level and is very difficult to locate. The well is open to the there anything hazardous regarding this to surface or sub -surface resources. Simpson Core Test #15 atmosphere. There is no solid waste, nor is ation. It should not be considered a risk to Simpson Core Test #15 was drilled in August 1949 near an active oil seep. The well was drilled to a total depth of 900 feet and cased to 18 feet. The well encountered only residual hydrocarbons in the Ninuluk/Seabee and Grandstand Formations (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). No oil or gas was recovered during well tests. Additionally, fresh water aquifers were not encountered. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. There is no existing pad. The well was drilled about '/8 of a mile north of a natural seep. The well consists of open ended casing with a height of 18 inches (Figure 29). The area is clean with no solid waste. This well poses no risks to the environment or human activities. Simpson Core Test #14 Simpson Core Test #14 was drilled in 1949 to a depth of 290 feet. The records do not clearly state how much casing was run but the well was left with casing above ground open to the atmosphere. Its present day location lies within 1000 feet to the west of an active oil seep. The well was not drilled deep enough to encounter the hydrocarbon stained sands evident in the Simpson Core #14A well. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the area is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years. This shallow well did not penetrate any hydrocarbon bearing zones and poses no risk to surface or sub- surface resources, nor does it have the potential to adversely impact future development. 38 Simpson Core Test #14A Simpson Core #14A was drilled in 1949 to a depth of 1,270 feet and casing was set to a depth of 32 feet. The well encountered only residual hydrocarbons in the Ninuluk/Seabee and Grandstand Formations. No oil or gas was recovered during tests (Robinson and Brewer, 1964) and fresh water aquifers are not present. Present day location of the well is approximately 1000 feet to the west of an active oil seep. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. East Simpson #2 East Simpson #2 was drilled in 1977 to 7,505 feet and cased to 6,427 feet. Five cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug set at 1,997 feet. The primary objective of the well was to test the Ivishak Sandstone where it onlaps the Pre -Devonian age basement rock (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey, 1982). Small scale faulting was found between the wells in the area, possibly accounting for the thin section representing the Sadlerochit Formation. The well encountered very poor oil shows at 6,000 feet in the Torok Formation and Endicott age sandstones were cored with poor porosity and dead oil shows. The well is officially listed as a dry hole. Upon completion of the production tests, the well was plugged back to 1,997 feet and filled with approximately 280 barrels of diesel to facilitate permafrost temperature measurements. However with East Simpson #1 less than five miles away, the USGS has no plans to use this well for temperature monitoring. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this M well will have an adverse impact on development. If this exploration and development establishes infrastructure nearby, it would greatly facilitate plugging this well and significantly reduce costs. Figure 31: East Simpson #2 is partially submerged during the spring thaw. Photo taken June 2003. Kaolak #1 The wellhead consists of a casing head, side gate valve, a master gate valve, and a needle valve. The drilling pad is of the thin pad variety and is slowly being reclaimed by natural processes. Exposed pilings stick up a height of two feet from the surface, but no other objects needing removal are present (Figure 31). The cellar is a wooden 12' x 12' with standing water. With the existing plugs and the static condition of the well, there is no risk to surface or sub -surface resources. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. Exploration and development in the area is a possibility within 40 0 • the next 20 years, but since this well did not penetrate productive oil and gas zones it will not have an adverse impact. There are no major surface issues. The working area is still visible due to a multitude of wooden pilings around the wellhead and a cabin on the north end of the pad (Figure 32). Off the pad, the area is clean. The wellhead is missing its upper components. All that remains is the top flange above the base plate and the casing spool, leaving 11 3/ -inch casing open to the enviromnent. The well is left with a casing head and is open to atmosphere. The wellsite is 45 miles southwest Wainwright, which is the nearest community. There are no hazardous materials or anything that would pose a risk to the general health and safety of the land. The cabin may be a concern, but dealing with the situation is outside the scope of this report. Meade #1 Meade #1 is a gas well drilled to a depth of 5,305 feet in 1950. The well was cased to 2,785 feet and two cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug tagged at 2,783 feet inside the casing. The well encountered some gas shows in one productive sand within the Grandstand Formation. The gas tested at rates up to 1.1 MMCFPD during openhole flow tests of the sand at 2,949 - 2,969 feet. The well is estimated to have gas reserves of 10 BCF. Gas pockets are relatively common in this portion of NPR -A due in large part to the underlying coal. At one point while conducting tests, some problems were encountered while attempting to pull a testing tool out of the hole; a ball -peen hammer was inadvertently dropped downhole, causing the tubing to stick. The tubing could not be freed and as a result, it twisted off leaving tubing in the hole. When the lost tubing could not be pulled out, heavy muds were pumped downhole and the well was abandoned (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). The well is adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $10.26 per acre during the 2004 lease sale. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years and has the potential to target the Grandstand Formation. If left unplugged the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. There is no pad present at Meade #1 Figure 33: Meade #1 wellhead. Several pilings and light trash are present, but at ground level and consists of an open flange bolted to the top of the casing (Figure 33). This differs from the Navy reports that indicate the wellhead was abandoned in place. There is no record as to why it was removed. A BLM field crew bailed the hole and discovered a swedge and 2 -inch needle valve junked downhole. This site is very remote (30 miles south of Atqasuk) and since the gas zones are currently isolated below the cement plugs there is a limited risk of adverse impacts to surface or sub -surface resources. 41 0 • Titaluk #1 Titaluk #1 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 4,020 feet and is a dry hole. The well was drilled on the end of an anticline to test the oil and gas potential of formations within the Nanushuk Group. A few very poor oil and gas shows were encountered in the Grandstand and Topagoruk Formations, but no oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. The Ninuluk and Chandler Formations were also encountered, but with no shows. One cement plug was set at 3,471 feet. The placement of this plug is curious since the shows (albeit poor) were reportedly discovered above this level (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well remains in a static condition. Titaluk #1 is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on an unleased tract. No offers were received in the June 2004 lease sale. Near-term development is unlikely. Surficially, there are no concerns with this well. The well is open, 10 3/ - inch casing above ground to a height of 3 feet. It is open to the atmosphere. The area of disturbance is completely revegetated Figure 34: Titaluk #1 wellhead with wooden cellar. with no solid waste concerns. The wooden cellar is in a state of disrepair and filled with water (Figure 34). The site is clean with very little debris. There are no hazardous conditions associated with the surface. The nearest settlement is Umiat, 60 miles to the east. The well poses no risks to human safety or the environment. Skull Cliff Core Test #1 Skull Cliff Core Test #1 was drilled in 1947 to a depth of 779 feet and is a dry hole. No shows of oil or gas were reported while drilling through the Gubik, Grandstand, and Topagoruk Formations. While drilling to the target depth of 1,500 feet, the drillstring was lost in the hole and fishing attempts were unsuccessful in recovering the lost drillstring. The drilling mud was bailed down to the top of the fish and the remainder of the well was filled with diesel to 54 feet to prevent the wellbore from freezing and facilitate downhole temperature measurements. It is plausible that the casing could corrode and the diesel fuel could seep into the sub -surface strata, but since there are no fresh water zones in the well it is not considered a risk that would adversely impact sub -surface resources (Collins and Brewer, 1961). The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2). The well lies adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $10.77 per acre during the 2004 lease sale. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it 42 0 • is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since industry will likely target deeper, productive formations. An oil seep located at the base of Skull Cliff (land/ocean contact) was observed and documented in the 1940s, which influenced the Navy's decision to drill. BLM and USGS crews searched for the seep when they were in the area but nothing was found at the cliff/beach contact. However, another seep was reported in 1996 by a group from the Academy of Natural Sciences in a small gully about a mile to the east near the old radio tower site. This seep was never confinned by BLM. Surficially, a drill pad was never established, but a large area of activity is defined by roughly 200 drums, metal tracks, wood debris and various other scraps that litter the site (Figure 35). Presently, the well consists of open casing with a wooden plug shoved into it. There does not appear to be any stressed vegetation that might indicate a hazardous situation. Since the well OW not encounter oil and gas Figure 35: Solid waste primarily in the form of empty formations and has no pressure at drums litter the area around Skull Cliff Core Test. The the surface, it is not considered a wellhead is in the upper left portion of the photo. risk to surface resources. The only potential risk is that this site lies near a popular winter route between Barrow and Wainwright and it is possible for a snowmachine to impact the solid waste. Barrow is approximately 30 miles to the northeast and Wainwright is about 60 miles to the west. Oumalik #1 Oumalik #1 was drilled in 1950 and is a dry hole. The well was drilled to a total depth of 11,872 feet and cased to 2,762 feet. It is the deepest well drilled by the early U.S. Navy program. The well location was positioned on the apex of the Outnalik Anticline and drilled with the intent of revealing the oil, gas, and water content of the penetrated stratigraphy. Two cement plugs were set, the shallowest of which is inside the casing at 2,543 feet. Very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation, and poor gas shows were noted in both the Topagoruk and Oumalik Formations. Small undetermined volumes of gas were recovered during multiple production tests. It is believed that the gas encountered was large enough to furnish fuel to a camp but not large enough to become a commercial producer. The gas encountered during drilling showed high gas pressure, but the sandstones in which they were observed are thin with low porosity (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The gas zones are currently isolated by the cement plugs and pose no risk to sub -surface resources. The wellhead and a fabricated plate are below ground level. Two 2 'h -inch nipples open to the atmosphere are above ground to allow thermistor cables to be run into the well. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on unleased tract that received no bids during the lease sale of 2004. Near-term development is unlikely. If left 43 unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The existing pad contains piping from a ground refrigeration system similar to Topagoruk #1. The ground in this area is somewhat swampy with high susceptibility to permafrost melt. Circulating cooled diesel fuel in the pipes enabled drilling to occur without thawing the ground. The steel pilings were pulled from the ground to be reused at another site (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). However, steel pipe filled with diesel fuel remains. A 6 - inch circumference of stressed vegetation was noted around several of the low-cut pipes. Despite the diesel, the well does not pose a risk to any existing communities or habitation. It is in a remote location approximately 55 miles southeast of Atqasuk. Overall, the well poses no risk to people or the environment. East Oumalik #1 East Oumalik 41 was drilled on a ridge that overlooks an unnamed tributary of the Oumalik River. Topographic relief is approximately 100 feet. The drill site is highly remote as the nearest village (Atgasuk) is 65 miles away. The well was drilled in 1951 and reached a total depth of 6,035 feet and is cased to 1,100 feet. It is a dry hole. Very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation and very poor gas shows were reported in Topagoruk Formation. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on an unleased tract that received no bids during the lease sale of 2004. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The well was left with open casing below ground level and has thermistor cables protruding from inside the casing. The casing is marked by a 7 -foot, 3/ -inch pipe. The open pipe lies within a water -filled cellar. The standing water has produced nurnerous algae and other aquatic vegetation obscuring the wellbore. Surfrcial hazards consist of several 10 -foot timbers and a few 4 -foot pipes (probably rig anchors) sticking up out of the ground. The site is mostly overgrown with shrubs and appears to be relatively clean. The airstrip, incoming, and outgoing trail scars are obvious and can be used to navigate to the wellsite. There are no risks associated with the well in its current condition and was given this ranking due to its close proximity to Oumalik #1. Topagoruk #1 Topagoruk #1 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 7,154 feet and is a dry hole. The intent was to test a small, buried anticline and the various formations associated with it. The well was cased to 6,073 feet, plugged back to 6,175 feet and then drilled to a new total depth of 10,503 feet. Prior to re -drilling to total depth, approximately 250 barrels of crude oil from Cape Simpson were added downhole to help offset lost circulation and caving. Additionally, 20 barrels of diesel were added downhole during the drilling phase. No Plugs exist in this well. The well is left with open casing to the surface and thermistor cables protruding from the casing (Figure 36). The well encountered the following stratigraphic units while drilling; Gubik, Grandstand, Topagoruk, and Oumalik Formations, Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks, Shublik Formation (Triassic age), Permian rocks, and Lower -Middle Devonian rocks. Hydrocarbon shows were limited to a few very poor gas shows in the Oumalik Formation. No oil or gas was recovered during 44 0 multiple production tests (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). The well penetrated no fresh water aquifers and does not represent a threat to surface or sub- surface resources. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). It is adjacent to a recently leased tract, receiving a high bid of $50.00 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the area is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but since this well did not penetrate productive oil and gas zones it will not have an adverse impact. • There is not a visible pad, but rather an area of disturbance. Disturbance stretches '/q mile in an Figure 36: Topagoruk #1 casing on its east -west direction and '/8 of a mile in a north- side. When the casing was pulled out of south direction. Solid wastes exist in the form of the ground, thermistor cables were piping remaining from a refrigeration system that discovered. diesel circulated diesel to keep the permafrost frozen. A potential hazard exists because still occupies the ground circulation lines. These lines stretch approximately 750 feet to the east, 250 feet to the north, and 100 feet to the south from the wellhead. Other debris on site include some large, partially -burned timbers, a water -filled wooden box (Figure 37) that resembles a cellar ('/a mile east of the wellhead), and drilling muds. Atqasuk is the closest village approximately 30 miles to the southwest. The well is remote with the exception of a subsistence camp approximately one mile southwest of the wellhead along the Topagoruk River. Figure 37: Drilling muds and a woouen nox Gnat reseinul— a cellar are located about 1/4 mile east of the wellhead. Topagoruk's wellhead consists of an open hole cut off at the ground surface with several thermistor cables. A thin piece of weathered metal fits around the cut-off casing to resemble a marker. The weathered metal has been smashed at the base and now lies bent in half on its side. Overall this site poses little hazard to the environment or human population. East Topagoruk #1 East Topagoruk #1 was drilled on top of a small ridge in the Chipp River delta in 1951. It reached a total depth of 3,589 feet and is cased to 1,100 feet. The purpose of the well was to test an anticline with closure as well as test the fluid content of the permeable Cretaceous sandstone (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). A very poor gas show in the Topagoruk Formation is the only reported hydrocarbons encountered in the well and no oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. One cement plug was set in the 45 • well at 1,049 feet. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract. The tract receiving a high bid of $84.99 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper formations. A drill pad does not exist. There are a few rig anchors near the wellhead, but no other surficial debris. The current state of the wellhead is open-ended 10 3/ -inch casing. Casing height is three feet above the ground surface. It is housed in a small 9' x 9' water -filled cellar. The area is remote and poses no health and safety risks to humans or the environment. Knifeblade Wells There were three shallow test wells drilled in the Knifeblade Ridge area. Knifeblade #1 was drilled on the ridge at the head of a small stream, with wells 2 and 2A drilled about a mile downstream. The wells are in a highly remote location with Umiat being the nearest settlement, 65 miles to the east. Knifeblade #1 Knifeblade #1 is a dry hole drilled in 1951. The well was drilled to a depth of 1,805 feet and cased to 1,211 feet. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well encountered very poor gas shows in the Killik Tongue of the Chandler Formation and very poor oil and gas shows in the Grandstand Formation. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. 0 0 Knifeblade #2 Knifeblade #2 is another dry hole drilled in 1951. It was the first of the three Knifeblade wells drilled and reached a total depth of 373 feet, cased to 45 feet, before being junked and abandoned. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well did not encounter any hydrocarbon shows. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Surficial issues are negligible. A drill pad does not exist and the wellhead consists of open-ended casing. There are approximately eight empty drums near Knifeblade #2 and #2A. The wells are highly remote and should not be considered a threat to the environment or human activity. Knifeblade #2A Knifeblade #2A, also drilled in 1951, reached a total depth of 1,805 feet and was cased to 38 feet. The well lies 28 feet to the north of Knifeblade #2A. The purpose of the well was to test the oil and gas properties of the Grandstand and Tuktu Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). Only very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation. The well was left with casing open to the atmosphere and poses no threat to surface or sub -surface resources in its current condition. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Simpson #1 Simpson #1 test well was drilled with a rotary rig in 1948 by the U.S. Navy. The well was drilled to a total depth of 7,002 feet and cased to 5,954 feet. The purpose of the well was to test the various formations of the Lower Cretaceous and Upper Jurassic rocks. The well encountered several very poor oil and gas shows and one productive gas sand in the Lower Jurassic at a depth of 6,183 - 6,193 feet. The well produced gas at rates up to 3.0 MMCFPD during open hole flow tests of this Lower Jurassic sand. The gas zones are currently isolated from other formations and the surface by two cement plugs set above the productive sand. The top of the shallowest plug is at 5,520 feet (Robinson and Yuster, 1959). The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) adjacent to recently leased tract that received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years and this exploration has the potential to target the Lower Jurassic. Since the well is partially plugged, however, it poses little risk to surface or sub -surface resources and will not likely adversely affect any future development. 47 0 . The pad is highly visible and was constructed in the same fashion as Fish Creek #1 in which concrete was used as a working pad. Concrete was poured over a landing mat which was placed on pilings. As a result of ground movement from permafrost freeze/thaw cycles, the concrete has buckled in numerous places creating a partially - collapsed surface. This feature provides excellent shelter to small animals and rodents. Additionally, there is a small pile of drilling muds near the wellhead. The well was left equipped with a casing flange, spool w/ side bull plug, and another flange and nipple and is shut-in with no pressure at surface. The components past the flange have since been removed. Overall, the current condition of the site is non -threatening to the sparse human population and the surrounding environment. North Simpson #1 North Simpson #1 was drilled in 1950 to a depth of 3,774 feet and cased to 109 feet. No hydrocarbon shows were reported during the drilling of this well as no sandstone was encountered (Robinson and Yuster, 1959). Upon completion, no plugs were set and the hole was filled back with muds. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $12.76 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper formations. Surficially, the area is wet with the wellhead partially submerged intermittently throughout the summer (Figure 39). The drill site lies only a few miles from the Arctic Ocean. The work area is visible with metal pilings around the wellhead. It is unknown if additional solid wastes exist under water. The well was left with a bull plug installed on summer. top of a swedge. The well is not near human activity, and does not pose a threat to surface or sub -surface resources. South Simpson #1 South Simpson #1 was drilled in 1977. The purpose of the hole was to test the Sadlerochit Formation where it laps onto the south flank of the Barrow Arch. The well was drilled to 8,795 feet and cased to 7,206 feet. Reports show that poor gas shows were identified in the Nanushuk Group, Kingak Shale and Shublik Formation. Gas flowed at a rate of 75 MCFPD between 6,522 - 6,568 feet within the Kingak Shale (Gyrc, 1988). The gas contained more than 70% nitrogen. The origin of the high nitrogen content is unknown, but appears to be a localized phenomenon (Burruss, 2003). Sandstone tongues 48 (Simpson sand) within the Kingak Shale in the Simpson and Barrow localities are known to display good gas reservoir quality (Houseknecht 2001). Poor oil shows were discovered in the Nanushuk Group and Shublik and Torok Formations. Drill stem tests did not recover any oil. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $5.01 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility in the near future since the well is properly plugged it will have no adverse impacts on development. Surfrcially, the pad and pits are in good shape. The cellar has been backfilled Figure 40: South Simpson #1 had its cellar backfilled with silt, with silt which resulted in consequently burying the casing head. the burial of the casing head (Figure 40). Above the surface, the wellhead consists of a 4 -inch line pipe and a master valve. The master valve is frozen in the open position. The needle valve previously located above the master valve no longer exists. Beneath the casing head the well is plugged to surface and has no potential to adversely effect surface or sub -surface resources. The wellhead stands about eight feet high. A plumb -bob was dropped and hit solid at 8 feet and stuck. It was subsequently lost. An old, stripped snowmachine sitting next to the wellhead is the only sizable object that would be considered solid waste. Overall, there is no risk associated with this well. Inigok #1 Inigok #1 was drilled in 1979 to a depth of 20,102 feet and cased to 17,432 feet. The well objective was to test a structural/stratigraphic trap within the Sadlerochit and Lisburne Groups (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey-Inigok, 1983). Some very poor gas shows were recorded in the Sag River, Nanushuk, and Endicott Group. Poor oil shows were reported for the Kingak Shale and Lisburne Group. The best shows were found in the base of the Torok Formation at 8,852 feet. No oil or gas was recovered during multiple production tests. The wellhead consists of three spools, each with a gate valve, a master valve, and a needle valve. Ten cement plugs were set in the well and it is plugged to surface. The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $20.34 per acre during the lease sale of 2002. Total E&P Incorporated drilled an exploratory well 15 miles north of Inigok #1 and used the gravel pad and airstrip near the well for staging areas and a camp. It would be fairly simple to remove the wellhead but the well has no potential to adversely affect surface or sub -surface resources. Additionally, the well poses no threat to adversely affect future development. Inigok #1 is one of the few logistical centers Figure 41: Aerial view of Inigok #1. The drill pad and reserve pit within NPR -A (Figure are visible in the top of photograph. A road leads from the apron of 41). The airstrip and pad the airstrip to the drilling pad. are maintained with no solid wastes present. The wellhead poses no risk, and with the plugs already in place, could be removed. Additionally, this well has a year-round airstrip and serves as a logistical base to various NPR -A activities. 0 . USGS Monitored Wells The USGS has used wells drilled in the NPR -A for collecting temperature data to better understand both the global temperature pattern and its effects on the permafrost. The wells that are currently used are properly plugged above the hydrocarbon bearing zones and into the well casing. The wells are filled with diesel fuel down to the shallowest plug at depths ranging from 1,500 - 3,000 feet. For a list of wells see Appendix B. The program began in 1958 and will continue for the foreseeable future. After this project ends, the wells will have the diesel extracted and the well will be properly plugged to surface. Diesel is a non -corrosive agent, and even if the casing should corrode there would be no impact to the surface resources and minimal impact on the sub -surface resources as there are no known fresh water aquifers in NPR -A. The following wells are monitor wells with surficial issues. It is difficult to establish a rank since the wells are sufficiently plugged. The cleanup priority is difficult to determine as the primary threat lies with wells having downhole issues. However, political concerns could influence the timing in which the surface issues are dealt. East Teshekpuk #1 East Teshekpuk #1 was spudded in March 1976. The well was drilled to a depth of 10,664 feet. It is an active USGS monitor well that was properly plugged. The top of the shallowest plug is located at 2,400 feet. From that point to the surface, the hole is filled with diesel fuel. With the well properly plugged and diesel fuel being a non -corrosive agent, there is no downhole issue with the well at this time but there are solid wastes buried on site that may warrant removal. 50 • 0 East Teshekpuk #1 was drilled on a small peninsula on the southeast side of Teshekpuk Lake. The southern shore of the peninsula is protected from the prevailing northerly winds, however the north shore doesn't have the luxury of a barrier and is subject to erosion. Unfortunately, solid wastes from the camp and drilling operation were buried on the northern portion of the pad, possibly in the old reserve pit. The northern shore has been battered by numerous storms which have eroded the shoreline and exposed the solid wastes. The wastes are unsightly and potentially hazardous. While the nearest village of Nuiqsut is 52 miles to the southeast, Teshekpuk Lake is rich in subsistence resources and numerous summer cabins dot the lake's shoreline. It is possible that at the time of surfrcial restoration, the downhole could be pumped free of diesel and plugged to the surface. Awuna #1 Awuna #1 was spudded February 1980 and completed April 1981. It is the only well drilled in the southwest portion of NPR -A and is 90 miles south-southwest of Atqasuk. Awuna is the most remote well in the entire petroleum reserve. The well was drilled to a total depth of 11,200 feet. Drilling was conducted over two consecutive winters. Ice roads and an ice airstrip were constructed for logistical support. The project cost approximately $6 million (Husky Oil NPR Operations-Awuna, pg 5). Due to the orientation of the pad, the prevailing winds force wave action into the drilling pad, undermining the sands and silts which make up the pad. Below the sands and silts, Styrofoam was used to insulate the underlying permafrost. Wave action has eroded tens of feet into the drilling pad, exposing the Styrofoam, which consequently breaks loose and blows away. Wooden pilings exposed from erosion show how much attrition has taken place. Styrofoam can be seen all around the pad with pieces blown up to 5 miles away. Figure 42: Awuna wellhead with exposed wooden pilings and Styrofoam. Downhole, the well is in good shape with sufficient plugs. Diesel fuel fills the top 4,000 feet. The well is an USGS monitor well. Wellhead components are in working condition with no problems. The immediate concern with this site is the blowing Styrofoam, but as the years progress erosion could become a major issue (Figure 42). The loose Styrofoam should be cleaned up and erosion progress should be monitored on an annual basis. It is also worth mentioning that the same type of scenario is unfolding at Tunalik #1 (another USGS well). Wave action from the reserve pit is beginning to 51 0 • undermine Styrofoam from the drilling pad. Tunalik #1 differs from Awuna #1 in that prevailing wind direction does not force erosion in the direction of the wellhead. Uncased Core Tests There are thirty-nine uncased core test holes. These holes were typically left filled with drilling mud and abandoned without being plugged. Drilling depths ranged between 500 and 1,500 feet depending on the purpose of the test. By nature, core tests were drilled to test soils, permafrost, or lithologic units. They were not drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes and did not encounter hydrocarbons. Many of the cores are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center (Figure 43). The BLM has examined the cores and they are test, are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center. Barrow Gas Wells extremely friable. It is likely that these uncased core holes have naturally collapsed and harmlessly blended into the environment. There is no surface indication of their location and BLM has been unsuccessful in locating them during several visits to their reported location. They do not pose any potential risks. The Barrow Gas Field Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-366, 98 Stat. 468, July 17, 1984) allowed the U.S. Navy to transfer several wells to the North Slope Borough. The Navy drilled six shallow wells between 1953 and 1974 to test the natural gas potential. Between 1974 and 1982, 10 additional wells were drilled to help supplement the local gas supply. The wells were developed for use by the local government agencies and Barrow residents. The act conveyed the sub -surface estate, held by the federal government and any other interest therein, to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). The BLM acknowledges the surface and sub -surface lands as conveyed and the Office of the Regional Solicitor has confirmed that the Transfer Act included the wells and well locations, and any liabilities associated with these wells are the responsibility of ASRC. 52 • Square Lake #1 Plugged Wells 0 Square Lake #1 is a Navy well that was drilled to a depth of 3,984 feet. Its primary intent was to test the Cretaceous rocks in east -west trending anticline structure (305H pg 424). No significant shows of oil were found. Gas shows were encountered in various sandstone beds between 1,600 and 1,900 feet, but otherwise the hole was dry. Upon completion, four plugs were reported to be set with the upper plug at 728 feet, well above the gas shows. Two other plugs were reported to be set in the gas zone, spanning depths of 1,640 - 1,840 and 1865 - 1934 feet. In addition to the six plugs, water and mud fill the remaining distance to the surface (Collins and Berquist, 1959). Upon successive visits to the site, BLM field crews dropped a plumb -bob down the hole and hit a solid obstruction between 8 and 10 feet. Don Meares, Northern Field Office, visited the site in August 2003 with an underwater camera and determined the solid surface to be cement. The Square Lake area is clean of debris with a few deadmen pilings (anchors) near the wellhead that could pose a ground hazard. The wellhead is open casing cut off at ground level. Umiat #2 and #5 The Umiat #2 and #5 wells were plugged and abandoned in 2002 by the COE (Figure 44). The wells were drilled on a common four -acre pad in 1947 and 1951. The purpose of the wells was to test for producing lithologies and determine petroleum quantities. Umiat #2 penetrated the Gubik Formation, Nanushuk Group (Chandler and Grandstand Formations), Topagoruk Formation and Oumalik Formation. Problems with the drilling muds were encountered while drilling Umiat #2. Analysts determined that the fresh water drilling fluid caused formation damage and the Umiat #5 well was drilled adjacent to the #2 with a cable -tool rig. The well produced 400 barrels per day with the most productive sandstones in the lower Chandler and upper Grandstand. Below a depth of 1075 feet, 107 barrels of crude oil from both Umiat and Simpson were used as a drilling fluid, as well as 11 barrels of diesel fuel (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). In 2000, the Colville River threatened to erode both wellsites away. The COE took action under the FUDS program in the winter of 2001-2002 to plug, abandon and remove any surface features. The concrete lined cellar of Umiat #2 and wooden platform from Umiat #5 were removed. Costs were approximately $25 million dollars due in part, to soil remediation. Approximately 30,000 tons of petroleum -contaminated soil was excavated. The soil was 53 transported on an ice road to the Umiat camp where it was thermally treated in a rotary kiln to remove petroleum residues. Small quantities of PCB contaminants were unexpectedly encountered after the excavation was completed. The source of the PCBs has been linked back to the #5 well and the fluids used downhole. The ever -shifting Colville River continues to erode the north bank and is approximately 50 feet from the old wellbores. With the removal of hazardous soils, this site should not be considered a threat to humans or the environment. Umiat #3 Umiat #3, also known as Umiat Core Test #1, was spudded in December 1946 and drilled to test some of the oil bearing zones encountered while drilling Umiat #1. The well was drilled on the northeast corner of Umiat Lake just below the hill from Umiat #4 (Figure 45). Umiat #3 penetrated the Gubik Formation and the Nanushuk Group. The Grandstand Formation within the Nanushuk Group is considered to be the primary source of oil between the depths of 258 and 514 feet. The hole produced 50 barrels per day prior to shutdown. The well was re- tested nine months later with production dropping to 24 barrels per day (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of homemade components with a single water service type valve and is capped with a needle valve. There is no seeping present at this r figure 45: The view from Umiat #4 looking southwest site, however seeps are common in toward Umiat Lake and Umiat. Umiat #3 is located on the area, including an active seep in the near shore of Umiat Lake. Umiat Lake. An extensive piping system is still visible. The pipes probably supplied water during the drilling phase. They connect Umiat #3 to #4 which then follow the hill from Umiat #4 to a side channel of the Colville River. Their function was to either carry water to the drilling sites or assist during the well's production phase. The overall surficial conditions including the wellhead and piping, do not pose a threat to human health nor the environment. BLM plugged the well in May 2004. Umiat #4 After encountering relatively poor oil shows on the first three wells, operations were suspended until 1950. Cable tool drilling rigs were introduced to determine if the fresh water muds had hindered the oil production in the previous wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). Cable tool wells did not require the excavation of a cellar; therefore Umiat wells #447 did not have cellars. Umiat #4 is located on top of the hill to the northeast of Umiat #3 (Figures 45, 46). The well was drilled May 1950 to a maximum depth of 840 feet. The hole bored through the Ninuluk, Chandler and Grandstand Formations. Oil was found in the upper and lower 54 • sandstone of the Grandstand Formation. Drilling encountered good oil shows around 300 feet with a total 500 barrels produced (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of 11 1/4 -inch casing protruding 36 inches above the ground surface. The casing is capped with a steel plate. Upon removal of the cover, the hole was open to the environment. No valves or gauges are present. The well was plugged by the BLM on May 9, 2004. The well poses no risk to humans or the environment. n U Figure 46: Umiat #4 prior to plugging. i ne wenneau s located in the center of the photograph. Umiat #8 Like the other wells drilled in the 1950s, Umiat #8 was drilled using cable tools. The well was spudded May 1951 and completed August 1951. It is located on top of a ridge that separates Umiat from the Bear Paw Creek valley. Drilling intention was to determine the quality and quantity of hydrocarbons in the Grandstand formation near the crest of the anticline structure. The hole encountered the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, and Grandstand Forniations. The Grandstand Formation produced approximately 60-100 barrels per day of oil and more than 6 million cubic feet per day of gas. The well was shut in with a gas pressure of 275 pounds per square inch. The gas was analyzed by the Bureau of Mines and determined to be 97.3 per cent methane. Brine was mixed (35 lbs of salt per barrel of water) and used in the drilling fluid to prevent freeze up. Brine solution of approximately the same ratio of salt per barrel of water was used to kill the well and set the plug while cementing casing. A total of 21,695 pounds of salt were used in the well (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well was plugged May 2, 2004. Prior to plugging, the well was nicknamed the "Whistling Well" due to the gas of which was escaping through fittings and valves in the wellhead. The wellhead is easily the most complex of the 11 Umiat test wells. It consists of five valves and multiple gauges. It has several homemade components and reaches a total height of ten feet. After reporting the seeping gas in 1996, two new valves and gauges were installed in 1997. The new gauges have been checked regularly since 1998 and have consistently read 250 psi. Despite replacing the two valves and gauges, gas continued to leak from the wellhead. The largest of the leaks occurred just above the top flange where a 4 -inch nipple and collar are welded together. Other leaking occurred at the fittings of some of the gauges. The wellhead is sited on a gravel pad. A series of piping extends from the wellhead to a small stock tank about 100 feet to the south. The tank probably was used as a holding tank for the oil while testing the production potential of the hole. The same style of stock tank is present in various old photographs found in the Umiat area and may be the same 55 tank. Oil from inside the tank was sampled in 2004 with test results positively identifying PCB contamination which is slightly below the level of concern. Umiat #10 Umiat #10 was spudded September 1951 and completed January 1952. This well was drilled to test the Umiat anticline and is located about a half mile northwest of Umiat #8. Total depth of the well is about 1,573 feet. When the well was bailed, it produced 222 barrels of oil in a 24-hour time span. The most productive layers occurred at 980 feet and 1,095 feet, penetrating both the Ninuluk and Grandstand Formation (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). Also encountered were the Seabee and Chandler Formations. The hole was somewhat problematic as it caved considerably during drilling. Operations consisted of a drill rig set on a foundation of 12" x 12" timbers with a thin layer of gravel in between. Twenty-five pounds of salt mixed with Aquagel and water (per barrel) were used downhole to h 1 1 e b' h p u ncate t o drill bit above the 650 -foot marker (from the surface). More Aquagel-brine mud was used down to about 1,000 feet to keep the hole from caving. The wellhead contains two valves; a master and a gate, both are closed. The total" height of Umiat #10 is approximately 10 feet The 8 5/8 -inch casing is flared and open at the top. This well was plugged May 6, 2004 (Figure =' R 47)• Figure 47: Plugging operations at Umiat #10. May 2004. The surface near Umiat #10 is in good shape. There is no existing pad and no solid wastes. With the recent plugging of the well, it is not a risk to human health and safety or the environment. 56 0 APPENDIX B • 20 Wells Currently Monitored by the United States Geological Survey: NAME Atigaru Awuna* Drew Point East Simpson 41 East Teshekpuk West Fish Creek #1 Ikpikpuk Kugura Koluktak* Kuyanak Lisburne North Inigok North Kalikpik Peard Bay Seabee* South Meade South Harrison Bay Tunalik* Tulageak West Dease HOLE DEPTH(meters) 648 884 640 600 727 735 615 582 227 856 532 625 660 591 393 549 399 556 756 823 *Are also part of the CALM network (Circumpolar Active -Layer Monitoring). 57 0 0 Conclusion The Umiat wells, due to their proximity to the Colville River, the high level of activity in the area, their presence on an active lease and a known oil field, and the identified hazardous materials in the area, have been identified as the highest legacy well priority. At present, Umiat wells #2 and #5 have been successfully plugged and abandoned. Umiat wells #3, 94, 48, and 410 have also been plugged, but all surface objects have been left in place. There are three more Umiat wells that are open to the known oil reservoir that should be plugged next. With plugging equipment already staged at Umiat, it is in the BLM's best interest to plug the remaining of these three wells at the earliest possible time. The cost to finish the Umiat plugging is estimated to be $500,000. The well that poses the next greatest risk is the J.W. Dalton #1 well on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. The well is properly plugged up to 1,580 feet but is filled with diesel fuel above the plug. Recent erosion has washed away over 200 feet of beach and continued erosion threatens to wash away the drill pad and the reserve pit. There is the possibility that the wave action directly on the well will cause the well casing to fail which would spill hundreds of barrels of diesel fuel into the Arctic Ocean. Limited sampling in 1989 found elevated heavy metal presence in the pit (chromium, zinc, cobalt, and barium). Further sampling is warranted and removal of contaminated soils may be necessary to prevent the soil from washing into the ocean. The cost to plug the well is estimated to be approximately $1,000,000. The cost to remove and dispose of the contaminated dirt in the reserve pit is estimated to be $4,000,000. The other wells that represent some risk are the four Simpson wells that flow oil. The wells are not currently leaking, but if the surface equipment corrodes or is otherwise damaged, oil would flow onto the tundra. There are also 3 wells in the immediate area that could be plugged for a relatively small additional cost if plugged at the same time. The cost to plug these 7 wells is $5,000,000. Due to the remoteness of many of the wells, and the high costs associated with plugging, the BLM recommends no action on the remaining low risk wells until better infrastructure is in place. Additionally, any effort to remove the equipment, barrels, and pipe that have been left behind at some of the wellsites is very difficult to justify unless some potential risk of harm is identified. Some would view these locations as unsightly but, given the costs that would be incurred, it makes sense to wait until a better infrastructure is in place before addressing this relatively benign situation. It is also recommended that BLM continue to monitor the coastal wells on an annual basis and the remaining wells on a three-year schedule to identify emerging risks and keep records current. 13 Alaska's giant Umiat oil field, discov- ered in the late 1940s by the US Navy in search of new sources of oil after World War II, remains undeveloped to this day. The field is untapped in spite of delineation by 12 legacy swells; the shal- low depth of its consolidated, produc- tive reservoirs; sweet, light 37° gravity oil; and over 1 billion bbl of original oil in place. To this point, re- moteness (92 miles from the Trans Alas- ka Pipeline System (TAPS)), permafrost, and low reservoir energy have been the main development challenges. All of these challenges have been ad- dressed through modern technologi- cal advancements such as multilateral horizontal drilling, electric submers- ible pumps, and cold gas injection for pressure maintenance that bring Umiat development closer to fruition. Remoteness and environment is still a key challenge; however, the State of Alaska announced in December 2009 an aggressive plan to build an all -sea- son gravel road from TAPS to the Umiat U i a t IN a r th S, I i 1 8 i rumal tor oili '' James S. Watt Allen Huckabay Mark R. Landt Renaissance Alaska LLC Houston 1= -) `\ CkAlk NVQ \ r Well Name PTA # UMIAT TEST 01 1002090 UMIAT TEST 03 1002110 UMIAT TEST 04 1002120 UMIAT TEST 1002140 UMIAT TEST 07 1002150 44M'A:F:FE-G:F 08 1082168 UMIAT TEST 09 UMIAT TEST 10 UMIAT TEST 11 _ 1002170 1002180 1002190 UMIAT 14 2071780 30 KA NORTH SLOPE area that would substantially reduce the threshold for commerciality. Geologic mapping by the US Navy in 1944 first defined the Umiat anticline with its associated oil seeps. The Navy and the US Geological Survey conducted an extensive mapping and drilling program in this remote part of northern Alaska from 1944 to 1953. In particular, between 1946 and 1952, a total of 11 wells were drilled on the Umiat anticline. Eight wells have an oil column and two wells had long- term tests. Much of this early drilling was ex- perimental utilizing a variety of types of drilling rigs as well as different types of drilling fluids. A deeper test, the Seabee -1, was drilled in 1978 and tested gas from a deeper horizon. The Navy established an air base at Umiat and used the light oil for fuel. So unlike other Arctic pending de- velopments, Umiat has an established footprint including an airstrip, lodging, warehouse storage, etc. Renaissance Alaska LLC, through Renaissance Umiat LLC, controls 19,358 acres over the undeveloped Umiat oil field and a portion of the undeveloped Gubik gas field 12 miles east-northeast. Arctic Falcon Fig. I 160° 150° 140° e�^moo j. Beaufort Sea Prudhoe="" r��_-- uctures Kuparuki� 10pm tVationalPetroleum� i� 002 Area. Reserve -Alaska Umiat — _ _ _ �r�an4 basin Arctic National .1 CANADA Wildlife Refuge RenBa Front 411 1 Q� Alaska r a tia 1. i Bird and Molenaar, 1992 Exploration LLC is a mi- nority owner of Renais- sance Umiat LLC. Since acquiring the acre- age in 2006 and 2007, Renaissance has derisked the project through extensive geoscience studies and an 86 sq mile 3D seismic survey shot in 2008. Re - Oil & Gas journal Ilan. 11, 2010 0 • gNT OF United States Department of the Interior � - 9 7 y X = BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT �4RCH 3�1�pg Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm.,gov 3160(AK 930) SCP 2 6 2006 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 ray-, Anchorage Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September 8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are Forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) 0 RECEIVED 1.14" �� '� , SEP $x,000 ✓ c v -P x X issinn �Yi7?e STATE OF ALASKA Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. �� ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMM IssMoota ' 2" • QEPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS 1. Operations Abandon X Repair Well Plug Perforations Stimulate Other Performed: Alter Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver -4a& G Change Approved Program Operat. Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well 2. Operator Bureau of Land Management 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Name: Development Exploratory X Stratigraphic Service 1002120 , 3. Address: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 6. API Number: 502871000400, 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 483 RKB 482 GL UMIAT TEST WELL #4 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pool(s): AA -081726 f i •46 11. Present Well Condition Summary: Total Depth measured 840 feet Plugs (measured) 5-105 true vertical 840. feet Junk (measured) 792 Effective Depth measured 792 feet true vertical 792 feet Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 34 113/4 33 33 Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) . Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stimulation or cement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Daily Average Production or Injection Data Oil -Bbl Gas-Mcf I Water -Bbl Casing Pressure Tubing Pressure Prior to well operation: 0 0 10 0 0 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 10 0 10 14. Attachments: 15. Well Class after proposed work: Copies of Logs and Surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service Daily Report of Well Operations 16. Well Status after proposed work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WINJ WDSPL 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sundry Num er or N/ if C. tempt: Contact Greg Noble Cr Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2006 ,.d.� 9 • Z`t •� ORIGINAL R8DMS SR 0C* .`13 2006 BILM Umiat #4 Rig: Bucyrus -Armstrong Cable Tool (29-W) Sud: May 26, 1950 Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start P+A Umiat 1S 1W 13 - 5/7/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 482' AMSL CP: 483' AMSL End P+A Conductor Pipe V above GL 5/9/04 original conductor Pipe = 1' anove GL xx x x x x x x x x x x f— 12 sx of Cal -Seal 15" Hole x x x x x x > x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17.7 sx of Arctic Set 3 Fluid Level = 201' 10 3/4" Hole 425' 8" Hole 6" Hole 692' TD = 840' PBTD = 840' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 113/4" --- --- Conductor --- 0 33 ??? --- --- Tubing --- ??? ??? Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 11 70 13.96 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 70 102 3.33 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 102 201 11.90 Fresh Water 4 Open Hole 201 840 ? Wellbore Fluids Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Fish/Fill Information Wellbore Fluids Unknown Item Date Depth Comment A 5/8/04 ??? Rods cut and dropped in well inside tubing B 5/8/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well C 7/29/50 792 Cable Tool Fish x x x x x x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water 0 L' 3 gNT OF • United States Department of the Interior O i 7 _ � BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TAKE PRIDE' �qA�H 3 Alaska State Office IN AMERICA ERIcA 222 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm.gov 3160(AK 930) SEP 2 6 2006 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September 8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are Forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, /$/Julia S. Dougan ACTING State Director Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) 930: GNoble:jdh:09/22/06:1429c:/data/Itr/AOGCCletter l.doc STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS 1. Operations Abandon X Repair Well Plug Perforations Stimulate Other Performed: Alter Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Change Approved Program Operat. Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well 2, Operator Bureau of Land Management 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Name: Development Exploratory X Stratigraphic Service 1002120 3. Address: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 6. API Number: 502871000400 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 483 RKB 482 GL LIMIAT TEST WELL #4 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pool(s): AA -081726 842000 11. Present Well Condition Summary: Total Depth measured 840 feet Plugs (measured) 5-105 true vertical 840 feet Junk (measured) 792 Effective Depth measured 792 feet true vertical 792 feet Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 34 113/4 33 33 Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True Vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (size, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stimulation or cement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Daily Average Production or Injection Data Oil -Bbl Gas-Mcf I Water -Bbl I Casing Pressure Tubing Pressure Prior to well operation: 0 0 10 100 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 0 0 0 14. Attachments: 15. Well Class after proposed work: Copies of Logs and Surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service Daily Report of Well Operations 16. Well Status after proposed work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WINJ WDSPL 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sundry Number or N/A if C.O. Exempt: Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum Engineer SignaturePhone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2006 BILMUmiat #4 Rig: Bucyrus -Armstrong Cable Tool (29-W) Spud: May 26, 1950 Umiat Meridian Township Mange ISection Start P+A Top Umiat is 11W 13 5/7/04 Vol bbl Comments Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 482' AMSL CP: 483' AMSL End P+A 11 Conductor Pipe 1' above GL 5/9/04 Oriainal Conductor Pine = 1' ahnvn ri Surfmacenfsntplug x" xx x x x 15" Hole x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x X x x x x -X` x ': x x >S x." 10 314" Hole 425' 8" Hole 692' 6" Hole TD = 840' B 12 sx of Cal -Seal 17.7 sx of Arctic Set 3 ` Fluid Level = 201' A PBTD = 840' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight- Grade Type ID TOP Btm 113/4 — Conductor Q 33 ??7 — Tubing — ??? FtsWFill Information Item Date Depth Comnvent A 518/04 ??? Rods cart and dropped In wen inside tubsig, . B 54404 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in wen C 7129150 792 Cable Tool Fish x x'x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 of/sx; 10.7 ppg ® Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water 9 0 Well Fluids Item Location Top Burl Vol bbl Comments 1 OH1Csg 11 70 13.96 Surfmacenfsntplug 2 Open Hole 70 102 3.33 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 102 201 111.90 Fresh water 4 Open Hole 201 840 ? Weilbore Fluids FtsWFill Information Item Date Depth Comnvent A 518/04 ??? Rods cart and dropped In wen inside tubsig, . B 54404 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in wen C 7129150 792 Cable Tool Fish x x'x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 of/sx; 10.7 ppg ® Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water 9 0 SEP -26-2006 TUE U8:29 AM ;LM AK 6T�'IE DLIKEUIUK rHA NU. JU( Zl/i 4byb 0 i" U1 /Co -a /0 re, llffikl� - 'I, ww I (,,,. (1), n ,-I 1-k'. , /-". — — - i - - /7 Nwimm ---"1*7 1- "W"bw Of P46" InOuding emw shm"l in '4ANREU, 5EP 2, - 200b btt-Z'b-ZUUb 1UK Ud;�J HM bLCI HK 61HIK U1XtUIUK rHX NU. JU( 211 4byb 0 United States Department of the Interior -� 7� b _- 13UREAU Of LAND MANAGEMENT Alaska State Office TACE PRIDE* 222 West Seventh Avenue 'NAM1ERMA Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 - httR://www.ak.blm.gov 3I60(AK 930) SEP 2 6 2CC6 Mr. John R. Norman, Chairman Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West Seventh Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Dear Mr. Norman: This letter is in response to your letter, dated September 8, 2006, regarding recent work at NPRA Simpson Wells and prior Umiat work. Enclosed are forms 10-404, providing a subsequent report of the 2004 plugging and abandonment of the government drilled Umiat Wells 3, 4, 8 and 10, requested in your letter. You also requested forms for the 2002 plugging of Umiat Wells two and five. The Corp of Engineers contracted the plugging and abandonment of those two wells. Please contact the Corp of Engineers for those forms. Thank you for informing us of this oversight. If you have further concerns regarding this matter, please contact Greg Noble, Energy Branch Chief at (907) 267-1429. Sincerely, �4 00� Julia Dougan Acting State Director 4 Enclosures (Forms 10-404 for Umiat Wells 3,4,8 and 10) SEP -26-2006 TUE 08:29 AM B AK STATE DIRECTOR Performed: Alter Casing RK13 482 GL 'operty—"Desi igig )81726 >rese— nt W )) Depth five Depth Loop FAX NO, 90r 2(1 4b96 u� • STATE OF ALASKA ' 7y, ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS Repair Wait Plug perforation Stimulate Other Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Opsiat, Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well ement 4. Current We)l Class: 5, Permit to Drill Number. Development Exploratory X LV02120 I Anchorage, AK Stratigraphic Service 16. API Number: +`''02871000400 9. Will Name and Number, UMIAT TFST WELL #4 measured 840 feet true vertical e40 feet measured 792 feet hue vertical792 � raat Plugs (measured) 5.105 Junk (measured) 792 Nartoratlon depth: Measured depth: WA True vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (size. grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 12. Stlmulatlon.orcement squeeze summary: SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOVSLy SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Daily Average Production or Inlectian Data Prior to well operation: 0 10 0 0— 0 Subsequent to operation: 0 0 0 0 0 ia. Attachments, 15. Welt Class after proposed work: Copies of Logs and Surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service Daily Report of Well Operailons 18. Well Status after proposeo work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WIND W08PL 17 i hereby certify that the foregoing Is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sundry Number or N!A if C.O- Exemoc Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Title Petroleum EngineerSignature Phone 907.267-1429 Date 9/21/20o6 IV 10 3N V it G" H M=60. PR D = go. Umlat #4 Umial Current Wellbore Schematfe c of cal4wai ME #Am -ft See =201• WellbDre Fluids Urkknown Fresh Water JC:"–CO'LUUG 1 UC UO - JU Nil DLl l N1% J t y 1 "_ U 1IiCV f'JIC Change RKS 351 GL 'Operty Desigl 181726 'resent Well C Depth live Depth rNA 1 4 0 d 0 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS Abandon X Repair Well Plug Pertoratione Stimulate Alter Casing Pull Tubingp Omer erforatr3 New Pool Waiver Time Extension red Program Operat, Shutdown Perforate lu of Land ManagementReenter Suspended well 4. Current Well Class: S. Permit to Drill Number Development Explanatory X 1002110 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage. AK StraUorapnir Service 6. Apt Number. $02871000300 2, Wall Name and Number: LIMIAT TEST WELL #3 measured 572 feet true vertical 572 feet measured 572 feat true vertical 572 feet Plugs (measured) 60.1 S4 Junk (measured) N/A onuranorr cepm: Measured depth; N/A True Vertical depth: N/A lbing; (size, grade, and measured depth) 101013 and MV (type and medaured depth) Stlmufatlon or cement squeeze summary. SEE A7lACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK or Prior to well operation: 0 --- - ••a�+r oo, cas,ng PressL 0 too Subsequent to operation. 0 �chments: 1S, Well Clara afteris of Logs arid Surveys Run No psed Won` Report of weu Operations Exploratory x Development Service 16. Weir Status after proposed work; Oil X Gas WAS GINJ WINJ lereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my kraiwledge. Fl, '"Mm. 1,11 ,,,,.,,,, Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Signature / - WDSPL Titte Petroleum Engineer Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2006 I WDSPL Titte Petroleum Engineer Phone 907-267-1429 Date 9/21/2006 9' 5] 3" 1 r TD = 572' PSTO = 572' Umiat #3 IK19 SL Umiat Mel Um Current Wellbore Schematic GL' sac of Portland Ment If Arctic Set 3 Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 9.533 cflsx;10.7 ppg Gel Pill Ml Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown 746 RK8 741 GL 8. PrOpEMy DBsigl AA -084141 11. Present Well Total Depth (Effective Depth Casing Su ( ;HX NU, JU � 2 I l 4oyb r ;mss STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIC. AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS Abandon X Repair Weu Plug Perforations Stimulate other After Casing Pull Tubing Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension red Program Operat Shutdown Perforate Re•entarSuspended Wall U of Land Management 4. Currentff:;TEST 5. Permit to Drilf Number: DevelExploratory X 1002180 Abbott Lopp Road Anchorage, AK StrecService 6, API Number: 502871001000 Name and Number WELL 1110 measured 1573 feet Me vertical157 —feet measured 1573 feet true vertical 157 3�—feet Length Size Un Plugs (measured) 5.100 Junk (measured) N/A ranoratfon depth: Measured depth: N/A True vertical depth: N/A Tubing: (sl2e, grade, and measured depth) Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) t2. Stlmuladon ar cement squeeze summary. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK 13. Representative Dally Average Production or Infection Data % dwoiy treasure Tubing F Prior to wall operation: 0 0 0 Subsequent to operation: 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. Attachments 15. Well Class after proposed work: ?piss of Logs and surveys Run No Exploratory X Development Service lily Report of Well Operations 16. Well Status atter proposed work: Oil X Gas WAG GINJ WINJ WDSPL 7 hereby certify that the foregoing Is true and correct tb the best of my knowledge, ISUndry Number or N/A if C, 0. Exsmee Contact Greg Noble Printed Name GregNoble Signature T@fe Petroleum Engineer Phone 907-267.1429 Date 9121/2008 MA Cement 4MI(C Set 3; yield 4A4 cf/sx; 10,7 ppg TD = 1573' PBfD = 1573' so We0lbere Fluids Unknown Fresh Water SEP -26-2006 TUE 08.30 AN AK STATE DIRECTOR FAX N0, 907 271 4596 P, 09 • STATE OF ALASKA r ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION REPORT OF SUNDRY WELL OPERATIONS " ~' aerations Abandon X Repair Weil Plug Perforations Stimulate Other formed; Alter Casing Pull Tubin o _ g Perforate New Pool Waiver Time Extension Change Approved Program Operas Shutdown Perforate Re-enter Suspended Well tperaror Bureau of Land Managementa, Current Wall Class; ne: S. Permit to Drill Number Development Exploratory X 1002160 ddress: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK Stratigrapnlc Service 6, API Number, B Elevation (fq: 507871000800 Q. Well Name and Numoer. RKB 73� 6 GL UMIAT TEST WELL #8 tal Depth measured 1327 feet Plugs (measured) 5-100 & 927_1327 true vertical 1-327 feet .sunk (measured) N/A � _ active Depth measured 1327 feet true vertical 1327 feet dng Length Size sen ,,,, 3rforation depth: Measured depth: N/A True verUcal deptn: N/A btng: (size. grade, and measured depth) 2.5 6,5A H-40 1312 cKens and SSSV (type and measured depth) NA Stimulation or cement squeeze summary. SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT REFERENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK Prior to well operation: r Subsequent to operation: 0: t. Attachments, DPWS of Logs and Surveys Run No ally Report of Well Operatlons I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to th Contact Greg Noble Printed Name Greg Noble Signature or kxploratory X Development Service Well Status after proposed work: Oil Gas X WAG GIN W1NJ WOSPL IF my knowledge sundry Number or N/A If C.O. Examnr Title Petroleum Engineer Phone 907.267-1429 Oats 9/21/20o6 n a� crininai —RDF = a_n- et,.. gr_, 13 I'M' Note 10 314" Hole Umiat #S Umiat Current Wellbore Schematic F�• 18 sx of CaFSee7 12 sx of Ca1.Sgw \ 2.1 Ox of Aldi¢ Set 3 6,2 sx cf Ancdc Set 3 TOC=SW 140 3x of POFftnd Cement _ 37.4 sx of Arctic Set 3 7D = 132T PBM = 1327' Tubing pressure 0 psi Qmms neo lee 4" Casing pressure 0 psi aoo � taa .00 sa ti Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cflsx; 10.7 ppg - Gel Pill MI Ciel; yield cffsx; to ppg Fresh Water r, /00 - C� /9 - 0 0 A14A 71A OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COM1rIISSION September 8, 2006 Henri R. Bisson State Director Bureau of Land Management 222 West 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: Recent Work at NPRA Simpson Wells and Prior Umiat Work Dear Mr. Bisson: FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR 333 W. r' AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 EP The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("Commission") recently received Reports of Sundry Well Operations (Form 10-404) for work conducted on five Simpson wells in NPRA. These reports document work conducted in mid to late April of this year. Our review has identified two concerns with the submitted documents. These new concerns are in addition to other lingering matters from similar work conducted at Umiat in 2002 and 2004. Since these latter issues have remained unresolved despite multiple requests to BLM staff members, the Commission would like to bring all the issues to your attention. 1. 20 AAC 25.280(d) requires the operator to file a Report of Sundry Well Operations 30 days after completion of workover operations. While the work was completed on these wells in late April, these reports were not submitted to the Commission until August 16. 2. It appears from these five Simpson well Reports that the work actually performed on the wells .is substantively different from the work plan that was originally described in the Application for Sundry Approvals (Form 10-403) submitted for each well and approved by the Commission. A change to an approved program or activity may not be undertaken without Commission approval. If operational necessity requires prompt action, oral approval of a change may be obtained from the Commission. The Commission has staff available to address regulatory variances 24 hours a day, either by contacting our North Slope inspector at 907- 659-2714 (pager 907-659-3607) or the after hours duty engineer at 907-244-1467. 3. Reports of Sundry Well Operations (Form 10-404) have not been submitted for work done in early May 2004 in Umiat wells 03, 04, 08 and 10, although description of the work was provided to the Commission. Henri R. Bisson September 8, 2006 Page 2 of 2 4. Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Form 10-407) have never been filed for the plugging and abandonment work done on Umiat wells 02 and 05 by the Corp of Engineers in March 2002. Again, work descriptions from your onsite Inspector were received but not Forms 10-407. I know you agree that compliance with applicable Federal and State oil and gas regulations is of critical importance to all of us here in Alaska. Your assistance in helping ensure regulatory compliance and in Prov' 1 these documents so that the AOGCC's well files can be brought up to date wil e ap reciated. Subject: Work Reporting • 41 From: Thomas Maunder <tom_maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:02:02 -0800 Further to our review of the Umiat work. Last summer (I think), Stan brought in some drawings and brief summary reports for the work done at Umiat in 2005. Copies of our report form (404) were not included then. I remember mentioning that such forms were needed and without them the information was incomplete. It does not appear that the reporting forms were ever submitted to complete the information required by our regulations. He also included some information on the well work accomplished by the Corp in 2003 (I think). The documents look like portions of the report the Corp submitted to you all. Again, there was no 404 form included. When this campaign is concluded, it would be appreciated if the reporting forms and attachments could be submitted for the wells worked on previously. Please call and we can discuss. Thanks, Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC 1 of 1 4/12/2006 10:32 AM L(DCO-,) 1 LM '-"" Umiat #4 Rig:Bucyrus-Armstrong Cable Tool (29-W) Sud: May 26, 1950 Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start work Umiat is 1 W 3 5/7/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 482' AMSL CP: 483' AMSL End work Conductor Pipe 1' above GL 5/9/04 Urlglnal conductor Pipe = 1' above GL x x x x xf-- 12 sx of Cal -Seal 15" Hole x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 17.7 sx of Arctic Set 3 r Fluid Level = 201' 10 3/4" Hole 425' 8" Hole �/ ' 692' 6" Hole TD = 840' PBTD = 840' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 113/4" Conductor 0 33 ??? Tubing ??? ??? Well Fluids L Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 11 70 13.96 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 70 102 3.33 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 102 201 11.90 Fresh Water 4 Open Hole 201 840 ? Wellbore Fluids Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment 5/8/04 ??? Rods cut and dropped in well inside tubing 5/8/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well 7/29/50 792 Cable Tool Fish x x x x Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water 0 Notes: Umiat Wells Traveled on 4-27-04 to the NPRA for Umiat well inspections. Flew from Anchorage to Fairbanks on Alaska and then from Fairbanks to (via Nuiqsut) Umiat on a charter flight (Wright Air). Mike Worley, Richard Kremnitz and two other hydrologists were on the plane also. We flew directly to Nuiqsut to drop off everybody except Mike Worley. From Nuiqsut we flew over the ice road routes, then flew over Lonely (DEW Line site) and then over the Total well site near Inigok. We arrived at Umiat @ 1345. Bo Brown, Stan Porhola, Mike Kunz and Steve Martinez went to Umiat on the 21st. Stan and Bo flew out on the plane I flew in on. The Umiat Commercial Corp. (UCC) put us up in the main camp and in a geophysical camp they had just purchased from Western Geo. Three Polaris snow machines (UCC) and 2 new skidoos (OES) were used for crew transportation. One skidoo burned out a piston (4-29-04) due to bad gas or choked off oil injection line. Two people could ride on the skidoos but only one on each Polaris. The UCC Nodwell was used to transport people (up to 6 including operator) and water (1000 gal. tank) to each site. The Nodwell is a 1970's version that is slow and fragile. It takes at least 1 1/2 hours to get water from Umiat to the well sites on the hill. Using a Sno-cat or Tucker (maybe 2) for crew transportation and water hauling next year should be strongly considered. Bill Culbertson (OES) also said they have an ice / snow melter they could use for water. Caribou Construction provided the 977 cats and associated equipment. Caribou also provided a heated warm up shack and a double lined (diesel) fuel sled. After getting everything set up and working out the kinks, plugging the wells went pretty good. In my view, Steve and Stan did a commendable job setting everything up especially considering the time crunch. The OES crew worked in a very professional and competent manor. The Caribou operators did a great job and working Mike Kunz was one of the real benefits of the project. The weather warmed up on Sunday the 91h and the snow started to melt awfully fast. On the day I left (May 11) it was sunny and about 50 deg F. Tues -4-27-04 Leave Anch @ 0630 Arrive Fairbanks @ 0730 Leave Fairbanks @ 0915 Arrive Nuiqsut @ 1130 Drop off Kemnitz and two others Leave Nuiqsut @ 1145, fly over ice road routes, fly over Lonely, fly over Total well (Inigok) Arrive Umiat @ 1335 Nodwell up to #8 Weds 4-28-04 Continue to set up on #8 well. Generator problem — electrician flown in from Deadhorse (delayed because of bad weather in Deadhorse) Thurs 4-29-04 Nodwell up to #8 — water (1000 gallons) brought up also. S. Flora, M. Worley from Fairbanks- M. Worley flies on to Inigok. S. Flora wants to get rid of tank- Mike Kunz doesn't. It stays. Generator still screwed up. S. Flora, M. Worley fly back to Fairbanks with the OES welder. Fri 4-30-04 To #8 via Nodwell Start pumping brine down well @ 1300 • 0 Went back to camp @ 1800 — will switch out with S. Martinez @ 0030. Back up the hill @ 2330 — S. Martinez cemented well before I returned. Balanced plug set @ 2355. Sat 5-01-04 Hauling water to #8 all day. Sun 5-02-04 To well #8 @ 1200 Started pumping H2O down well @ 1500 Finished pumping H2O down well @ 1720 Pumped gel pill from 1825 to 1840 Start pumping cement @ 1845, finish @ 1915. Cement tubing to surface. Well #8 plugged. Mon 5-03-04 Moving everything from #8 to #10. Weatherford rep (Lyle Savage) flown in camp for packer on #10. Tues 5-04-04 Still moving everything from #8 to #10. Weds 5-05-04 S. Flores, D. Carpenter, Mike Worley, R.Kemnitz fly in. Everyone except Kemnitz to well site. Brine pumped down hole @ 1400 to 1445 to melt ice plug. D. Carpenter gave OK to pump circulated water back down well. Packer set @ 1445. Carpenter and Flora asked about HS &E plan @ site. Did not bring up enough cement — will plug well Thurs. morning. Fairbanks BLMers fly out. Thurs 5-06-04 To well #10 @ 0800; start cement @ 1115; finish @ 1140. Cement to surface. Well #10 plugged. Cold and windy- crew comes down early because of weather and lack of visibility. State will close tundra travel @ 1200 on the 9th. Friday 5-07-04 Moving to well #4. Cold and windy but better visibility. Sat 5-08-04 To well #4, cut off tubing and it falls away @ 1230. Still setting up equipment. Sun 5-09-04 To well #4, pumped gel pill @ 1130 - 1145. Pumped cement @ 1205 to 1525. Needed extra sacks of cement from camp. Well #4 plugged. Mon 5-10-04 Move to well #3. Some of the equipment moved to Seabee pad. Tues 5-11-04 To well #3, pumped gel pill 1205-1210. Pumped cement 1215 to 1315. Fairbanks BLMers fly to Umiat. Bill Culbertson (OES), S. Flores, M. Worley, Craig McCaa to well site via Nodwell. Arrive @ 1330. Leave Umiat @ 1600 via Wright Air, arrive Fairbanks 1800. Leave Fairbanks @ 2030, arrive Anch @ 2130. Mike Kunz also left Umiat and flew to Fairbanks. Tim Lawlor OES Bill Culbertson — GM -OES Don Lancaster — Supervisor - Wainwright Billy Bester — Wainwright "Super" Dave Gerke- Barrow Chuck ? -Anchorage Loren ? - Welder- Anchorage Dink Heim — driller -Anchorage- (Wildcat Enterprises, Inc.) Caribou Construction (977 cats) Jimmy Brazel — mechanic / operator -New Mexico Bill Durner — operator-Wasilla BLM-Anchorage Steve Martinez- Petroleum Engineer Stan Porhola — Petroleum Engineer Bo Brown — P.E.T. Tim Lawlor- P.E.T. BLM-Fairbanks Mike Kunz — Archeologist Susan Flora — Haz Mat Mike Worley - Realty Doug Carpenter — H.S.E. Craig McCaa- P.R. Richard Kemnitz — Hydrologist- flew up but worked on his own project. 0 Subject: Re: Umiat From: Stan_Porhola@ak.blm.gov Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:46:12 -0800 To: Thomas Maunder <tom_maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Umiat #8 was plugged with a downhole plug through the tubing across the active reservoir. A surface plug was set in both the annulus and tubing, with the top of the plug at 73' and 0' respectively. Umiat #10 was plugged with a bridge plug and 100' of cement above. Umiat #4 was plugged with a fluid level at 2011, followed by water to 1011, a gel pill to 70' and a surface plug to 111. Tubing and rods were cut and left in the well. Umiat 43 was plugged with a fluid level at 1181, followed by a gel pill to 93' and a surface plug to 66' (after falling 601). Tubing was cut and left in the well. Work scheduled for winter 2005 includes topping off the surface plug for Umiat #3 and setting surface plugs for Umiat #6, #7 and #9. Previous plans to plug Umiat #1 and #11 have been put on hold. Work scheduled for summer 2004 includes PCB testing of well fluids for Wolf Creek 43 and possible wellhead improvements to Wolf Creek #1. The next likely target for plugging efforts by BLM (pending additional funding) would be the Wolf Creek area (wells 1,2,3). Stan Porhola BLM - Alaska Petroleum Engineer 267-1469 of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM Subject: Umiat From: Thomas Maunder <tom_maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:14:26 -0800 To: Stan Porhola <Stan Porhola@ak.blm.gov> Hi Stan, I just got the summer edition of "BLM Alaska Frontiers". Your activities at Umiat are discussed on page 13. I was wondering what your schedule might be regarding the reporting paperwork on the wells you were able to work on. We would appreciate getting those reports to at least close out that portion of the files. Thanks in advance. I also looked at the 2 and 5 files. The Corp has never sent in the final paperwork on those wells. I do have Greg's summaries. Did BLM ever get anything of reports from the Corp?? Regards, Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC 1 of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM Urniat getting a Little cleaner With funding secured from Congress, BLM began plugging some of the "legacy wells" in the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska this spring. BLM awarded a contract to Olgoonik Environmental Services (OES) of Wainwright, Alaska, to plug nine wells near Umiat. Umiat was the site of oil exploration conducted by the U.S. Navy, who contracted various Arctic contractors to drill 11 wells between 1944 and 1953. None of these wells were initially plugged and abandoned but the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers plugged two Umiat wells during the winter of 2002. Umiat was chosen due to its proximity to the Colville River and the relatively easy access provided by the existing air strip. OES mobilized equipment at Umiat in late April and was able to plug four wells in 27 days. BLM suspended operations on May 11 to prevent damage to the tundra as the weather warmed. BLM and OES plan to return to Umiat next winter to finish plugging the remaining five wells. Depending on future funding, BLM will plug other legacy wells in the petroleum reserve. Wells that pose the greatest risk to the environment and resource values will get priority. After multiple field seasons collecting field data and compiling literature on the wells drilled by the U.S. Government, BLM will issue its final report on the legacy wells in the Rational Petroleum Reserve - Alaska later this year. s BLMers on the preliminary site visit to Umiat No. 6 in February were greeted with -40°F temperatures and three feet of snow. BLMers visit Umiat No. 8 in May as crews begin scraping five feet of snow away to allow work on the wellhead. Late breaking news... The Northeast National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska Draft Amended Integrated Activity Plan /Environmental Impact Statement is now available for public comment. The plan includes BLM's preferred alternative for making additional land available for leasing in the northeast NPR -A. Public comments will be accepted for 45 days beginning June 18, 2004. See BLM's website www.ak.blm.gov for more information. A followup story will appear in the next issue of BLM-Alaska Frontiers. JUMMEK Zoo+ • bLM ALASKA I KONTIEKS 1 13 N Y Well Pluggings — 2004 Agency: Bureau of Land Management Contractor: Olgoonik Environmental Services Wells: Umiat #3, Umiat #4, Umiat #8, Umiat #10 Umiat #8 Known locally as the "whistling well", plans to plug this gas well with several other wells in the Umiat area began only a few months before well plugging operations in April 2004. Initially, the well had 250 psi of pressure and was leaking from multiple fittings and valves. Considered one of the most difficult legacy wells to plug, a considerable amount of preparation went into setting up the wellsite, including the building of a 6' tall snow pad to access the well. Utilizing a cement mixer, pump, and hoses hooked up to the wellhead, plugging operations commenced with the melting of a small surface ice plug. Following the removal of the ice plug, a 378' cement plug was set at the bottom of the well, a 93' plug was set in the tubing annulus near the surface, and a 287' plug was set in the tubing at the surface. In all, time spent at this well began with prep work starting April 22, 2004 and ended with the completion of plugging operations on May 2, 2004. Umiat #10 Following the successful plugging of Umiat #8, operations were moved to Umiat #10. The well operations started with the melting of a surface ice plug. The wellbore was much different than that of Umiat #8 because it was an exploratory oil well that had low reservoir pressure which prevents the well fluids from flowing to surface. In fact, the fluid level was probably several hundred feet below ground surface. Therefore, an inflatable bridge plug was easily run into the well down to 100' and inflated with nitrogen. A cement plug was set on top of the plug to just a few feet below ground surface. Operations were completed on May 6, 2004 and moved to Umiat #4. Umiat #4 Located near the edge of a hill to the east of Umiat #8, well plugging operations began on May 7, 2004. When the flange on the top of the well was opened, a string of tubing and rods were found hanging from the bottom of the flange. The tubing and rods were cut at the surface and dropped in the hole. An interface meter determined the fluid level to be at 201'. To set the plug in the openhole, a water spacer with a viscous gel pill was pumped ahead of the cement. The cement plug was tagged at 11', the flange placed back on the well and operations concluded on May 9, 2004. Umiat #3 Located to the northeast of Umiat Lake, this well was accessed on May 9, 2004. The wellhead was removed and tubing found to be hanging from the bottom. The tubing was cut and junked in the hole just as had been done in Umiat #4. An interface meter determined the fluid level to be at 118'. To set the plug in the openhole, no water spacer was used due to the higher fluid level but a viscous gel pill was pumped ahead of a cement plug. The cement was tagged at 66', meaning the cement had fallen from a calculated depth closer to the surface. However, warmer weather led to the cessation of operations on the tundra and further well operations have been suspended pending a return to Umiat for additional well plugging activities. Umiat Well Pluggings — 2004 Operations Summary BLM initiated well plugging operations in the Umiat area on April 21, 2004 under contract to Olgoonik Environmental Services (OES). The following legacy wells were plugged before the cessation of operations on May It, 2004: • Umiat #8 • Umiat #10 56AN ED MAR 1 8 2010 • Umiat #4-0' • Umiat #g Plugging operations were conducted to stop a leaking gas well (Umiat #8) and to plug other wells in the Umiat area that were abandoned following the U.S. Navy's exploration efforts in the late 1940's and 50's. At the completion of operations, the well heads were preserved due to their potential historical significance. The wells are located near Umiat, a former Navy site constructed in the 1940's as a base of operations supporting oil exploration within the formerly named Naval Petroleum Reserve — 4. Umiat is located on the banks of the Colville River approximately 100 miles southwest of Prudhoe Bay. jam, -ala • 0 Hoo re 2 - t mist 08 and 910 wellheads during the summer of 2003. Figure 3 — Umiat #4 and #3 wellheads during the summer of 2003. Figure 4 — Umiat Camp April 25, 2004 Figure 5 —Offloading equipaaaent at t rniat runway • • Figure 6 — Operations at Umiat #8 (Well is inside wooden enclosure) Figure 7 — l miat 48 wellhead inside wooden enclosure E • Figure 8 — Operations at Umiat #10 Figure 9 —Operations at L miat #4 9 i _N4 Weight Umiat #8 Ri Cardwell Unitized Spudder Model K Top 16 sx of Cal -Seal Sud, May 2 195 12sxof Cal -Seal Umiat Meridian Township lRange Section Start P+A 8 5/8" x6 "° illm'A Umiat 1 W 34 4/22/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 735EN DF: 740' AMSL ��] End P+A 1 H-40 Tubing -L 0 I Wellhead is 10' above GL 5/2/04 TOC = 580' 2 I 140 sx of Portland Cement xx x x x x x x 4 1 x x x > x x ix x x XIx x 5� x x/w�� x x r x 37.4 sx of Arctic Set 3 10 3/4" Hole x A x «--s— x 5 x ,. TD = 1327' PBTD = 1327' Tubing pressure 0 Casing pressure 0 psi psi 200 300 P4110 100 400 Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type 13 7/8lHole Top 16 sx of Cal -Seal 113/4" 47# 12sxof Cal -Seal 11.0" ` 2.1 sx of Arctic Set 3 8 5/8" I Vit/:%" 1; 1 6.2 sx of Arctic Set 3 TOC = 580' 2 I 140 sx of Portland Cement xx x x x x x x 4 1 x x x > x x ix x x XIx x 5� x x/w�� x x r x 37.4 sx of Arctic Set 3 10 3/4" Hole x A x «--s— x 5 x ,. TD = 1327' PBTD = 1327' Tubing pressure 0 Casing pressure 0 psi psi 200 300 P4110 100 400 Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 113/4" 47# --- Conductor 11.0" 0 50 8 5/8" 32# --- Surface 7.921" 0 1231 2.5" 6.5# H-40 Tubing 2.102" 0 1312 Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbi) Comments 1 Tubing 949 1312 2.10 _ Bottum cement plug 2 Tubing 431 949 3.00 Fresh water spacer 3 Tubing 287 431 0.82 Gel pill 4 Tubing 0 287 1.67 Surface cement plug 5 Annulus 949 1327 27.47 Botlom cement plug 6 Annulus 243 949 37.38 Fresh water spacer 7 Annulus 166 243 3.29 Gel pill 8 Annulus 73 166 4.93 Surface cement plug 9 Annulus 11 73 3.29 Fresh water Dish/Fill Information ItemF�- Date _ Depth Comment A 511104 1312 Tubing string cemented In place Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg J� f Gel Pill Nil Gel; yield cf/sx; 10 ppg Fresh Water • UN/'� l ' Umiat #10 Rig: Cardwell Unitized Spudder Model K Sud: September 9, 1951 Umiat Meridian Township Range Section Start P+A Umiat 1 N1 W 33 5/1/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 741' AMSL DF: 746' AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 10' above GL 5/6/04 ungmar mur = o.e moove UL x r 7.8 sx of Arctic Set 3 73 %/a" Hole � '' ''' x 35 sx of Cal -Seal 2 10 314" Hole 3 7 3/4" Hole TD = 1573' 10 sx of Cal -Seal TOC = 315' Fluid Level = unknown 4 Fish/Fill Information " Item Date Depth Comment zoo sx of Type C e Not Applicable w/ 500# Cacl, x x x x xx Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x PBTD = 1573' Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water • Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade TY pre ID Top Btm ?" --- Structural --- 0 ? 113/4" -- - Conductor 0 70 a 5/8" -- --- Surface 0 1338 Wellbore Items Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 Casing 0 100 6.16 Surface cement plug 2 Casing 100 105 Inflatable Bride plug 3 Casing ? Unknown v -- Circulating Brine 4 OH/Csg ? Unknown ? --- Wellbore Fluids 4 Fish/Fill Information " Item Date Depth Comment zoo sx of Type C e Not Applicable w/ 500# Cacl, x x x x xx Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x PBTD = 1573' Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water • BEN4Sud: 3KI, Umiat #4 Rig:Bucyrus-Armstrong Cable Tool (29-Wj May 26, 1950 Umiat Meridian Township lRange ISection I Start P+A Umiat 1S 11W 13 5/7/04 Current Wellbore Schematic GL 482' AMSL CP: 48TAM End P+A Conductor Pipe V above GL 5/9/04 Original Conductor Pipe 1' above GL ®m xx x F 12 sx of Cal -Seal 15'. Hole XX x Y x x x t X x x x x x x x x x x x x n x x yam_ 17.7 sx of Arctic Set 3 x� Fluid Level = 201' 10 3/4" Hole 425' 8" Hole 692' ti" Hole TD = 840' PBTD = 840' T Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A - 518/04 97? Rods cut and dropped in well inside u.ibmg B 518/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well @ C 7/29/50 792 Cable Tool Fish :< iC x x 4 Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x } ;J' Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cflsx; 10 ppg i -.- Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water i Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Gfade Type ID Top Btm r 11 3/4" --- --- Conductor --- 0 33 ??? Tubing - ??? 9?? Well Fluids Item Location Top Btm Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 11 70 13.96 Surface cement Mug 2 Open Hole 70 1 U2 3.33 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 102 201 11.90 Fresh Water 4 Open Hole 201 840 ? Wellbore Fluids T Fish/Fill Information Item Date Depth Comment A - 518/04 97? Rods cut and dropped in well inside u.ibmg B 518/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well @ C 7/29/50 792 Cable Tool Fish :< iC x x 4 Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 4.44 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg x x } ;J' Gel Pill MI Gel; yield cflsx; 10 ppg i -.- Wellbore Fluids Unknown Fresh Water i U M Umiat #3 Rig: Failing Model 1500 (314-C) Spud: November 15, 1946 Umiat Meridian Township Range ISection Start P+A Umiat is 1W 13 5/9/04 IKB: Current Wellbore Schematic GL: 351'AMSL 360'AMSL End P+A Wellhead is 6' above GL 5/11/041 uriginal KIMUS = to.u- Aoove k:ol - sx of Portland 9" Hole Cement A X x x x x x x 7.3 sx of Arctic Set 3 Fluid Level = 118' 6 7/8" Hole 538' 3" Hole TD = 572' PBTD = 572' Casing and Tubing Detail Size Weight Grade Type ID Top Btm 7" --- Conductor 8 72 ??? --- --- Tubing ??? ??? Well Fluids Item Location Top. Btrn Vol (bbl) Comments 1 OH/Csg 66 93 5.75 Surface cement plug 2 Open Hole 93 118 0.82 Gel pill 3 Open Hole 118 572 ? Wellbore Fluids Item Date Depth Comment A 5/11/04 ??? Tubing cut and dropped in well Cement Arctic Set 3; yield 1.533 cf/sx; 10.7 ppg • Gel Pill MI Gel; 10 ppg Wellbore Fluids Unknown US Arm Corps Y ops of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT Ili%rocl�lct�,ion The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requests your comments on this Proposed Pian. The Proposed Plan covers 12 areas; two areas at the former Umiat Air Station and the areas surrounding ten Umiat Test Wells in the former National Petroleum Reserve -4 (NPR -4). The sites are shown on Figure 1 and listed below: • Air Strip Complex • Main Gravel Pad • Umiat Test Well 2 • Umiat Test Well 3 • Umiat Test Well 4 • Umiat Test Well 5 • Umiat Test Well 6 • Umiat Test Well 7 • Umiat Test Well 8 • Umiat Test Well 9 • Umiat Test Well 10 • Umiat Test Well 11 Agwo"A" o oil Seep. 4 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): the state agency responsible for protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment from adverse effects of environmental contamination. Proposed Plan. a docum& informing Alaska Tribes, community leaders, and the public about contaminated sites, alternatives that were considered for cleaning up the sites, and which alternatives were identified as the preferred alternatives. -- Airstrip Complex'` 'i:_ 6 'r _ ` Seasonal Stream Main Gravel (Unit B) - - ` . • -_ - ' - - _ ;(Unit Cj' "..... j Shut-in NPR -4 Oil Well d Dry NPR -4 Test Hole ® Estimated Erosion Area ® _ ..:•. —�'-:' _____ -Scale in Miles' — m Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC): the state agency responsible for protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment from adverse effects of environmental contamination. Proposed Plan. a docum& informing Alaska Tribes, community leaders, and the public about contaminated sites, alternatives that were considered for cleaning up the sites, and which alternatives were identified as the preferred alternatives. At a later date, additional Proposed Plans will be prepared that will address Umiat Test Well 1, Umiat Lake, and the landfill and Seasonal Slough The purpose of this Proposed Plan is to: • Describe the environmental conditions at each site. • Describe the cleanups levels for the sites. • Describe the cleanup alternatives that were considered. • Present the Proposed cleanup alternative for each site. • Request public comment on the Proposed Altematives. • p;ov;de information on how the public can be involved in finai c%_—a up %dac;s�c)rls. Final decisions on the proposed alternatives will not be made until all comments submitted by the end of the public comment period have been reviewed and considered. Changes to the preferred alternatives may be made if public comments or additional data indicate that such changes would result in more appropriate solutions. Preparation of this Proposed Plan and the associated public comment period is required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund . Although the sites described in this Proposed Plan are not CERCLA sites, this project follows CERCLA guidance. Ponliarly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program The Department of Defense (DOD) is tasked with correcting environmental damage caused by past DOD activities. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) was set up to accomplish this. The cleanup of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) is a part of this program. FUDS are those properties that the Department of Defense once owned or used, but no longer controls. These properties range from privately owned farms to National Parks. They also include residential areas, schools, colleges, and industrial areas. The FUDS program includes former Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and other defense properties. Over 600 FUD sites have been identified in Alaska. L_J Alternatives: appropriate waste management options that ensure the protection of human health and the environment. CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, -and Liability Act (also known as Superfund)... The federal law that guides cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Site Looetiort and History Umiat is located about 150 miles southeast of Barrow and 70 miles southwest of Nuigsut on the north shore of the Colville River. Access is limited mostly to air travel with occasional river traffic in the summer and over -land snow machine traffic in the winter. The natives of arctic Alaska have known and used oil shales and seepage tars since before recorded history. In 1886, Lt. George M. Stoney described lumps and pebbles of oil shale along . the Etivluk River. His report may have been the first record of arctic Alaska's oil potential. Geologic and topographic surveys were started in 1901. In 1923, President Warren G. Harding established the NPR -4. In 1944, Lt. W.T. Foran reported "Petroleum potential of major importance existed in the NPR - 4." Based on this report, an exploration program called Pet -4 was established. Under the Pet -4 program, 45 shallow core tests and 36 test wells were drilled between 1945 and 1952. The drilling resulted in oil finds in Umiat, Cape Simpson, and Fish Creek. In Umiat the first well was drillred in June 1945. Only a trace of oil was discovered. About 120 gallons were recovered from the well the following year when operations were resumed. As the first well was under construction, a base camp was set up in present day Umiat. Ten other wells were drilled in the immediate area over the next eight years. Seven of the ten had significant oil production. Umiat was used to support the drilling operations from 1944 to 1953 when oil exploration activities were abandoned. The main camp area was relinquished to the Air Force in 1953, returned to the Navy in 1955, and then transferred to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1960. In 1976, NPR -4 became NPR -A. Approximately 115 acres, including the Umiat Air Strip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad areas are currently owned by the State of Alaska. RI Work Plan (Areas 1 through 11)1994 RI Report (Areas 1 throuah 11) 1995 Phase II RI Work Plan (Areas A, 8 and C)1995 Phase It RI Report (Areas A. B and Cl 1997 Phase Ill RI Work Plan (11 NPRA Wells)1997 Phase III RI Report 01 NPR -4 Wells)1998 Phase N RI (6 NPRA Wells) Work Plan 1998 Phase N RI (6 NPRA Wells) Report 1999 Focused Feasibility Study Wells (4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) Environm tal Investigation and Cleanup History Environmental investigations and cleanup activities at Umiat have been ongoing since the early 1980's. The actions presented in this Proposed Plan are based largely on the investigations from 1994 to the present. The investigations have been performed in many phases, with each new phase building on the previous phases. The goals of the investigations are to locate and identify areas of contamination and to gather enough information to develop a cleanup plan. Figure 2 shows the history of the studies and cleanup actions that have been performed at Umiat and the Umiat Test Well locations since 1994. The results of the studies are presented in the listed documents and summarized in this Proposed Plan: The documents can be found in the Administrative Record located at the USACE Office on Elmendorf AFB or at the Informational Repository located at the City Office in Nuiqsut. The first major environmental study, the Remedial Investigation, was performed at Umiat in 1994. The Remedial Investigation looked at the Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the landfill. The study separated these areas into 11 smaller areas. Area 1 was the Air Strip Complex. Areas 2 through 10 were on the Main Gravel Pad. Area 11 was the landfill. The results of the Remedial Investigation showed that contaminants were present throughout the areas. Work Plan (Areas A, B and C) 1995 sment Report (Areas A, B and C) 1997 Study (Areas A, B and C)1997 Iv (Area 711997 A PCB Soil Removal (Area 7)1997 Soil Removal Action (Area 7) 1998 ssessment (Wells 1, 7 and 9) 1999 Study (Area C and Well 9) 1999 EE/CA (Well 2 and 5) 2000 Phase I Stockpile Construction 2000 Phase II (Well 2 and 5) Plug and Soli Removal Phase III Soil Treatment 2002 lion of Lead at Well 7, 2003 00 DDT Soil Study 2 2 PCB Oil Study 2002 In 1995, Phase 11 of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this study the eleven areas were combined into three areas; (Area A was the Air Strip Complex. Area B was the Main Gravel Pad. Area C was the landfill). This phase of the study concentrated on areas identified in the first phase as having elevated contamination levels. After the Phase II investigation, several follow-on studies were completed. A Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study were completed for Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the Landfill. A dioxin study was performed at Area 7 (part of Main Gravel Pad). An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was completed for a small PCB soil removal action, also on the Main Gravel Pad. In 1997, Phase III of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this phase the areas around 11 Umiat Test Wells were investigated through the collection and analysis of soil, water and sediment samples. In 1998, the Remedial Investigation (Phase IV) continued. In this phase of the study, areas surrounding six Umiat Test Wells (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9) were investigated further. Based on the results of that study, a risk assessment was performed for Wells 1, 7, and 9 and a follow-on dioxin study was performed for Well 9 and the landfill. Also based on the results of the Phase IV study, an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was prepared for Wells 2 and 5. The well closure and soil removal project proposed in the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis began in 2001 and is scheduled for completion by the fall of 2003. CIe�I�I. f� Levels Soil The cleanup levels and goals for the Well sites are taken from Alaska's regulations for contaminated sites (18 AAC 75). For Well sites 2 and 5, ADEC Method 1 cleanup levels for soil (18 AAC 75:340, Table A2) were selected to protect the water quality of the Colville River because the contaminated soil was beginning to erode into the river. For the Main Gravel Pad and Air Strip Complex, where most human activity is expected to occur, ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Levels (18 AAC 75:341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic zone) were selected. These values are protective of human health to residential standards. Site-specific risk assessments for the Main Gravel Pad and Airstrip Complex showed that human health risks were similar to or greater than risks to wildlife, so the proposed cleanup levels will also protect wildlife. PCBs were detected at Well 9 and the Main Gravel Pad. The ADEC cleanup level of 1 mg/kg was selected for PCBs. Dioxins were also detected at these sites. There is no predetermined cleanup level for dioxins; instead it is determined for each site based on a risk assessment. The risk assessments showed that the low levels of dioxins did not pose a significant risk. Since there was no significant risk from The Information Repository contains the Administrative Record for Umiat, including detailed investigation reports, evaluation of potential cleanup technologies, and test results from field studies. RI - Remedial Investigation The CERCLA process of determining the extent of hazardous substance contamination and, as appropriate, conducting treatability investigations. RA - Risk Assessment The study and estimation of risk from a current or proposed activity. Involves estimates of the probability and consequence of an action. FS - Feasibility Study The Superfund study following a remedial investigation which identifies, develops, evaluates and selects remedial action alternatives. EE/CA - Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis CERCLA document prepared to address interim cleanup activities. 0 dioxins at either site, no cleanup level was calculated. However, at both sites the dioxins will be removed with the removal of PCB contaminated soil. The cleanup goals for the other well sites (Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) where petroleum was the primary contaminant, a risk-based approach is proposed. At these sites, a risk comparison was made based on other site-specific risk assessments. The goal at these well sites is to ensure that there is no significant risk to human health or the environment, and not to determine a specific cleanup number. Water Subsurface drinking water aquifers are not present at Umiat due to the presence of shallow permafrost. However, water exists seasonally in the layer above the permafrost. The risk assessments showed that contaminants in this shallow water does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. There are no sites in this Proposed Plan that have contaminated groundwater or surface water that require cleanup actions. Although no cleanup of water is proposed, the soil cleanup actions are proposed to protect nearby surface water bodies and wetlands from potential migration of contamination. As part of the proposed cleanup actions shallow water will be monitored. The water will be compared to cleanup levels from 18 AAC 70 -,Water Quality Standards, which establish water quality criteria for surface water, and from 18 AAC 75.345 which provides cleanup levels for groundwater that are equivalent to the EPA drinking water standards. The Site Summaries sections discusses the proposed sampling. coup ABUMMM The 12 sitesj,, this Proposed Plan were very similar in the\potential cleanup actions that would be appropriate. The alternatives were presented in several reports. A Feasibility Study evaluated cleanup alternatives for the Air Strip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. An Engineering Evaluation / Cost Assessment evaluated alternatives for a removal action at Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5. A Focused Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives for Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The Feasibility Study for the Air Strip Complex and Main Gravel Pad provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming and • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. The EE/CA for Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, • Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, and • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming. (The three alternatives involving excavation also included the decommissioning of the wells to prevent future hazards if the Colville River was to erode back to the wellheads. Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, is not summarized below. This alternative was not proposed for any of the other sites, and was not selected for well sites 2 and 5). The Focused Feasibility Study for the Umiat Test Wells (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) sites provided analysis on five alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation, • Excavation with On-site Landfarming, • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, and • Excavation with Off -Site Disposal. A technical description of the alternatives is provided below. No Further Action (NFA) CERCLA required evaluation of a No Action alternative as a baseline reflecting current site conditions without any cleanup effort. This option is also used as a baseline to compare to the other options. Natural Attenuation is defined by the US EPA as the "biodegradation, diffusion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and/or chemical and biochemical stabilization of contaminants to effectively reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume to levels that are protective of human health and the environment." Simply stated, natural attenuation occurs when physical, chemical and biological processes act to reduce the mass, toxicity, and mobility of subsurface contamination in a way that risks to human health and the environment are decreased to acceptable levels. The term "monitored natural attenuation" (MNA) refers to the reliance on natural attenuation processes, within the context of a monitored site cleanup, to achieve site- specific remedial objectives. Institutional Controls may be a part of any alternative. Institutional Controls are non - engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. They can generally be used in conjunction with, engineering measures such as waste removal and treatment or containment. Some examples of Institutional Controls include easements, covenants, well drilling prohibitions, zoning restrictions, and special building permit requirements. Temporary physical barriers such as fences are also considered an Institutional Control. Excavation with Treatment or Off-site Disposal are active cleanup processes involving the removal of contaminated material followed by treatment and or reuse or reburial according to current regulations. The treatment and disposal or reuse of the cleaned material may be performed on-site or off-site depending on the type and amount of contamination remaining. Post excavation options that were considered include; Landfarming involves spreading excavated contaminated soil in a thin layer over a liner and stimulating soil bacteria to break down petroleum compounds into simpler harmless compounds. This is done by tilling to aerate the soil, adding nutrients (fertilizer), and adding water as needed, to create the best possible conditions for the soil bacteria. Landfarming requires periodic monitoring to determine if cleanup levels are met and can work well for gasoline and diesel but slower for heavier hydrocarbons. Landfarming operations would be performed on the Main Gravel Pad. Low Temperature Thermal DesorptionDesorption (LTTD) uses a rotary kiln heated to approximately 700 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate petroleum compounds from contaminated soil. The petroleum vapors are destroyed in an afterburner to prevent discharge of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. LTTD operations would be performed with a portable unit located on the Main Gravel Pad. Off-site Disposal simply is the reburial of waste or contaminated material in a permitted disposal facility. The alternatives were evaluated based on the best ways to accommodate the severe climatic, logistical, and environmental conditions at Umiat. Each cleanup alternative was also evaluated with respect to seven of the nine criteria established under CERCLA (Table 1 - next page). The final two modifying criteria are evaluated during this Proposed Plan process. The following sections provide specific descriptions, investigative histories and proposed altematives for each site. ETIVI, �W- INVESTIGATIONS The Air Strip Complex was originally designated as Area 1 and then Area A. It encompasses the entire Air Strip Complex that includes the former bulk fuel storage area and drum storage area west of the airstrip, a tank farm adjacent to the former Umiat Lodge, Runway Lake, and the runway apron. The Air Strip Complex was initially studied in August 1994 during the first major environmental investigation of the Umiat facility. Soil borings were drilled and samples collected. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum hydrocarbons (DRO, TRPH, GRO and BTEX), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds (including PAHs), pesticides and PCBs, 8- metals and fuel identification. The borings targeted former fuel tank locations and suspected fuel spill areas. APPROX. jAREA OF SOIL CONTAMINATION = L:= 1250 F!"; DEPTH OF CONTAMINATION IS ESTIMATED TO BE 2.5': ESTIMATED SOIL VOLUME EXCEEDING CLEANUP CRITERU = 116 C!. 4 TUNDRA -- EDGE OF GRAVEL -- --- EDGE OF WATER npTc N•KOpW1E EllpR R Cprtu••T•n 81E0 a I0L 4+VPIFS Ct1IDnC TUE �dL01N14 IRWNlOAr WIOnIK1 IL 13 (PIgg581 Il1fC75)< oro 1z.aeo eem RM 4tin Op^ SB -12 • 1996 RI SAMPLE LOCATION BHI -1 • 1994 RI SAMPLE LOCATION MW -1 + 1996 RI MONITORING WELL LOCATION RWL-1 • 1995 RI SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION 017 -SL • 1996 R1 SAMPLE LOCATION EXTENT UNKNOWN - 1 • RwL-2 SB B 2UWAx LAVE '� �� I. • SB -7 —16 /Se -17 SCALE IN FEET p 100 200 300 ENA OF GRUEL '�-3• FORHEF ADOT - FUEL fMKS J• In 1996, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 44 soil borings and two groundwater monitoring wells were completed. Also during this phase, three samples of sediment and surface water were collected from Runway Lake. Runway Lake is adjacent and west of the airstrip. The sample locations are shown on Figure 3 above. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: a group of chemicals commonly found in fuel products. Petroleum hydrocarbons include total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) an older method used to detect full range hydrocarbons, diesel range organics (DRO) which are chemicals found in diesel, (residual range organics (RRO), and gasoline range organics (GRO) and•benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) which are chemicals found in gasoline. ; r • 56-32 - • SO -31 � sa-30 SO -29 -SSB-28 58-27 RIAW" T APRON SO -34 *SB -33 • •58-24 x_153• V "URF •SB -is •58-26 SB -25 R'D' •�-19 •SB -13 OSB -41 SEDGE 3F GR. 1 • SB -23 59-21 I(✓� •S13-20 158-6 •BHI -3 I�I •sB-1 OSB -12 'SB -5 017 -SL 0 !1 017 -SL X-1 BH1-2 5e-42 C) p SB -2• o b 5a—a SS -40 SB -78 SB -39 1L 1 O: L AL i OF GROVEL Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): a group of chemicals with low boiling points. VOCs, such as trichloroethylene, were commonly used as degreasers in the maintenance of equipment. Semi -Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs): a group of chemicals with higher boiling points generally found in diesel or fuel oil. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are also in this group Pesticides: chemicals used to eliminate or control populations of insects such as Mosquitoes. PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyl, a synthetic, organic chemical once widely used in electrical equipment, specialized hydraulic systems, heat transfer systems, and other industrial products. Metals: elements that occur naturally in the environment and are used to produce many products (i.e., sheet metal, drums). RESULTS 0 In the first phase, eight of the ten samples showed petroleum related contamination above Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest levels reported were 15,500 mg/kg DRO and 12,000 mg/kg GRO. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 1,400 mg/kg for GRO. Benzene and xylenes were shown to be elevated in one sample. Benzene and xylenes were reported at 31 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg, respectively. The Method 2 cleanup level is 13 mg/kg of benzene and 81 mg/kg for xylenes. The second phase of study showed two areas of soil contamination that exceeded Method 2 cleanup levels for petroleum products. The two areas are near monitoring wells MW- 1 and MW - 2. At each area the DRO concentration was above the cleanup level of 12,500 mg/kg. Soil samples near MW -1 had concentrations of 17,000 mg/kg and soil samples near MW -2 had concentrations of 22,000 mg/kg. The shallow groundwater (2 feet below the ground surface) at each monitoring well also showed petroleum related contamination above ADEC groundwater cleanup levels. The surface water and sediment samples showed no contamination above ADEC cleanup levels. The surface water results were compared to ADEC groundwater and surface water quality standards and the sediment results were compared to Method 2 cleanup levels. The results are summarized on Table 2. RISK ASSESSMENT After the second phase of the study, a human health and ecological risk assessment was performed. No significant human health or ecological risks were identified at this site. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS The cleanup options for the Air Strip Complex and Main Gravel Pad included; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming and • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption The evaluation and comparison of these alternatives are summarized below; Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment The No Action alternative provides no direct protection to human health or the environment. However, the results of the risk assessment indicated that there are no significant risks associated with this site. The second alternative, Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, will provide some minimal protection to people from exposure to contamination through fencing and signs, but will not protect animals that may burrow under the fence or birds that may fly over a fence. This alternative will monitor the rate at which contaminants degrade, but will take many years to reach cleanup levels. The other two alternatives, excavation with Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to reduce the petroleum contamination in the soil to below the cleanup levels within a short period of time. There would be no further exposure potential. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements All alternatives considered for this area have the potential to comply with regulations as presented in the Feasibility Study, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. The difference is the time frame in which the cleanup levels would be met. The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternative would take the longest to achieve the goals. The No Action alternative would not provide any monitoring data to detect whether contamination is migrating off site through the active zone water and entering adjacent water bodies or wetlands. The excavation with LTTD would take the shortest amount of time. Short-term Effectiveness The No Action alternative would have no short- term impact because no field work is involved, thus no exposure to the soil would occur. The Natural Attenuation with Institutional controls could have a minor impact during the construction of fences around the areas. The other alternatives include the digging and transportation of the soil to a central treatment area. The handling of the soil throughout the treatment process has the potential to expose the workers to the contaminants. Additionally, the excavation work can potentially create dust and runoff. The LTTD have the potential to release petroleum vapors or dust as the soil is being treated. It is expected that any short-term impact to workers or the environment can be reduced through proper protective clothes, engineering controls on the treatment equipment, and carefully planned work practices to prevent dust generation during soil handling activities. Long-term Effectiveness and Implementability Permanence The No Action alternative provides no long-term effectiveness or permanence. Natural Attenuation relies on natural processes and a significant time period (greater than 30 years). Landfarming and LTTD are more active cleanup processes. Both are expected to be able to provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. The LTTD alternative is significantly faster in reaching the end point. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternatives provide no direct reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, because no active treatment is involved with these alternatives. It is expected that the petroleum contamination would degrade with time. Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants. The difference again is the time frame that would be required. LTTD requires hours to treat a batch of soil and landfarming would require months or perhaps years to complete treatment. --:_ Each alternative considered is implementable. The No Action and Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls are the simplest to implement because little or no field work is required. The excavation and treatment alternatives require significantly more equipment, materials and land to implement. In the original Feasibility Study the LTTD alternative was described as the most difficult to implement. It involves mobilizing large pieces of equipment to Umiat, and also requires highly trained technical workers to operate and maintain the equipment. The Feasibility Study was based on the volume of soil that required treatment from the Airstrip and Main Gravel Pad. However, when the volume of soil to be treated expanded due to the Well 2 and 5 work, LTTD became the preferred alternative. There is not sufficient area available at Umiat to treat all of the soil by landfarming unless it was done in stages over many years. This would require long-term stockpiling of soil that was waiting for treatment Cost The costs presented here are for cleanup of the petroleum contamination at the Airstrip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. The costs associated with the alternatives ranged from $0 for the No Action Alternative, $526,000 for Natural Attenuation, $1,290,000 for LTTD and $756,000 for Landfarming. The Natural Attenuation also had operation and maintenance costs of $29,000 per year with a 30 -year present worth cost of $329,000 and a total cost of $820,000. The Landfarming alternative had operation and maintenance costs (O &M) of $67,000 per year with a five-year present worth cost of $172,000 and a total cost of $930,000. No O & M costs and no present worth costs are calculated for cleanup work that is planned for one mobilization. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the production of this Proposed Plan and has agreed that the proposed action below meets State regulations and will protect human health and the environment. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS Based on the site investigations, a soil excavation and treatment action, (limited to the two areas (near MWA and MW -2) containing petroleum contaminated soil) is proposed for the Airstrip Complex. Approximately 116 cubic yards of soil shall be excavated. The excavation will I target soil with contamination levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels. The soil shall be treated in the thermal unit that is currently at Umiat. If the excavation is delayed, another on- site treatment option will be proposed. Although the shallow groundwater has been affected by petroleum contamination, the groundwater will not be directly treated. The removal of the contaminated soil will reduce the source of contamination in the water. ADEC has developed guidance that shallow groundwater above a permafrost area does not need to be considered as a possible drinking water source. The risk assessment also evaluated the potential exposure pathways and risk associated with contamination in the shallow groundwater, and did not identify any significant risks. However, the contamination of shallow groundwater must be evaluated with respect to the potential that the groundwater has to impact adjacent surface water. Because the contaminated area is near Runway Lake, the shallow groundwater will be monitored at wells that will be placed near the lake's edge. A network of five shallow monitoring points will be installed between the excavated area (near MW -2) and Runway Lake. The purpose of the monitoring is to detect any contamination before it enters Runway Lake. This monitoring network will be sampled annually for five years. The samples will be tested for petroleum products (DRO, RRO, GRO, BTEX and PAHs). After the first five years, the data will be evaluated and a determination made on whether additional information is needed to document that cleanup of the area has been successful. If the five-year review demonstrates that cleanup was successful, data collection may then be terminated or the frequency of monitoring decreased. Main. Gravel Pard: INVESTIGATIONS The Main Gravel Pad was initially designated as Areas 2 through 10 and then renamed Area B. The Umiat Main Gravel Pad includes the former drum storage areas west of the ADOT Maintenance Building, scattered empty drums north and west of the ADOT Maintenance Building, former drum storage areas on and around the Main Gravel Pad and a former transformer storage area. The Umiat Main Gravel Pad was studied in August 1994 during the first environmental investigation of the Umiat facility. The area was investigated by installing 40 soil borings and collecting 124 soil samples. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, TRPH, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs, 8 metals and fuel identification. The borings targeted former fuel tank locations and drum storage areas and suspected fuel spill areas. In 1996, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 119 soil borings and nine temporary groundwater - monitoring wells were completed. Sediment and surface water samples were also collected from the nearby Floatplane Lake. Samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, GRO, volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs/dioxins and metals. A follow-on dioxin study was performed in December of 1996 to further evaluate the presence of dioxins. The sample locations are shown on Figure 4 below. LEGEND 1986 Po SIMPLE LOCATION RESULTS Results of the first study showed contamination levels in soil above Method 2 cleanup levels. Area 2 showed DRO and DDT. Area 3 showed DRO and lead and antimony; and Area 7 showed DRO, DDT and PCBs. Phase 11 results showed soil contamination that exceeded Method 2 cleanup levels for petroleum products (DRO RRO and GRO), lead and PCBs. The results from the shallow groundwater showed petroleum, DDT and PCB contamination above ADEC groundwater cleanup limits. None of the surface water or sediment samples from Floatplane Lake detected contamination. Dioxins were also identified in the soil. The results are summarized in Table 3 on the next page. Dioxins: a group of chemicals that " can be a contaminant of herbicides or produced by incomplete burning of solvents and oils. 5115-RwA'1996 RI FIELD lAB SAMPLE LOCATION\ SBA'.. f� M 0+ 1996 M MONNUMNG NEE. LOCATION N—- 1994 M SAMPLE LOCATION EDGE OF GRAVEL SB -f12. O -1W BNtO-2 / SF159.99-16] ' — EDGE OF WATER PID s9-ISEA 4c4 N10 e �..� CONCRETE j�Y • m- eek _enw-, OUTA STORAGE TAN( CU MOM (6 IN (6 M PIIOq -'�91/; •se-tM ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TAN( i (1 IN PLACE) 'i 5131 -IL ` _— qI _— j Stag- / 9B -,M a ��• /� 117 5114-R 58-?�1C •'99-6F 68-1]0 j/-91- MF1 5,K -R . •311p -FL 98-11• SIM-R`21R _/ s1 B1Ll 58-1a2 1-68 \ —14 .:. ,\ % '"` /-16-rLNa-.J •6�. eB-112• BM -2 SB- -�T-,1__� se -,21• •�-,v 1\� / r., •58-56 58-5• •A -TI ,s':m-1,3 •se -t,4 �t''•Q 59 -TO �MY-f0 p 98-e4 SH -R ARTA Z N tl�BM -SB-151 % �•- • 98-155 - � � !? MYYI-IJ SB -101• •68-Q -SB-3T BM2-1• t •5T1-6 �'SB-05 BN4- TMN-9V J. •='� SB -0t •58-110 •98-132 •�pR-4 �.� '$B -Il♦ � (� 8 83 511-5: 'SB g0 -g8,.` -1J 'ase .9B-108 \-. •10-115 Sp_ep• •98 -PS .99_92 a �` •n -KS eIM-T t el •sB-M -s1 m 'ase E -'T' J� ,-. 3T � � •se-tw s I -t% n r •SB -,as � _.� �^�'�_. 98-6,• _ v ,' !' � �Mw9"°-z 'se-,% � i J A. SB -69• -,%• ARS, v •SB-b3•se-til ' SB-Wl •9B-9IAREA BNS -1 _ •MM-{ •SB -I]0 -RE' - MPR%. AREA IN 90L FN IS MIMATE - 900 FN CONTAMINATION 6 ESAATEO l0 BE 4 IFFY. �. ' S •58-126 !0 �w0:4 I EDPWSM E VOLUME THIS AREA 15 C NFENTL 1135 CY. D85 AREA B LY USE TR' A N OF STH% . • 98-118 A' 6Ne-i. •SB -12) .59 -IK ---�_=-'--z_�� 1 T VC VOLUME OEFFNSE PARTY AND 6 HOT OISlAEOIN INE LIXUAE FS}R6UE Y AND -58-148 \�� AFPROX. AREA OF 506. CNTAINATNM . 100 FT' NOTE: .` •MM -J SCALE IN FEET DEPTH OF CNTANNATIN IS ESTMATED TO K 2 FEET. APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 80.5E0 SOL SAMPLES - REGULATORY GUIDANCE LEVELS (PROPOSED IBIACT5) eee-i 0 150 300 450 ESWAIED SOIL VOLUME- M ff.EXCETDNG �tK - a onRISN-BASEO CONCEMRAnDNS. . PROPOSED IRMCTS: W -el• $w-15 MPROX M 00. AREA OF 5CNTAINAIIMN = 625 Fi' ORO 1.29 ppm 58-tJe• {-1 OEM CNTAYMAIAN IS ESUMATEO TO SE 25 FEET. ESTIMATED 58 CY. DRO 12.560 ppm �.� ARTA 3 SOIL VOLUME = RRO 22,222 ppm MEC NORTHSLOPE PADS ( wnHm 50' OF MME OF PADS) \ APPROX, AREA OF SOL CONTAMINATION - 625 R' GRO 100 ppm \ DEPTH OF CONTAMNA TIN IS COMATFD TO K 2 FEET. ESRMATED SOL WORE. K V. ORO 200 RRO 2.000 ppm ,996 EPA REGION 3 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS: CLEANUP LEVELS AT SU^ERFUND STIES: .. MPRMLMEA OF SOL CNTMNAODN ANNMONY 31 ppm LEAD 400 pp,.. LOCATED NM W MT OF THE METLMI05 C`XEEDMG THE MIRM SLOPE OFAxUP LESDS23.000 COPPER 3.,OO ppm ... TA AD15 ESTMATm TD N 3 FEET IIID(. CNNH ppm RACKGROUNO CONIC OW ONO.r ESTMATED SDL VOLUME - BN CY. ARSENIC 6.4 ppm 1994 EPA INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR ESTABLISHING SOIL LEAD RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase II and dioxin study were completed, a human health and ecological risk assessment was performed. The 1997 Risk Assessment Report indicated that elevated risks at the site were due to PCBs and dioxins. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS For petroleum contaminated soil at the Main Gravel Pad, cleanup options that were considered and the evaluation of those alternatives was combined with Airstrip Complex in the Feasibility Study. Please refer to the Alternatives Evaluation for the Air Strip Complex for this information. Non -petroleum soil contamination, consisting of PCB/dioxin, lead and antimony contaminated soil was not considered in the Feasibility Study. A detailed analysis of alternatives for these contaminants was not considered and is not reflected in the evaluation of the CERCLA criteria Excavation with off-site transportation and disposal in a permitted landfill was the only cleanup alternative considered for the PCB/dioxin, lead and antimony contaminated soil areas. PAST CLEANUP ACTIONS Because of the immediate exposure potential from the PCB/dioxin contaminated soils, an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was completed and a limited removal action was performed in the summer of 1998. Approximately 200 cubic yards of PCB - contaminated soil were excavated from the northeastern edge of the Main Gravel Pad. A liner was placed over the bottom of the excavation and it was backfilled with clean soil. Also during this action, 21,300 gallons of contaminated groundwater were pumped from the excavation site, treated and discharged. Ten tons of PCB -contaminated metal debris were removed from the site. The excavated soil and metal waste were shipped off site for disposal in a permitted facility. Approximately 60 cubic yards of lead and antimony contaminated soil has also been excavated and disposed in an off-site facility. This removal action was incidental to the construction of the soil stockpiles. Approximately 50 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated in 2001 and an additional 10 cubic yards were excavated in 2002. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS To complete the cleanup actions on the Main Gravel Pad, it is proposed that a total of 975 cubic yards of soil (from the colored areas identified in Figure 4) should be removed. This is the estimated volume of soil that exceeds the Method 2 cleanup levels. The soil would be treated in the thermal unit that is currently at Umiat. If the excavation is not completed while the LTTD system is at Umiat, another on-site treatment option will be proposed. It is also proposed that the PCB removal site be revisited and additional PCB contaminated soil excavated and transported offsite to a disposal facility. The high dioxin contamination is located with the PCB contamination. Thus, removal of the PCB contaminated soil would also remove the dioxin contamination. The amount of PCB soil to be removed will depend on soil sampling performed during the excavation actions. Approximately 5 cubic yards of lead and antimony soil shall be excavated and disposed of in a permitted landfill. Urn at Test Wells 2 aid 5 INVESTIGATIONS Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 are located two miles northeast of Umiat and approximately 150 feet from the Colville River. The area is upland tundra dominated by tall willows. A concrete lined pit surrounded Well 2. Well 5 is located 150 feet east of Well 2. Well 5 was surrounded by a wood foundation. Both wells shared a four -acre gravel pad. A 1,500 square foot mud pit was located west of the gravel pad. Although each well was initially studied separately, Well 2 and Well 5 were close enough to one another to be addressed as one site. The wells were first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Four surface soil samples were collected for the investigation near Well 2. Three samples were collected from the concrete pit area and the other was collected from the mud pit. Five surface soil samples, and five co -located sediment / surface water samples were collected for the investigation at Well 5. One sample was collected near the wellhead, three were collected from a stained area near a debris pile, one was collected at the end of a discharge pipe and one was collected on the cut bank of the Colville River. The sediment/surface water samples were collected both upstream and downstream of stained soil and the discharge pipe. All samples were analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. The surface water analysis excluded RRO but included Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH). Because of the rapid erosion of the soil near Well 2 and 5 and the potential impact of the petroleum products on the river, another investigation was conducted. In August of 1998, 22 soil borings were completed in the area of Wells 2 and 5. Eleven surface soil samples and 23 sub -surface samples were collected. All samples were analyzed for DRO. The surface soils were also analyzed for RRO, volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds. The sample locations are shown on the Figures 5 and 6 on the next page. RESULTS The results of the first study showed no samples exceeding Method 2 cleanup levels. However, because the soil is close to the river, which is quickly being eroded, more stringent cleanup levels were considered. Four of those sample results had levels of DRO, RRO and GRO higher than the Method 1 levels. In the second study, DRO and RRO values were above the Method 1 cleanup levels in nearly every sample analyzed. The highest concentration was 7,000 mg/kg for DRO and 2,600 mg/kg for RRO. The Method 1 level is 200 mg/kg for DRO and 2000 mg/kg for RRO. APPROXIMATE SCALE I o 50 KEY SD,SW Colocated sediment and surface water sample SS surface Sample *Bottom of slope P i (gravel pad) 517 SB `( c 23OSS 231 SS 232SSS • — ^. Lam.. River Bank 515 SB 516 SB o NPR-4 Top of bank t Edge of Test Well No.S 1998 High / o Wooden Plariorm (10' x 20') — water mar IY /�/ i 533 SB / 520 SB 505 SSS ° Edge of Colville River 507 SS ' ° 521 SB ° 506 ' / SOU SS Edge of 523 SB SS ° 531 SB c concrete512° 512 SB 508 SS SBS -7 501 SS 529 SB ° 502 SS NPR -4 Test Well No.�'' 513 SB ° 524 SS 514 SB 503 SS APPROXIMATE SCALE 18" Rathole pipe — p ° ° 532 SB 510 SS 0 25 50 Feet 522 SB 530 SB 5048S ° / l KEY: ( . 528 SB 10` - Clay/mud pit/ , r L NPR -4 Test well location 509 SS 527 SB Sample location 528_SB- — ^. Lam.. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS Because the proposed cleanup actions at Umiat Test Well 2 and 5 are nearly complete, the alternatives that were considered and not selected, are not compared or repeated in this Proposed Plan. The Final Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis, NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 provides this information and is available in the Administrative Record. The evaluation of cleanup actions performed under the direction of the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis, also referred to as a "Non - Time -Critical Removal Action", are evaluated in a more streamlined method than those evaluated under the direction of a Feasibility Study. During the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis process the alternatives that are being considered are evaluated against three criteria; Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost. These criteria; however, are very similar to those evaluated during a Feasibility Study process. The Effectiveness of the alternatives considers the Protectiveness and the Ability to Achieve Cleanup Goals. Furthermore, Protectiveness considers how well the alternatives protects human health and the community, protects workers during cleanup operations and complies with ARARs. The Implementability of the alternatives depends on their technical feasibility, the availability of resources to support the actions and their administrative feasibility. The Costs are determined by looking at initial costs and operations costs. The evaluation of the selected alternative, Excavation with LTTD treatment is summarized below; Effectiveness This alternative provides significant protection to human health and the environment because it removes the contaminated soil from the well sites and then thermally treats the soil. Worker protection achieved through engineering controls and protective equipment. Cleanup would be complete, satisfying Method 1 cleanup levels and other ARARs. Implementability This alternative has been difficult to implement. The site conditions, weather and the location of Umiat have all played a role in making implementation of this project challenging and expensive. Cost The cost associated with this alternative is currently in excess of $25,000,000, exceeding the $10,000,000 estimated in the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis. CLEANUP ACTIONS The Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis describes the soil removal and treatment actions and the well closure operations. The plan was also presented in a November 2000 Public Notice. The removal and treatment actions are on going and are scheduled for completion in the Fall of 2003. Work at Wells 2 and 5 that has been completed includes: • Construction of stockpiling facilities at the Main Gravel Pad , • Plugging and abandonment of Well 2 and 5 with the removal of well casings to approximately 34 feet below the ground, • Excavation of 20,000 cubic yards (30,000 tons) of soil including 6,000 tons of drilling mud, • Removal and disposal of PCB contaminated oil and equipment, • Removal and disposal of 14 tons of metal and wood debris. • Thermal treatment of 6000 cubic yards of soil. The thermal treatment will resume in the spring of 2003 and is expected to be finished by the end of fall 2003. The soil and mud removal, LTTD treatment, and the well closures, will complete all the planned cleanup actions at the Well 2 and 5 areas. The site will be evaluated and a determination made if reseeding would provide sufficient benefit against on-going erosion. A mixture of native grasses may be applied to the disturbed areas. Umiat Te=st Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8., 10 and 11 Umiat Test Wells (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) are all located in tundra areas characterized by grasses and low willows. At each site, the investigations showed similar results. For this reason the well sites are discussed together. The goal for these well sites is to ensure that there is no significant risk to human health or the environment. In the follow sections, the results of each well site investigation are compared to ADEC Method 2 Cleanup Levels. These levels are provided to show the relative amount of contamination and not to show a proposed cleanup level. INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS Well 3 is located approximately two miles northeast of Umiat near the northeast end of Umiat Lake. The lake is approximately 150 feet south of the wellhead. The entire area is densely vegetated with willows. Wetlands surround the area. The Well 3 area was first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Two soil samples were collected around the wellhead. Three sediment and three surface water samples were collected from Umiat Lake. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty- three metals. The surface water analysis excluded RRO but included total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). A second phase of investigation was performed in August of 1998 in which 31 soil samples were collected. The soil was collected from the interface of the water saturation zone, which varied from 0.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the ground surface. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO and RRO), volatile organic compounds, and semi -volatile organic compounds. The 1998 study also re-evaluated the lake water and sediments. Eleven sediment and surface water locations were sampled. The sediments were analyzed for volatile organic compounds and semi -volatile organic compounds. The water was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO and TRPH), volatile organic compounds, and semi -volatile organic compounds. The Augus*98 study also looked for drums and other debris in Umiat Lake. The report of debris was brought forward by persons familiar with the area and confirmed during the 1997 study. A Ground -Penetrating -Radar system was used to look for metal debris in the lake. The sample locations are shown in Figure 7 on the next page. The results from the first study showed no contamination exceeding Method 2 cleanup levels in the soil. However, the sediments from Umiat Lake did show some elevated residual petroleum levels. In the second study, again none of the soil results had DRO or RRO levels that exceed the Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest DRO concentration was 7,300 mg/kg and the RRO concentration was 6,000 mg/kg. One of the 31 samples (sample 318 -SL) contained xylene. The Method 2 cleanup level for xylenes is 81 mg/kg for the inhalation pathway and 274,000 mg/kg for the ingestion pathway. Because this sample was taken below the ground surface (6 inches to 1 foot), near the water interface, and in a remote undeveloped area, the inhalation cleanup level is not appropriate. Therefore, xylenes do not require cleanup at this site. The geophysical study revealed possible drum/ debris locations along the east shore of the lake. The study could not determine the nature of the metal debris or total amount. The survey identified 43 possible metal debris areas. It is estimated that the total weight of the metal could range from 2,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds. Well 4 is located approximately three miles northeast of Umiat on top of a ridge near Umiat Lake. A four -inch diameter pipe extends south from the Well 4 area towards Well 5 and the Colville River. The length and final termination point of the pipe are not known. In the 1997 Phase III study, four surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted petroleum stained soil and the around the well. One sample contained RRO above the Method 2 cleanup level of 13,700 mg/kg. The highest reported RRO level was 15,000 mg/kg. The analytical results are summarized in Table 4 on the next page. The sample locations are shown in Figure 8 on the next page. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 4 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) Soil (mg/kg) 125008 37000 3 RRO 137008 15000 1 Notes: a This value is the low er of the ingestioN'mhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone nill' rams per kilogram Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 6 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 37000 3 RRO 137008 44000 3 Notes: e This value is the lower of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone rng/kg milligrams per Mlograrn .2 r, S, z� z€ Well 6 is located approximately two miles northeast of Umiat. A drum debris pile is located near the wellhead. In the1997 Phase III study, four surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil and soil beneath the drum debris pile. Three of the samples contained DRO and RRO levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 37,000 mg/kg and 44,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 5 on the previous page. The sample locations are shown in Figure 9 above. Well 7 is located approximately three-quarters of a mile northeast of Umiat near the end of the Umiat runway. The wellhead is located in surface water of a grassy wetland area. The area surrounding the wetlands is upland tundra consisting of low willows. The Well 7 area was first studied during the 1997 Phase III Investigation. Three surface soil samples were collected from the area. The samples targeted stained soil and soil near possible petroleum sheen areas. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. A second phase of investigation was performed. In August of 1998, 38 soil samples were collected. All samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO and volatile organic compounds. Six samples from locations closest to the wellhead, were also analyzed for lead. Figures 10 and 11 on the next two pages show the sample locations. From the first study none of the soil samples showed any organic petroleum related contaminants above Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest levels reported were 12,000 mg/kg DRO, 11,000 mg/kg RRO and 90 mg/kg GRO. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO, 13,700 mg/kg for RRO and 1,400 mg/kg for GRO. One sample, 256 -SS, also contained lead at 700 mg/kg, which exceeds the residential cleanup level of 400 mg/kg. This sample was collected immediately adjacent to the wellhead. The other two samples, located within 50 feet of the wellhead, contained lead at 140 mg/kg and 77 mg/kg. 717 SL 716 SL 718 SL 719 SL 724 SL p Q 0 O 0 KEY: Q Surface soil sample location A Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet __ i 715 SL 723 SL a O Ponded Water 713 SL 714 SL 720 SL 72'1 SL/722 SL 730 SL 0 ® G O 0 705 SL 704 SL 0 711 SL/712 SL 709 SL 728 SL 729 SL O O O O 255 SS Well No. 7 700 SL 703 SL 710 SL 706 SL 732 SL1733 SL 725 SL 731 SL © Q O 0 O 707 SL 726 SL 0 O 708 SL 734 SL 735 SL/736 SL 737 SL 727 SL O O Q O O KEY: Q Surface soil sample location A Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet __ i In the second study all of thDRO values (except one at 25,000 mg/kg) and all RRO values were below the Method 2 clean up levels of 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 13,700 mg/kg RRO. The results of the analyses showed that lead was present in one sample at 2,600 mg/kg. The other five samples contained lead ranging from 15 to 77 mg/kg. No other contaminants were detected above Method 2 cleanup levels. The analytical results are summarized in Table 6 below. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 7 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 25000 1 Lead 4008 2600 2 Notes: 8 This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone rngft milligrams per Id ram Rr' "IDS0' Well 8 is located approximately three miles north of Umiat. Drainage ditches surround the well. An aboveground storage tank (AST) is located approximately 150 feet south of the wellhead. In the1997 Phase III study, three surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum - contaminated soil and soil beneath the drain spout of the AST. One sample (collected by the AST spout) contained DRO and RRO levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 18,000 mg/kg and 29,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 7 above. The locations are shown on Figure 12 on the next page. Well 10 is located approximately three miles north of Umiat. The well is located within an intermittent drainage ditch that flows into Bearpaw Creek. In the1997 Phase III study three surface soil samples were collected from Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 8 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 18000 1 RRO 137008 29000 1 Notes: e This value is the low er of the ingestionrinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone mifl' rams per Idlograrn around the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil, a drainage ditch and a mud pit. Two samples contained DRO and RRO above the Method 2 cleanup levels of 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg, respectively. One sample contained GRO above the Method 2 cleanup level of 1,400 mg/kg. The highest reported DRO, RRO, and GRO levels were: 17,000 mg/kg; 18,000 mg/kg; and 1,800 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 8 below. The locations are shown in Figure 13 on page 25. Img/kg milligrams per kilogram I -- -- — Well 11 is located approximately four miles north of Umiat and adjacent to the north fork of Bearpaw Creek. In the1997 Phase III study, three surface soil samples were collected from around the well area. The sampling targeted suspected petroleum -contaminated soil, a drainage ditch and drilling mud. One sample contained DRO and RRO above the Method 2 cleanup level, 12,500 mg/kg and 13,700 mg/kg. The highest reported DRO and RRO levels were 29,000 mg/kg and 30,000 mg/kg, respectively. The analytical results are summarized in Table 9. The locations are shown on Figure 14 on Page 26. RISK ASSESSMENT Site-specific human health and ecological risk assessments were not performed at many of the well sites because the only contaminants detected were low levels of petroleum products (DRO, RRO and GRO, with no significant detections of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, _ KEY: 23O0 Ss 1997 Surface soil sample location `- APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet xylenes or polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)). Lead was the only significant non - petroleum contaminant and was only detected at Well 7. A site-specific risk assessment was completed at risks identified at Wells 9 and the Air Strip Wells 1, 7 and 9, and also for former Umiat Air Complex because of similar site conditions, and Station. type and concentration of contaminants. The risks associated with petroleum products (DRO, RRO and GRO) at Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are expected to be comparable to potential Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 The main human health risk comparison was I LJ based on the risk assessment from Umiat Test Well 9. Well 9 had the highest detected levels of both DRO (54,000 mg/kg) and RRO (75,000 mg/kg) of all of the well sites. The location of Well 9 is similar to the other well sites. The Air Strip Complex had the highest GRO concentration (4,375 mg/kg). The risk assessment evaluated various exposure scenarios. The scenario most applicable to the remote well sites is the visitor scenario. At each of the well sites the DRO and RRO concentrations were less than the values at Well 9 and the GRO concentrations were less than the value at the Air Strip Complex. The risk calculations indicated that no significant risk resulted from the DRO, RRO and GRO concentrations at Well 9 and the Air Strip Complex, therefore, no risks will result from lower concentrations at Well site 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Well 7 A site-specific risk assessment was performed for Umiat Test Well 7. The assessment indicated that no significant carcinogenic or non - carcinogenic risks are present at the Well 7. Analytical results from the soil near Well 7 did show detected lead concentrations, which exceed the default ADEC Method 2 cleanup level of 400 mg/kg. In the Technical Memorandum - Evaluation of Lead at NPR -4, Umiat Test Well #7 (May 2003) the potential risks associated with lead exposure at Well 7 were further evaluated using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK). The model predicted child blood -level levels ranged between 3.8 and 6.6 ug/dL, less than the action level of 10 ug/dL. Therefore, the lead concentrations surrounding test Well 7 do not pose an adverse risk to human health. Ecological Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 The ecological risk evaluations for all sites were similar with the exception of the lead evaluation for Well site 7. The ecological risk comparisons were based on the DRO concentration at Well 7 (25,000 mg/kg) and the RRO concentration at Well 9 (75,000 mg/kg). These concentrations most resemble the other well site concentrations. Potential ecaTogical risks associated with petroleum and organic contamination were evaluated. Of the eight indicator species (moose, caribou, willow ptarmigan, arctic warbler, collared lemming, arctic shrew, arctic fox, and snowy owl), two species (collared lemming and the arctic shrew) may have a significant potential to be adversely affected by RRO. The risk assessment indicated that the potential adverse effects were not propagated up the food chain to the arctic fox or snowy owl. No significant potential for adverse effects was associated with the DRO contamination. There are many uncertainties associated with calculating ecological risks due to the toxicity of petroleum contamination. The assumptions overestimate actual exposures and subsequent tissue concentrations in wildlife. The use of maximum contaminant concentrations also introduces uncertainty in the exposure estimates. Therefore, petroleum contamination is not expected to significantly contribute to potential ecological risks at any of the well sites. Additional risk evaluations specific to Well 7, identified four species, the collared lemming, ptarmigan, arctic warbler, and arctic shrew as having the potential for adverse ecological effects due to other non -petroleum compounds, primarily lead. The area surrounding Well 7 is not likely to support large small mammal and bird populations, since the low willow vegetative community in the vicinity provides marginal habitat for these species. The wetland conditions at Well 7 may also inhibit the presence of small mammals or avian species that prefer dry ground nesting sites. Given the uncertainties associated with the ecological risk assessment, the potential for adverse ecological effects at Well 7 is not significant. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS The cleanup options for the Umiat Test Wells sites included; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation, • Excavation with On-site Landfarming, • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, and • Excavation with Off -Site Disposal. The evaluation and comparison of these alternatives are summarized below; Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment It is expected that four of the alternatives (Natural Attenuation, LTTD, Landfarming and Off-site Disposal) have the potential to reduce the contaminant concentrations in the soil. The LTTD option destroys the contaminants whereas the Off-site Disposal option removes the exposure pathway. The Natural Attenuation and Landfarming options both rely on natural processes to degrade the contaminants. Although the No Action alternative assumes that no changes in the contaminant concentrations occur over time, based on the risk comparisons there is currently no significant risk to either human health or the environment. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements There are limited ARARs associated with the soil at the well sites. The primary ARAR is taken from 18 AAC 75.325. The four alternatives with remedial action components all have the ability to meet the listed ARARs. The No Action option assumes that no change in the contaminant concentrations would occur. However, the current concentrations do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Thus all alternatives, including the No Action option would satisfy the ARARs. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence This criterion addresses the risks associated with the site after the response objectives have been met. Each of the four remedial alternatives would further reduce concentrations. Also as noted before, there are currently no elevated risks associated with these sites. The LTTD and the Off -Site Disposal alternatives provide a more immediate long-term effectiveness and permanence. The ex -situ Landfarming alternative provides a less immediate response. The Natural Attenuation option will also achieve a permanent reduction in contamination levels but require significantly more time. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment Only the LTTD provides a complete reduction of the petroleum contamination's toxicity, mobility and volume. The Off-site Disposal alternative provides no reduction in toxicity or volume but is expected to provide complete reduction of mobility once is the material is disposed of in a permitted landfill. The alternatives (Natural Attenuation and Landfarming) are expected to provide some reduction in toxicity. The natural processes of biodegradation irreversibly convert the petroleum contamination into carbon dioxide and water. The No Action must assume that no biological degradation processes occur. Short-term Effectiveness The short-term effectiveness includes; the protection of the community and workers during the remedial actions; environmental impacts and time required until remedial response objectives are achieved. It is expected that no impacts to the community or workers would occur during site operations for any of the alternatives. Each remedial alternative has the potential to create dust and surface water runoff. Appropriate protective measures would need to be implemented during excavation and treatment activities to prevent exposure and spread of the contaminated material. The short-term effectiveness also considers the time period required complete the remedial actions. The LTTD or Off-site Disposal would likely be completed in one field season, whereas the Landfarming alternative would likely require 5 to 10 years to compete. The Natural Attenuation alternative would likely require more than 20 years to show any significant reduction in contamination levels. The options involving excavations (LTTD, Off-site Disposal and Landfarming) would have an impact on the environment. These options would disturb the revegetated areas, which over the past 50 years, have recovered from the original drilling operations. Due to equipment staging, the areas disturbed would likely be larger than the areas being remediated. Although aspects of the short-term effectiveness (the actual excavating or operating the treatment system) would be limited to a few months to a few years, the effects of the excavation removal would remain for many years. Implementability All alternatives are implementable to a degree. The degree to which they are implementable is quite variable. Obviously, the No Action alternative would be the simplest to implement because it requires no additional fieldwork. The difficultly of the implementability increases slightly with the Natural Attenuation option and increases significantly more with the LTTD, Landfarming and Off-site Disposal alternatives. For the Natural Attenuation alternative the implementability difficulties are associated the general logistic challenges at Umiat. Small helicopter services would be required for each mobilization. For the options requiring excavation, significant logistical and engineering support would be required for either a summer (requiring large helicopter support) or a winter (requiring ice roads) project schedule. The Landfarming option also has an implementability challenge associated with available land for a treatment facility. It would not be feasible to construct individual Landfarms at each well site, because the area for the Landfarm would be many times larger than the area to be remediated, and the wells sites do not have open areas (e.g. gravel pads) associated with them that could be used for a landfarming operation. Conversely, if the soil were to be consolidated at Umiat, the Landfarm would likely use a large area of the Main Gravel Pad for many years. This would likely not be acceptable to the current landowners and could potentially have an impact on area development. Cost Because of the small volume of potentially contaminated soil at each of the well sites, most of the costs associated with any response would be from mobilizing equipment and materials to Umiat. For this reason the costs presented are for all of the well sites. The elimination of one or more well site would not significantly affect the total cost. The costs of the alternatives vary widely from $0 for the No PCon Alternative to over $3.9 million for the Ex -situ Landfarming alternative. Excluding the No Action alternative, the costs range from $1.5 million for Natural Attenuation to $3.9 million for the Landfarming alternative. • No Action - $0. • Natural Attenuation - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $256,000, $155,000 and $1,590,000, respectively. • Excavation with On -Site LTTD -Total costs for this option is $1,970,000. No O&M cost were considered and no present worth cost was calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. The cost for this option assumes that the LTTD currently on-site would be used for the treatment. Additional $750,000 would be incurred with mobilizing a new unit or extending the duration of the existing unit. • Excavation with On-site Landfarming - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $1,785,000, $257,000 and $3,988,000, respectively. • Excavation with Off-site Disposal - Total cost for this option is $2,285,000. No O&M costs are considered and no present worth cost is calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the production of this Proposed Plan and has agreed that the proposed alternative meets State regulations and protects human health and the environment. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS Based on the contamination observed, the limited exposure potential, and the fact that the areas are nearly completely revegetated, it is proposed that No Action be taken at Umiat Test Well sites (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11). Even though a No Action alternative is proposed, this option is considered to satisfactorily address the CERLCA criteria. Additional consideration for the proposed No Action is provided below. The Focus Feasibility Study prepared for the well sites evaluated several likely cleanup alternatives. The study evaluated the nature and extent of contamination, and the potential scope of cleanup efforts, including costs, benefits and damage resulting from the excavation actions. At each site, sampling activities targeted features such as petroleum -stained soil and an AST drain area. The targeted features were expected to have elevated levels of residual petroleum products. Therefore, the sampling results likely represent the highest levels of contamination present. Residual petroleum products were detected at six of the seven well sites. However, no petroleum related contaminants that cause human health risks from direct contact (for example BTEX or PAHs) were detected. Because of the variable levels of residual petroleum, it is apparent that natural processes are reducing the contamination. Therefore, an attempt to provide a more immediate cleanup at the site would involve the excavation of soil. Damage resulting from excavating the tundra and wetlands, which has nearly completely regrown, would be greater than the potential risk to humans or the environment. It should be noted that although No Action is proposed for Well site 3, because the lake water had low petroleum levels and the potential impact from the metal debris, Well 3 and Umiat Lake will be separated into two sites. Additional studies will be proposed for Umiat Lake. Umiat Test Well 9 INVESTIGATIONS Umiat Test Well 9 is located approximately two miles north of Umiat in an area of upland tundra consisting of grasses and low willows. The Well 9 area was first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Three surface soil samples were collected from the area. The sampling locations targeted stained soil, drilling mud piles and a drainage ditch, down gradient from the wellhead. Each sample was analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. A second phase of investigation was performed in August of 1998, 19 soil borings were completed. From these locations, 44 surface soil samples and 22 subsurface soil samples were collected. Each sample was analyzed in the field (field -screened using immunoassay test kits) for PCBs. Eighteen samples were sent to a laboratory and analyzed for DRO, RRO and PCBs. The discovery of the burned area led to a third investigation at Well 9. In August of 1999, a study was performed to evaluate if dioxins and furans were present in the burn area. Dioxins and furans are often present when PCBs are burned. The study consisted of collecting twelve surface soil samples (see Figures 15 and 16 on pages 30 and 31). RESULTS The results from the soil samples collected in 1997 showed that two areas had DRO/RRO and PCB levels above Method 2 cleanup levels. One area was adjacent to the well head and the other area was in the drainage ditch 18 feet from the well head. The contamination levels at the wellhead were 20,000 mg/kg DRO; 25,000 mg/kg RRO; and 1,100 mg/kg PCB. The ditch area had 13,000 mg/kg DRO; 21,000 mg/kg RRO; and 530 mg/kg PCB. The Method 2 cleanup levels are 12,500 mg/kg for DRO; 13,700 mg/kg for RRO; and 1 mg/kg for PCBs. The 1998 results indicate that PCBs are present, at levels exceeding the Method 2 cleanup level of 1 mg/kg, in the area immediately surrounding the well head and extending west approximately 125 feet. Three samples had PCBs concentrations ranging from 3.8 mg/kg to 23 mg/kg and four samples were below 1 mg/kg. The burned area is approximately 1250 square - feet and is approximately 500 feet from the well head. All of the samples showed DRO and RRO levels above Method 2 limits of 12,500 mg/kg for DRO and 13,700 mg/kg for RRO. The highest values were 54,000 mg/kg for DRO and 75,000 PCB 1a 1100 9 Notes: 2 This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone rng/kg milli rams per kilogram for RRO. PCBs were found in three samples above the cleanup levels of 1 mg/kg. The highest value was 15 mg/kg. The samples analyzed from the third study showed that dioxins were present in the soil. The analytical results are summarized in Table 10. RISK ASSESSMENT A site-specific risk assessment was performed for Well 9. The risk assessment identified potential risks to human health and to wildlife, with the majority of the risk caused by contact with PCBs in soil. The risk assessment found potential cancer risks to future residents from contact with PCBs, 972 SS MSS 971 SS APPROXIMATE SCALE O O 0 50 100 Feet _3001 7 967 SS 966 SS O O 961 SS 962 SB KEY. O MOSS 959 SS o Sample locations ROSS O O L NPRA well location dioxins, and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. Site visitors would have potential cancer risks from contact with PCBs and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. PCBs account for the majority of the cancer risk. Potential non -cancer risks to future residents and site visitors were found from contact with PCBs in soil, and from arsenic, DRO, and RRO in berries. Harvest rates for Nuiqsut were used to calculate risks for subsistence use of berries, ptarmigan, and caribou by future residents and by site visitors. The harvest information came from studies by the North Slope Borough and by the Alaska Department of Fish and game. It was assumed that future residents and site visitors would collect their entire berry harvest from the contaminated areas, as well as their annual supply of caribou and ptarmigan. Models were used to predict the amount of contamination that would be absorbed into berry plants, caribou, and ptarmigan. Although potential risks were found from eating berries, no risks were found from subsistence use of caribou and ptarmigan. The risk assessment found potential adverse effects for some forms of wildlife. The Arctic shrew, Arctic warbler, collared lemming, and willow ptarmigan have potential adverse effects from contact with PCBs, petroleum compounds, and dioxins. No adverse effects were found for moose, caribou, Arctic fox, and snowy owls. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTION For the Well 9 site an extensive evaluation of possible cleanup actions was not performed. Instead, what USEPA refers to as "Presumptive Remedy" was selected. A presumptive remedy is appropriate when the contamination allows for an obvious and commonly accepted cleanup action. This is the case for PCBs in shallow soil where there is no control in the exposure potential and capping or covering presents significant long- term maintenance problems. Based on the studies at Well 9 it is proposed that a soil removal action be performed. It is expected that approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB and petroleum contaminated soil will be removed from the wellhead area and 75 cubic yards from the burn area. 957 SS 955 SS 969 SS 956 SB 958 SB 954 SS 953 SS 952 SS O O O O O O 964SS 947SS 965 SB 9W SS 851SS 948 S8 946SS 945SS O O O O O O rSS f 931SS Slope 950SS 949SS 935SS 934SS 933SS 932SB 938SS 939SS O O O O O O O 0 905 SS 904 SS 903 SS 902 SS 900 SS/901 SS 937S5 936 SS 920 SB 919 SB 918 SB 91788 915 SS/916 SB C O 0 O O O NOW0O 977 SS 909 SS 908 S'S 907 SS NPRI 906 SS O 930 SS 976 SS O 923 SB 922 SB 924 SB WON N0.9 921 SS O 974 SS v^ O O A c 975 SS 914 SS 913 SS 812 SS 911 SS 910 SS O 978 SS Bumed Area 929 SB 928 SB 927 SB 926 SS 925 SB 940 SS O O O O O 0 p 979 SS dioxins, and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. Site visitors would have potential cancer risks from contact with PCBs and aldrin in soil, and from arsenic and aldrin in berries. PCBs account for the majority of the cancer risk. Potential non -cancer risks to future residents and site visitors were found from contact with PCBs in soil, and from arsenic, DRO, and RRO in berries. Harvest rates for Nuiqsut were used to calculate risks for subsistence use of berries, ptarmigan, and caribou by future residents and by site visitors. The harvest information came from studies by the North Slope Borough and by the Alaska Department of Fish and game. It was assumed that future residents and site visitors would collect their entire berry harvest from the contaminated areas, as well as their annual supply of caribou and ptarmigan. Models were used to predict the amount of contamination that would be absorbed into berry plants, caribou, and ptarmigan. Although potential risks were found from eating berries, no risks were found from subsistence use of caribou and ptarmigan. The risk assessment found potential adverse effects for some forms of wildlife. The Arctic shrew, Arctic warbler, collared lemming, and willow ptarmigan have potential adverse effects from contact with PCBs, petroleum compounds, and dioxins. No adverse effects were found for moose, caribou, Arctic fox, and snowy owls. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTION For the Well 9 site an extensive evaluation of possible cleanup actions was not performed. Instead, what USEPA refers to as "Presumptive Remedy" was selected. A presumptive remedy is appropriate when the contamination allows for an obvious and commonly accepted cleanup action. This is the case for PCBs in shallow soil where there is no control in the exposure potential and capping or covering presents significant long- term maintenance problems. Based on the studies at Well 9 it is proposed that a soil removal action be performed. It is expected that approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB and petroleum contaminated soil will be removed from the wellhead area and 75 cubic yards from the burn area. 9 Although the dioxin contaminated soil does not require removal, the dioxins are found in the same soil as the PCBs and will be removed as well. The actual excavated amounts will be determined by infield sampling and post excavation confirmatory sampling. The soil shall be tested for PCBs and petroleum compounds. The goal for the cleanup action will be to remove all contaminated soil with PCBs greater than 1 mg/kg and petroleum contamination which would cause a significant risk to human health or the environment. The excavated soils shall be transported off-site to a proper waste disposal facility. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS Although the proposed cleanup at Well 9 is not compared to other alternatives, it is evaluated against the CERCLA criteria. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment PCB contamination would be removed and petroleum contamination reduced to levels that resulted in no significant increase in health or cancer risks to either human health or to the environment. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements The removal of the PCBs would meet the State regulations, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. Short-term Effectiveness Potential exposure during remedial action During the removal and transportation activities there would be an increased potential for exposure to contaminants. Potential health effects would be limited with the use of proper protective equipment. Controls would be used to prevent runoff or contaminated dust from spreading to other ecological or human receptors. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence The contamination would remain in the soil, but will be disposed of in a landfill permitted to accept PCB waste. Residual petroleum contamination may remain onsite would be below levels that resulted in significant risk to human health or the environment. The alternative would provide a permanent remedy for this site. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The disposal of the PCB and petroleum contaminated soil would only reduce the mobility of the contaminants. Implementability The excavation and disposal is feasible to implement. This alternative would likely involve construction of an ice road and winter excavation of the soil. The removal project at Wells 2 and 5 has demonstrated that this is feasible to implement at Umiat. Cost The cost associated with the excavation and off- site disposal alternative is approximately $1,000,000 for capital costs. No O&M cost are needed and no 30 year present worth cost is calculated because it is assumed that all work would be completed in one year. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the development of this Proposed Plan and agrees that the alternative meets State regulations and will protect human health and the environment. of Pro��'�seci Clc7nuE7 The proposed cleanup actions for the 12 sites discussed in this Proposed Plan are: • Air Strip Complex - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD treatment and on-site disposal/reuse (petroleum contaminated soil) and monitoring shallow groundwater at the lake edge. • Main Gravel Pad - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD treatment and on-site disposal/reuse (petroleum contaminated soil) and soil excavation with off-site disposal (PCB and lead/antimony contaminated soil). • Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 - Soil excavation with on-site LTTD and on-site disposal (petroleum contaminated soil). Closure of Wells 2 and 5. PCB waste and debris disposal off-site. Possible reseeding of formerly excavated areas. • Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 - No Further Action. • Umiat Test Well 9 - Soil excavation with off-site disposal (PCB contaminated soil). ,S,ec7tMM7Guide=, Introduction------«------------_-----_—___«_«------------------------«----«------------------------------------- 1 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program--- ------- —--- ------------ —_— --- — ----- — --- ------------------ 2 SiteLocation and History ---- --«--- —--- --- ----------- ----- —------- «---------------------------«--«------------- 2 Environmental Investigation and Cleanup History ----------------- —--- ---------- — --- —_ 3 Cleanup Levels ---------------------«------------------------ 4 CleanupAlternatives-------------------«---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 SiteSummaries — ------ ------ «---_«---------r-------------------------------«--------«--«----------«--------- 6 AirStrip Complex-------«--------«_----_—_«------------------_-----------_---__--_--------------------------- 6 Main Gravel Pad ------ 11 UmiatTest Wells 2 and 5 ------------------------ ---- ------------------- —------- ---------------------------- --- 14 Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11---------------«_--w ----- __------ _—----- — ----------- ------- ---------- 17 UmiatTest Well 9-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------«------«- 30 Summary of Proposed Cleanup Actions------------------------------«----------------------_---------------------- 34 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT FORM Proposed Plan for Remedial Action Umiat, Alaska Your input on the remedial alternative discussed in this Proposed Plan is important to the USACE. Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping the agency select a final remedy. You may use the space below to provide your comments. When you are finished, please fold and mail. A return address has been provided on the back of this page for your convenience. Comments must be postmarked by August 7, 2003. Name: Address: Telephone: 0 0 Please Fold at Dotted Line -mm ---------------- -.................................... --...... --------- ----------------- - Affix Stamp Here U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska CEPOA-PM-C Attn: Curtis King, PE PO Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Please Staple Here Before Mailing Community Commer�t�s �nc� l'�rtc�-tion You are encouraged to provide comments on the preferred alternatives for addressing chemical concerns and cleanup activities at Umiat during the public comment period. Your comments can make a difference in deciding which cleanup alternative will be chosen. USACE will not select a final course of action until the public comment period ends and all comments have been reviewed and considered. Your comments may be presented in writing or at the Public Meeting. A pre -addressed comment form is included in this Proposed Plan. The public comment/review period is from June 16 to July 25, 2003. The Public Meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for Umiat, answer questions and address concerns, and receive public comments will be held on July 16, 2003 at the Kisik Community Center in Nuiqsut from 7:00 P.M. until all comments are heard. The USACE will prepare a written response to all significant comments and new data submitted in reference to this Proposed Plan. A summary of these responses will accompany the Decision Document and will be made available in the Administrative Record and the Information Repository noted below. Information on the Umiat site can be obtained from the Information Repository. The repository contains site information, including detailed investigation reports, test results from Feld studies, and removal actions performed. The Information Repository is located at the following address: Native Village of Nuiqsut P.O. Box 166 Nuiqsut, Alaska Hours of Operation: 10:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm on Sunday For further assistance in locating these documents, or for answers to any questions you may have, you may email Curtis King at Curtis.A.King@poa02.usace.army.mil or contact him at the address below: U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska CEPOA-PM-C Attn: Curtis King, PE PO Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 (907) 753-5665 0 0 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT �d Draft Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 Former Umiat Air Force Station Umiat, Alaska Contract No. DACA85-98-R-0013 Task Order No, 0006 November 1999 Prepared for: UNITED STATES ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA Engineering Project Management P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 ecology_ asid Niro ment5f n c,, International Specialists in the Environment 840 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Tel: (907) 257-5000, Fax: (907) 257-5007 recycled paper Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary....................................................................1 1 Introduction............................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope and Objectives........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Organization..........................................................................................1-1 2 Site Characterization............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Site Description and History .............................................................................2-1 2.2 Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination..................................................2-4 2.2.1 Field Investigations.................................................................... .2-4 2.3 Potential Impacts on Public Health, Welfare, and Environment .....................2-13 2.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.................................2-13 3 Identification of Removal Action Objectives ......................... 3-1 4 Removal Action Alternative Development ............................. 4-1 4.1 Identification of Removal Technologies...........................................................4-1 4.2 Screening of Technologies................................................................................4-6 4.3 Removal Alternatives........................................................................................4-6 4.3.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action..............................................................4-7 4.3.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD.................................................4-7 4.3.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE..............................................4-11 4.3.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming...........................................4-12 5 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives ............. 5-1 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives...................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action..............................................................5-1 5.1.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD................................................. 5-7 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 111 R UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 Tables of Contents 6nt.) Section 0 Page 5.1.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE................................................5-8 5.1.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming.............................................5-8 5.2 Comparison of Removal Action Alternatives...................................................5-9 6 Conclusions and Recommended Removal Action ................ 6-1 7 References................................................................................ 7-1 Appendix A Derived Cost Sheets................................................................ A-1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 1V 8 UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-1IN Lst of Tables Table Page 2-1 1997 Investigation Surface Soil Sampling Results; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and5.........................................................................................................................2-5 2-2 1998 Investigation Surface Soil Results; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..................2-8 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum - Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..............................................4-2 5-1 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 2; Excavation and On -Site Low -Temperature Thermal Desorption Treatment; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ..........................................................5 -2 5-2 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 3; Excavation and On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction Treatment; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5................................................................................... 5-3 5-3 Removal Action Cost Analysis—Alternative No. 4; Excavation and On -Site Bioremediation by Landfarming; Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5...................................................................................5-4 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 .....................................5-5 5-5 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives for Petroleum - Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 ............................................5-10 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 v R UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 h of Illustrations Figure Page 2-1 Site Location Map......................................................................................................2-2 2-2 Site Vicinity and Topography Map............................................................................2-3 2-3 Extent of Contamination; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5.............2-10 .......................... 2-4 Cross Section A -A'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 ...............2-11 2-5 Cross Section B -B'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 ................2-12 4-1 Proposed Haul Route .................................................... . 4-2 Potential Landfarming Cell Locations......................................................................4-14 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 vii R_UM IAT. DOC -11 /03/99-HP4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D LTA AT AT TNN` 11/0R/00 LMA Executive Summary Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska, Contract AFS No. DACA85-9-8-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., pre- Air.Force Station pared this engineering evaluation/cost analysis for a removal action NPR -4 to address contaminated soils at two petroleum exploration wells Naval -Petroleum Reserve located near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, No. 4 Alaska. mg/kg milligrams per kilogram What is now the former Umiat AFS was withdrawn from public domain as part of the 23 -million -acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4). In 1944 and 1945, the United States Navy con- structed the airstrip and Main Gravel Pad at Umiat to support re- source exploration within NPR -4. Eleven oil exploration wells subsequently were drilled from 1945 to 1952 as part of the oil ex- ploration activities. This document addresses the removal actions for NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 only. Environmental issues pertaining to other NPR -4 test well sites will be addressed as needed under separate contract actions. NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Umiat Airstrip Complex. The wells are situated on a common gravel pad immediately adjacent to the west bank of the Colville River. Based on field investigations conducted in 1997 and 1998, the river is eroding toward the well structures and threat- ens to breach the well casings. Petroleum -contaminated soil and buried debris (i.e., drums) were found during the field investigation and are eroding into the river. Because of the size of the Colville River and the remote nature of the site, measures to protect the riv- erbank from father erosion are not feasible. Therefore, a removal of the contaminated materials is necessary to protect the environ- ment. In order to safely remove the contaminated material, the two wells should be plugged and abandoned properly. Cleanup values for the removal were based on Alaska regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code 75.340) and are proposed to be 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2,000 mg/kg for diesel 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D LTA AT AT TNN` 11/0R/00 LMA ecoioe and environmen4 iuu. Executive Summary range organics and residual range organics, respectively. The vol- cY ume of soil that is contaminated above these limits was estimated cubic yards to be 14,000 cubic yards (cy; in place). Upon removal, approxi- LTTD mately 16,800 cy of soil will require treatment. low-temperature thermal desorption Several removal technologies were subjected to an initial screen- ing. The four alternatives listed below were brought forward for a detailed analysis. The associated cost of each is provided in pa- rentheses. ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action (no cost); ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Low -Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD; $10.2 million); ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On-site Treatment via the Hot Air Vapor Extraction Sys- tem ($9.1 million); and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning System, Soil Exca- vation, and Ex Situ Landfarming ($8.6 million). After a comparison of the alternatives, Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming, was selected as the preferred removal alternative because of lower costs and ease of implementation. Landfarming would require signifi- cantly less equipment, power, fuel, and water to complete the soil treatment process. The thermal treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3 would require sophisticated equipment and large quantities of fuel. LTTD treatment also would require a steady supply of quench water. These factors weighed heavily against use of thermal treatment at the former Umiat AFS. •n.nl 11 . Il4—M nQ AQA'I / USAED Alaska United.. States Army Engineer District, Alaska E&E Ecology and Environment, Inc. EE/CA- engineering evaluation/costanalysis NPR -4 Naval Petroleum Reserve No.,4 AFS Air Force Station 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_AS03 Introduction 1.1 Scope and Objectives Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAED Alaska) Contract No. DACA85-98-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) prepared this engineering evalua- tion/cost analysis (EE/CA) for a removal action to address petro- leum -contaminated soils at two Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4) exploratory test wells near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, Alaska. The purpose of this document is to summarize the contaminant conditions existing at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, to document the. need for a removal action at the site, to review regulatory requirements and define removal ac- tion objectives, to identify and evaluate potential removal alterna- tives for the removal action, and to recommend a preferred alter- native for the site. The scope of this document is limited to petroleum -contaminated soils adjacent to NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 that have been im- pacted by historical releases of hazardous substances resulting from well drilling activities. This evaluation does not address po- tential threats posed by site conditions at the remaining NPR -4 test wells located near Umiat. Surface contamination above regulatory guidance levels at the remaining wells will be addressed under separate contract actions. 1.2 Report Organization This EE/CA is organized as follows: ■ Section 2 presents the site description, site history, nature and extent of contamination, and rationale for a removal action at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; ■ Section 3 presents the removal action objectives (RAOs) for the removal action, the rationale for selecting cleanup levels, and an estimate of the volume of contaminated materials at the well site; ecdoe and emi ronnent, inc. 1. Introduction ■ Section 4 identifies and screens potential removal technologies to address soil contamination at the well site, and describes re- moval action alternatives to be carried forward for analysis; ■ Section 5 provides detailed analyses of the removal action al- ternatives identified in Section 4; ■ Section 6 describes the recommended removal action alterna- tive for contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; and ■ Section 7 provides references used to prepare this EE/CA. Site Characterization This section presents a brief summary of the location, site condi- FIRs tions, and history of the former Umiat AFS, and the nature and ex - field investigation reports tent of contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. A discus- ADOT&PF sion of the potential public health and environmental threats posed Alaska Department of by the contamination and the need for a removal action at the well Transportation and Public....site also is presented. Additional detailed information concerning Facilities the site history and characterization is available in the previously BLM published field investigation reports (FIRS; E & E 1998a, 1999). Bureau &Land Management 2.1 Site Description and History The former Umiat AFS site is located in northern Alaska approxi- mately 120 miles southwest of Prudhoe Bay, within the Colville River Valley north of the Brooks Range (see Figure 2-1). This re- mote site is accessible by airplane and, depending on weather con- ditions, by boat during summer and overland snow route during winter. The AFS site comprises 8,000 acres adjacent to the Colville River. Of the 8,000 acres, 115 are developed with a gravel pad and air- strip. The developed area has been elevated with gravel approxi- mately 4 feet to 6 feet above the surrounding tundra and consists mainly of the Airstrip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. As de- tailed below, 11 NPR -4 oil exploration well sites are located in the undeveloped tundra north of Umiat (see Figure 2-2). Current ownership of the former AFS facility resides with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), with leases for buildings and space granted to sev- eral parties. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages the lands surrounding the former Umiat AFS, where NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located. Figure 2-2 shows the current prop- erty boundaries between the ADOT&PF and BLM lands (LCMF, Inc. 1996). 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-1 US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ALASKA "T f ........ . . . ... ... .... .... . r 11 . ... ................ A... -I", grpai A; 5N. i. . 6 V 'ek .,Z . . ....... —A I Z )? I PR -4 TEST WELLS (I I TOTAL) i,�j IV, RAW - IL P, 'k_ % 11 . .... . .. . . inj Q, P Ifni. i a It 2, it . . ... ...... EASE CRE KRArI . ..... AIRSTRIP COMPLEX E ESTIMATED AREA 'I,' OF EROSION rbi 5y, M X. . .... ........ . ... . .......... A .. . . ...... .. .......... .. - 1 �v. -4 > . ..... V.Doric '. . N + MAIN GRAVEL PAD 1> . . .... 4--k f �7 W S, N, . ... .... 0N. ...... ..... I ... . ..... . V e;1 W e( I Ilk x/e Z it m Y.: J 4 �r . .. 04� ...... . 2. A ee; e, AV I KEY: M.1y ...EEI'l ASTRICT. ecology and environment, Inc. International Specialists In U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION -0 Shut-in NPR -4 oil well Ext nt of ADOT and EIPF Sroperty -4� Dry NPR -4 test hole SCALE 0 1A 1 2 Miles AMCMORAGE. ALASKAALAS Figure 2.2 SITE VICINITY AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP the Environment Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Umlat, Alaska his area (estimated) has Abandoned NPR vuell Ej modalInto Colville River 0 .5 1 2 Kilometers FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION -4 oil eroded Umist Former Unrist Air Force Station Alaska SIZE I JOB NO. FILE NO. 1 DATE I SOURCE: USGS (TopographiC) Quadrangle: Uftsf, (B-4) Maka 1955 A _1 AKea ao 02 90 FI92-2CDR 99OCT25 ecolojU and emi ronment, inc. 2. Site Characterization NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located on a common gravel pad AOGOC approximately 2 miles northeast of the Airstrip Complex. The Alaska.;0il and Gas gravel pad, which is approximately 3 feet thick, is situated on a low Commission bluff (15 feet ±) above the Colville River. The surrounding area is upland tundra dominated by tall willow. Alaska Oil and Gas P&Aed Commission (AOGCC) records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. plugged and abandoned 2 was decommissioned (i.e., plugged and abandoned [P&Aedl) in 1947 and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was suspended (i.e., shut in) in 1971 (E & E 1998a). However; the P&A procedures did not meet current AOGCC standards. Left unchecked, ongoing erosion of the Colville River bank near these wells could compromise the well casings and cause a release of petroleum and drilling muds to the surface. 2.2 Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination This section briefly reviews the scope and results of the investiga- tions conducted at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. More detailed information about the investigations can be found in the Phase III remedial investigation report (E & E 1998a) and the 1998 FIR (E & E 1999). 2.2.1 Field Investigations Field investigations at the 11 NPR -4 test wells were conducted in two phases during summer 1997 and summer 1998. The primary objective of the 1997 investigation was to screen surface soils at each NPR -4 test well to determine whether well drilling or devel- opment activities had impacted soils in the vicinity of the well- heads. At NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, analytical results indi- cated that petroleum contaminants were above Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation screening levels in surface soils. The surface water and sediment data indicated that contaminants were migrating to the river. Table 2-1 provides detailed analytical results of the 1997 investigation. The objective of sampling in 1998 was to define the extent of con- tamination. Subsurface and surface soil samples were collected and analyzed during that field investigation. Analytical data are summarized in Table 2-2. Although there is no clear subsurface pattern, the petroleum contamination appears to be migrating from the wells toward the Colville River, following the contour of the underlying permafrost, which dips toward the river. Permafrost generally was encountered at about 8 feet to 9 feet below ground surface at the well site. Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 graphically repre- sent the results of these efforts. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-4 0 • Sam le Location: Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA NPR4-2-1 NPR4-2-1 I NPR4-2-2 NPR4-2-3 NPR4-5-1 NPR4-5-2 NPR4-5-3 NPR4-5-3 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 200 -SS 201 -SS 203 -SS 233 -SS 204 -SS 205 -SS 230 -SS 231 -SS Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 201 -SS 200 -SS 231 -SS 230 -SS Sample Date: GRO 8/13/97 4.8 8/13/97 5.2 8/13/97 6.5 8/16/97 UJ (]0) 8/13/97 U (2.7) 8/14/97 U (4.5) 8/16/97 U 3.2) 8/16/97 4.1 DRO 9,400 J 9,400 67 1,500 240J 160 13,000 21,000 RRO 10.000 9,800 240 3,700 410 J 970 22,000 36.000 Metals Aluminum 14.000 13,000 12.000 8,800 3,600 NA 8,400 7,600 Arsenic Ili 16J 12 6.5 J 4.4 NA 9.9 J 6.8 J Barium 4.200 4,100 1,000 260 190 NA 270 360 Beryllium 0.6 0.59 0.59 I B 0.19 NA 0.59 B 0.5 B Cadmium 1.6 1.2 U (0.59) U (1.7) U (0.51) NA U (0.64) U (0.65 Calcium 11,000 11,000 14,000 5,600 1,300 NA 2,700 2,600 Chromium 36 37 27 1 18 7.6 NA 21 19 Cobalt 15 15 14 8.8 4.9 NA 10 9.9 Copper 56 62 29 33 29 NA 21 21 Iron 36,000 36,000 34,000 27,000 12,000 NA 24,000 23,000 Lead 120 J 180 J 45 14 37 NA 5101 51 J Magnesium 8,500 8,500 8,200. 3,000 1,700 NA 3,800 3,800 Manganese 370 370 330 290 280 NA 430 J 240 J Mercury, 0.042 U (0.028) 0.065 U (0.067) U (0.02) NA 0.0511 0.026 J Nickel 49 48 43 27 18 NA 29 32 Potassium 1,900 J 1,700 1,700 520 J 320 NA 650 J 610J Selenium U (0.27) 0.31 U (1.2) UJ (0.67) 0.34 NA 0.31 J 0.28 J allium U (0.14) 0.14 0.12 U (0.34) U (0.1) NA U (0.13) 0.14 Vanadium 32 31 29 27 14 NA 29 26 Zinc 1,400 1,400 470 76 45 1 A 87 100 Pesticides/PCBs 4,4' -DDD 0.018 J 0.027 R 0.019 R 0.11 0.0034 R U (0.0056) 0.04 J 0.36 J 4' -DDE 0.0045 R 0.0065 R 0.015 0.04 U (0.0034) U (0.0056) U (0.0042) U (0.085) 4' -DDT 0.0411 0.062 R 0.045 0.0121 0.036 U (0.0056) 0.0491 0.13 J PCB -1254 U (0.045) U (0.047) U (0.039) U (0.11) U (0.034) U (0.056) U (0.042) U (0.85) VOCs 2-Butanone U (0.068) U (0.07) U (0.059) 0.074 J U (0.051) 0.12 .1 UJ (0.05) UJ (0.05) Acetone 0.26 J 0.07 R 0.18 J 0.27 J 0.098 J 0.94 J U (0.1) U (0.1) m- & -X lene U (0.0014) U (0.0014) 0.0025 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) Methylene chloride 0.0071 J UJ (0.014) 0.0068 J 0.03 B 0.0076 J 0.01 J 0.063 0.071 J Toluene U (0.0014) U (0.0014) 0.002 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) SVOCs 2 -Meth In hdWene U (0.45) 6.7 J 1.6 2 U (0.56) 0.173 1.21 Meth 1 henol U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.23 �(0.34) U (0.56) 0.066 U (1.7) Bis(2-eth lhexvl) hthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U (1.1) U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Di -n -butyl phthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.72 0.055 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Dibenzofumn U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U (1.1) U (0.34) 0.048 U (0.42) U (1.7) Fluorene U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 2.1 U (0.34) 0.09 U (0.42) U (1.7) Naphthalene U (0.45) 2.61 0.73 0.31 0.1 J U (0.56) 0.075 J 0.57 J Phenanthrene U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 1.5 0.037 0.081 0.088 U (1.7) Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Key to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. DDE - Dicblorodiphenyldichloroethylene. DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DRO - Diesel range organics. GRO - Gasoline range organics. J - Estimated. NA - Not analyzed. PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls. R - Rejected. RRO - Residual range organics. SS - Surface soil. SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds. U - Undetected at the reported limit. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. 19:000977.AK06.000E.99 ABU Rtl .. tNPHA55-1InWHP4 -. -Ii'�. • Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Colville River (Near Well No. 5) Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-54 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SD 211 -SD 212 -SD 213 -SD Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SD 210 -SD Sample Date: GRO 8/14/97 U (3.1) 8/14/97 U (3.4) 8/14/97 4.8 8/14/97 U (3.6) DRO 240 J 310 650 46 RRO 220 J 280 430 200 Metals Aluminum 6.200 5,000 2,400 6,600 Arsenic 3.5 4.5 2.1 5.1 Barium 420 330 130 310 Beryllium 0.37 0.36 0.13 0.38 Calcium 2.300 2,000 940 2,100 Chromium 13 11 3.5 14 Cobalt 8.2 8.2 4 8.9 Copper18 21 12 17 Iron IMM 15.000 6,200 18,000 Lead 5J 5.11 3.4J 6.2J Magnesium 3,100 2.400 1,400 3.100 Manganese 330 470 240 250 Nickel 29 26 18 28 Potassium 420 J 360 J 140 J 4301 Selenium 0.39 0.39 0.3 0.32 Vanadium 23 20 9.1 25 Zinc 52 43 25 54 Pesticides/PCBs 4,4' -DDD NA NA NA NA 4,4' -DDE NA NA NA NA Aroclor 1254 U (0.026) U (0.022) U (0.02) U (0.022) VOCs Acetone 0.062 J 0.13 J 0.18 J 0.18 J Benzene 0.00099 J U (0.0013)U (0.(1013) U (0.0015) Methylene chloride 0.044 J UJ (U.U13) 0.006 JB 0.0061 J Toluene 0.0026 J 0.0023 J 0.021 J U (0.0015) SVOCS 2 -Methylnaphthalene 0.1 0.077 0.068 0.3 Meth 1 henol 0.079 U (0.45) 0.17 U (0.44) Benzoic acid U (2.6) U (2.2) U (2.2) Dibenzofuran 0.039 U (0.45) �(O. 0.23 Fluorene U (0.52) 0.039 U (0.44) Naphthalene 0.064 0.035 U(0.39) 0.15 Phenanthrene 0.078 0.063 0.052 0.33 Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Key to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. R -Rejected. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldichlomethylene. RRO - Residual range organics. DRO - Diesel range organics. SD - Sediment. GRO - Gasoline range organics. SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds. J - Estimated. U -Undetected at the reported limit. NA - Not analyzed. VOCs- Volatile organic compounds. 19 -.OM ]AK06.00.02.98_A902 2-6 File; INPRASD-111019"N Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SURFACE WATER SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SW 211 -SW 212 -SW 213 -SW Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SW 210 -SW Sample Date.. 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 Diesel range organics U (270) 300 U (260) U (250) Total petroleum hydrocarbons U (400) 400 U (100) U (100) OCs Methylene chloride 1.91 U (5.7) 1.8 U (10) Metals Aluminum 220 240 390 250 Barium 86 88 92 86 Iron 550 590 980 610 Manganese 17 18 44 20 PAHs 11 analytes ND ND ND ND Notes: All sample concentrations reported in micrograms per liter or parts per billion. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: - Estimated. U - Undetected at the reported limit - Nondetect. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. SW - Surface water. 19:(MN)977.AK06.(N).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECA TABLE2-1XLS NPRASW - 11/3/99 ( - -'-- 19:000977.AK06! '8A803 - LE3 If `^ �_ 0 Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL RESUL'T'S NPR -4 TEST WELL, NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 500 -SS 501 -SS 502 -SS 503 -SS 504 -SS 505 -SS Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 Diesel range organics 160 J 1,200 J 920 J 480 J 460 J 1,300 J Residual range organics 330 J 790 J 710 J 740 J 750 J 2,600 J 2-Butanone ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.0045] 0.038 Acetone 0.0751 0.053 0.039 0.029 J 0.062 0.17 _ Benzene ND [0.00033] ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J 0.01 ND [0.00032] Naplttltalene ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] ND [0.0053] J ND [0.0052] J ND [0.0061] J ND [0.0053] J Phenanthrene I ND [0.1] ND [0.098] ND [0.099] 1 ND [0.1] ND [0.11] ND [0.099] bis-(2-eth ]hex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31] ND. [0.3] 1 ND 10.3 ND [0.31] ND [0.34] 0.36 J Sample Number (98-UMT-): 506 -SS 507 -SS 508 -SS 509 -SS 510 -SS Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 8/12/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 0-0.5 Diesel range organics 1,300 J 58 J 140 J 200 J 190 J Residual range organics 1,600 J 520 J 330J 1,1001 1,200 J 2-Butanone 0.04 ND [0.004] ND [0.004] ND [0.0043] 0.03 J Acetone 0,17 0.12 ND [0.0037] 0.089 0.18 J Benzene ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00033] ND [0.00032] ND [0.00035] ND [0.00032] J _ Naphthalene ND [0.005311 ND [0.005413 ND [0.0053] J 0.0068 ND [0.0053] Phenanthrene ND [0.099] ND [0.1] ND [0.1] 0.057 ND [0.1] bis-(2-eth lhex 1)Phtttalate ND [0.31] ND [0.32] ND [0.31] ND [0.34] ND [0.31] Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. [Number in brackets represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: BCS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. ND = Nondetect at the reported limit. SS = Surface soil sample. 19:000977.AK06! '8A803 - LE3 If `^ �_ 0 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/99 i 0 Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SUBSURFACE SOIL RESULTS' NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 511 -SB 512 -SB 513 -SB 514 -SB 515 -SB 516 -SB 517 -SB 518 -SB 519 -SB 520 -SB 521 -SB 522 -SB Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-5.4 5.0-5.4 3.0-3.4 3.0-3.4 5.0-5.6 9.0-9.4 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 8.0-8.2 3.0-3.4 0.7-1.0 2.3 Diesel range organics 4,500 J 5,200 J 1,000 J 1,100 J 5,300 J 1,200 J 890 IIJ 28 J 34 J 69 J 310J Sample Number (98-UMT-): 523 -SB 524 -SB 525 -SB 526 -SB 527 -SB 528 -SB 529 -SB 530 -SB 531 -SB 532 -SB 533 -SB Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-6.5 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.4 8.0-8.4 5.0-5.4 6.0-6:4 2.0-2.4 5.0-5.4 2.0-2.5 5.6-5.5 5.0 Diesel range organics 360 J 760 1,200 J 1,700 J 18J 15 47 J 2,800 J 23 4,400 J 7,000 J Notes• 1. All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. 2. Residual range organics were not analyzed in subsurface soil samples at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. Kev to abbreviations: BGS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. SB = Subsurface soil sample. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/99 i 0 nrver oenR r . y 515'51:3 NPR -4 \ Top of bank 516 SB o Test We11'No.5 1998 High " Edge ofwater marly Wooden Platform — 533 SB (10' x 20') Al 520 SB 505 SS ��"'t~dAe of Cblvllle )iiv�r " fi. O / / ° 507 SS °521 SB ° 506 SS .' ' Edge of � 523 SB 511 SB ' 531 SB concrete/ 512 SB foundation i B ° SB5-7 SO 513 SB NPR -4 529 SB 514 SB 1. Test Well No.2 524 SB ° 503 S$ 18" Rathole pipe 1 510 55 con co 0 -� -rw SR`''S... /• KEY- ecology and environment, Inc. U.S. ARMY DISTRCT, AL Approximate extent of " ""'"".,ems""° """E""`°""°" ENGINEERANCHORAGE, AGElALASKA KA petroleum contamination Figure 2-3 NPR -4 Test well location APPROXIMATE SCALE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 0 25 50 Feet NPR -4 TEST WELL Nos. 2 AND 5 ° Sampling location D Umiat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska Cross section reference SIZ I JOB NO. FILE NO. r DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. A 000887 JR07_00 90 03-A780 Fig2-3.CDR I 99OCT13 0 0 A North NPR -4 Well No.5 S05-4 (projected Into (projected Into cross section A -A) cross section A-A'j i X South Eroding Bank 515 SB 1,200 Semple numberl/W DRO concentration in mg/kg BeS8 5-15 Soil Boring Location DRO Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE {y� ecology and environment, inc. eitimi�„vy��m�M FT,rrmm� U.S. ARMY ENGMEEq DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Sandy 0 2 4 Feet Figure 2-4 mgAcg Milligram per kilogram gravel Fill -sandy gravel CROSS SECTION E Sihandclay ®Pear HORIZONTALSCALE ,A-A' SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY /V Break In horizontal scale 0 20 40 Feet AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.5 Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska Approximate extent of contamination based on soil Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 rA JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Envkonmont, Inc. 1999. samples exceeding ADEC screening value 01200 mg/kg 0009TT_AKOS 00 02_98 Fig2-4.13DR 990CT25 0 0 B West 100 98 SB 5-14 99.43' NPR -4 885-10 Well No.2 Concrete SB5-18SB &13 100.05' Foundation 99,9r 99.91r n SB 5-11 99.89' SB 5-8 I _ . 99.31' B' East 0 [14) 55 Gallon drums lumping from above ediment and vegetation urrounding drums covered n thick petroleum product. Colwffe Fiver: i Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not state plane coordinates. KEY: «olIney and—konment.lne. DISTRICT. AUSKA ? Extent or depth unknown WiR Sample number EaFill-sandygravel HORIZONTAL SCALE „-,ENOMEER rnaa.....e...... 44woRADE, AIASKA SB 5-14 Soil boring location 140 DRO concentration In mg/kg EaPeatCROSS 0 20 40 Feel Figure 2-5 SECTION B -B' EllSandy gravel VERTICAL SCALE SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY DRO Diesel range organics 0 4 e Feel AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.2 Approximate extent of contamination based on soil Umiat former umial Ak Force Station Alaska mgfkg Milligram per kilogram samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg DRO SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. Vertical Exaggeration 1:5 OOCK0 -AKM MMx Fig2-5.CDR I 99OCT25 V ecoloty and emvronment, inc 0 2. Site Characterization 2.3 Potential Impacts on Public Health, Welfare, and Environment Significant petroleum contamination has been identified in surface and subsurface soils in the vicinity of NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. The contamination poses a threat to the Colville River. Contin- ued erosion of the riverbank at this location is contributing to the migration of petroleum hydrocarbons to surface water and sedi- ments within the river. The eroding riverbank soils consist of non- cohesive sands and gravels to 20 feet below grade (measured from the top of the gravel pad). Based on historic aerial photographs and recent ground survey information, the riverbank has eroded toward the well site approximately 480 feet since 1974. The aver- age erosion rate of 20 feet per year is consistent with the 21 feet of erosion that was measured over the one-year period between sum- mer 1997 and summer 1998. As of August 1998, NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was approximately 80 feet from the edge of the riverbank. More significant releases of contaminants to the river could occur should the bank erode to the point that the well casings are com- promised. Records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 was aban- doned with 22,600 gallons of drilling mud that contains petroleum product, and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 apparently was shut in with 3,170 gallons of diesel -grade crude oil. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-13 2.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Although the former Umiat AFS is not listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site, USAED Alaska is following CERCLA guidance CERCLA Comprehensive document protocols for remedial investigations and feasibility Environmental Response, studies. Consistent with the CERCLA process, regulatory re - Compensation and quirements included for consideration at the former Umiat AFS are Liability Act those that are "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" (defined ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements applicable or relevantand [ARARs]). In conjunction with ARARs, to -be -considered re - appropriate requirements.:quirements (TBCs) must be identified during consideration of re- moval alternatives at CERCLA sites. TBCs are promulgated fed- TBCs eral or state advisories, guidance, or proposed rules that are not le - to -be -considered requirements Bally binding and do not have the status of a potential ARAB, but they are useful in determining the necessary level of cleanup for protection of human health and the environment where ARARs are unavailable. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-13 a ecoloev and enviromnenL inc. C 2. Site Characterization Potential action -specific ARARs and TBCs identified for the pur- poses of this EE/CA are: ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). I IA ■ Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control AAC Regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 75); Alaska Administrative Code 0 Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60); ACRA ■ Alaska Air Quality Regulations (18 AAC 50); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ■ Alaska Water Quality Criteria (18 AAC 70.020); CWA Clean Water Act ■ Alaska Abandonment and Plugging Regulations (20 AAC 25.105 through 25.172); ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). I IA Identification of Removal Action Objectives As previously described, this EE/CA addresses petroleum - contaminated soils adjacent to NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. Based on the findings of the field investigations, general RAOs have been established for the site. These RAOs are: ■ To prevent the migration of petroleum -contaminated soil to sediments and surface waters of the Colville River in order to maintain compliance with surface water ARARs; ■ To reduce the potential for human and ecological exposure to hazardous substances associated with petroleum -contaminated soil at the site by reducing contaminant concentrations and/or eliminating significant exposure routes; and ■ To treat and/or dispose of waste materials generated from the removal action using appropriate technologies to satisfy all regulatory requirements. 3.1 Rationale for Selecting Cleanup Levels A review of federal and state chemical -specific ARARs was made DRO to determine cleanup levels for the removal action. There are no diesel range organics federal chemical -specific cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocarbon RRO. contamination in soils. Alaska regulations (18 AAC 75.340) residual. range organics _ stipulate cleanup levels for hazardous substances in soil for spe- cific exposure pathways and scenarios. These numerical and risk- based cleanup levels include levels for defined ranges of petroleum compounds (e.g., gasoline range organics, diesel range organics [DRO], and residual range organics [RRO]) as well as levels for individual compounds that may be associated with petroleum products. Based on the results of the field investigations, DRO and RRO constitute the contaminants of concern at the site. Eighteen AAC 19:000977AK06.00.02.99 A803 3-1 0 s ecoloLm and enit ramrent, inc. 3. Identification of Removal Action Objectives 75.340, Table A2, specifies cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocar- bons on manmade pads and roads in the Arctic Zone. Because the soil contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 is co- incidental with the gravel pad at this location, the following cleanup objectives for surface and subsurface soils are proposed for the removal action: ■ M914200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of DRO, and , milligrams per kilogram ■ 2,000 mg/kg of RRO. Cy cubic yards 3.2 Estimated Soil Volume In order to properly evaluate removal technologies and develop appropriate alternatives for this EE/CA, the volume of soil ex- ceeding the soil cleanup objectives was estimated. Because the vertical extent of contamination was not delineated completely at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, the volume estimate is based on conservative assumptions regarding site conditions (specifically permafrost depths), which are expected to limit the vertical migra- tion of contaminants. Using the proposed removal level of 200 mg/kg for DRO and the 1997 and 1998 sampling data, the soil that requires removal is shown in Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. The volume of contaminated soil depicted in these illustrations is estimated to be approximately 14,000 cubic yards (cy) on a bank volume basis. For ex situ tech- nologies, a soil bulking factor of 20% was assumed, which results in a total of 16,800 cy of contaminated soils at the well site. Removal Action Alternative Development In this section, specific actions and technologies for addressing pe- EPA troleum-contaminated soils at NPR-4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are United States Environmental Protection identified and screened using the evaluation criteria developed by . Agency the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with consideration of the well site conditions and the RAOs identified in Section 3. The technologies and process options that are not screened out are assembled into removal action alternatives. 4.1 Identification of Removal Technologies Removal actions evaluated by this EE/CA focus on the RAOs by preventing migration of contaminated soil and debris into the Col- ville River and treating contaminated media to reduce chemical concentrations. These general response actions and technologies can be divided into the following categories: ■ Actions commonly applied to toxic-contaminated soils (e.g., institutional controls, excavation, landfill disposal, and cap- ping); ■ Established technologies commonly used to treat soils con- taminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., thermal desorp- tion and bioremediation); and ■ Emerging technologies proven effective but not commonly used for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from soils (e.g., soil washing). In situ technologies (e.g., bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and steam stripping) were omitted from the list of potential actions and technologies because of the ongoing erosion of petroleum- contaminated soils into the Colville River. Table 4-1 lists the potential removal technologies selected for ini- tial screening. Section 4.2 discusses the screening process. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 4-1 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska 1:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A 803 41.DOC-11/03199-HP4 Process .Aethod Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result dminis- Institutional Access Does not reduce contaminant Restricts land use. Requires Low capital Retain; can be ative controls restrictions concentrations, the volume of approval by site owner. Typically and O&M used in :tions contaminated soil, or the future used in conjunction with other costs. conjunction migration of contaminants into the removal actions or technologies. with other river. Does not achieve RAOs by actions or itself. technologies. ontain- Capping Impermeable Effective in preventing exposure to Relatively simple to implement if Low to Reject, ent composite contaminated surface soils and materials are readily available. moderate cap- capping cover reducing vertical migration of Restricts future land use. Long- ital and O&M material in contaminants via infiltration and term maintenance required. costs. place is leaching. Does not reduce the infeasible concentration or volume of because of contamination. Ineffective for bank erosion. wastes below the water table or for areas prone to erosion. emoval Excavation Soil A reliable and commonly used Relatively simple to implement. Low capital Retain. excavation method for removing contaminated May require dewatering or dust costs and no soils from a site. Excavated control. Excavation in wetland O&M costs. materials would require further areas may require a permit. treatment and/or disposal. AM reatment Physical/ Stabilization/ Reduces mobility of contaminants Treatability testing needed to Moderate to Reject; costly chemical solidification but does not concentrate or destroy verify effectiveness. Requires high capital to implement them. Waste volume increases. import of large volumes of and O&M and long-term Sensitive to media and contaminant reagent. Treated material requires costs. effectiveness type. Moderately effective on disposal in a secure landfill or questionable. petroleum -contaminated soil. restrictions on future land use if Would not achieve RAOs because disposed of on site. Regulatory contaminant concentrations would concerns with possible leaching of not be reduced. solidified mass. 1:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A 803 41.DOC-11/03199-HP4 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. w° and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat. Alaska Removal Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Soil washing Separates contaminants from soil Soil washing systems could be Moderate to Reject; and concentrates them into the mobilized to the Umiat site. high capital effectiveness wash water, reducing the volume of Treatability testing would be and O&M on heavy hazardous material that must be needed to verify effectiveness. costs. petroleum treated. Effectiveness depends on Requires large quantities of water. fractions soil and contaminant characteris- Process residuals require further questionable. tics. Less effective for clayey soils treatment and disposal. Discharge and for contaminants with low permit would be needed to dispose water solubilities. Might not of treated wash water. achieve RAOs with a single washing. Thermal Incineration Very effective in destroying organic United States Environmental High capital Reject; contaminants including petroleum Protection Agency -permitted and O&M transportation hydrocarbons. Provides the highest incineration facilities are available costs. of large soil level of thermal treatment possible. in Lower 48. Ash requires further volumes off treatment and disposal. Trans- site is cost- portation of large soil volumes off prohibitive. site would be prohibitive. LTTD Traditional units use a rotary -kiln A site-specific air permit would be Moderate to Retain; device to heat the soils such that required for units that burn more high capital mobile organic contaminants will be than 5 tons per hour..A trial burn costs. No systems are removed via volatilization. would be necessary. Dust control O&M costs. available in Contaminants typically are measures also would be necessary. High mobili- Alaska. destroyed in an afterburner. Soil can be treated in one field zation costs for Effective for petroleum hydrocar- season. Large volumes of water remote sites. bon removal, particularly for the and fuel would be required, which lighter fractions. Thermally treated significantly increases logistical soil may be used on site as backfill. considerations at remote sites. Process rates for mobile systems can vary from 5 tons to 20 tons per hour. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A803 T41.DOC- I 1/03M -HN Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska 1:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41MOC-11/03/99-HN Process Screening Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Hot air vapor Uses hot air to heat soils within a An air permit would not be Moderate to Retain; extraction 500-cy to 600-cy treatment pile required because these units treat high capital mobile such that organic contaminants will soils at rates of less than 5 tons per costs. No systems are be removed through volatilization. hour. Dust control measures O&M costs. available in Effective for petroleum hydrocar- would be necessary when handling Moderate Alaska. bon removal, particularly for the treated soils. Process rates are mobilization lighter fractions. Thermally treated generally slower than rotary -kiln costs for soil may be used on site as backfill. LTTD units, so it may not be remote sites. possible to treat soil in one field season. Large volumes of fuel would be required, which significantly increases logistical considerations at remote sites. Ex situ Landfarming Involves the biodegradation of Because soils must be spread out Low to Retain; biological organic contaminants in an in relatively thin layers to facilitate moderate sufficient land engineered system. Commonly treatment, landfarming has large capital and is available at used for petroleum contaminants land requirements for treatment O&M costs. Umiat for although less effective for heavier cells and soil staging areas. Poor landfarm fractions. weather conditions can severely cells. hinder treatment. Biocell Involves the biodegradation of Requires less area than land- Moderate Reject; air ate organic contaminants in an farming because soils can be capital and water engineered system. Proven managed in greater thickness. O&M costs. distribution effective for treating petroleum- Requires air and water distribution systems would contaminated soils in Alaska, systems to create an environment require although it is less effective for conducive to microbial breakdown continuous heavier fractions of petroleum. of the contaminants. Contaminant power and Long-term operation likely is breakdown likely would be limited monitoring. required to meet RAOs. to the warmer summer months. 1:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41MOC-11/03/99-HN Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. c and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umiat_ Alaska Removal Cubic yard. Process Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. Screening Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Disposal Off site Landfill Placement of contaminated soil in a Waste must meet facility disposal High capital Reject; permitted commercial facility standards. Transportation of large costs and no transportation would be an effective and reliable soil volumes off site would be O&M costs. of large soil disposal method. Toxicity or prohibitive. volumes off volume of contaminated soils site is cost - would not be reduced. Generator prohibitive. would retain long-term liability for the waste. On site Containment Engineered containment cell could Permit required for construction High capital Reject; cell be designed and constructed to hold and operation. Requires approval and moderate approval by treated or untreated soil such that by the site owner. Regulatory O&M costs. landowner human health and the environment approval likely to be difficult. unlikely. are protected. Long-term maintenance and institutional controls would be necessary. Likely subject to negative public opinion. Restricts future land use. Key: 0 cy = Cubic yard. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. Q&.M = Operation and maintenance. RAOs = Removal action objectives. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A 803 T4 I.DOC- I 1103/99-HP4 ecology and env ironaenf, inc. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4.2 Screening of Technologies Consistent with Guidance on Conducting Non -Time Critical Re- moval Actions Under CERCLA, each potential removal action was evaluated for long- and short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Removal technologies that clearly did not meet these criteria were eliminated from further consideration. ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action; ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and LTTD; ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Treatment via the HAVE System; and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming. The no -action alternative (Alternative No. 1) is included to provide a baseline to which other alternatives may be compared. Well de- commissioning would involve P&Aing NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 in accordance with current AOGCC and BLM requirements. This technology is included in Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because the integrity of the well casings likely would be compromised by soil removal activities, and P&Aing is considered necessary to pre- vent future releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Detailed descriptions of the components included in each alterna- tive are contained in the following sections. Based on the screening criteria and information provided in Table 4-1, the following actions and technologies were retained for as- LTTD sembly into removal action alternatives: institutional controls, ex - low -temperature thermal cavation, low-temperature thermal desorption (LTTD), ex situ desorption hot air vapor extraction (HAVE), and ex situ landfarming with enzymatic additives. HAVE. hot air vapor. extraction 4.3 Removal Alternatives Based on the screening analysis presented above, removal action alternatives for addressing petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 were identified for further analysis. These alternatives comprised various combinations of actions or tech- nologies that were not screened out during the process discussed in Section 4.2. The removal alternatives carried forward for analysis are: ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action; ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and LTTD; ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Treatment via the HAVE System; and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming. The no -action alternative (Alternative No. 1) is included to provide a baseline to which other alternatives may be compared. Well de- commissioning would involve P&Aing NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 in accordance with current AOGCC and BLM requirements. This technology is included in Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because the integrity of the well casings likely would be compromised by soil removal activities, and P&Aing is considered necessary to pre- vent future releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Detailed descriptions of the components included in each alterna- tive are contained in the following sections. eCo1ofry and emirmwent, inc. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 AB03 0 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4.3.1 Alternative No. 1 No Action The no -action alternative would involve no removal action and, therefore, would not include any type of engineering controls, in- stitutional controls, or environmental monitoring. The petroleum - contaminated soil and well structures at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 would remain in their current state, subject to the erosional forces of the Colville River. 4.3.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD In this alternative, the wells would be P&Aed. Soil with petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding cleanup levels would be excavated and treated on site using a permitted rotary -kiln LTTD unit. Because a large portion of the gravel pad surrounding NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 requires excavation, there is insufficient room at the well site to set up and operate an LTTD unit. Consequently, it was as- sumed that LTTD operations would occur at the Main Gravel Pad at Umiat. Because of the amount of equipment needed to P&A the wells and remove the impacted soils from the well site, the decommissioning and excavation phases of the project would be conducted during winter, when overland mobilization to the site is possible. As a result, this alternative would be implemented in three phases: The soil stockpile pad would be constructed at the Main Gravel Pad during the summer before the soil excavation. Materials and equipment to construct the pad would be flown to the site. Implementation for this phase is estimated to take approxi- mately three weeks, including mobilization and demobilization. 2. Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobi- lized over land to the site during mid -winter, once conditions permit travel on the selected access route. An advance group would be deployed to complete an ice road. Implementation for the excavation and well abandonment phase is estimated to take approximately eight weeks, including mobilization and demobilization. This would allow for one week for mobiliza- tion, three weeks for well decommissioning, three weeks for soil excavation, and one week for demobilization. 3. The LTTD unit would be mobilized to the Umiat site in late- spring/early summer via air cargo. Assuming that soils would be processed at an average rate of 10 tons per hour, for 20 hours per day (to allow time for equipment failure and routine 4-7 : ecoloa and en%wmment, ittc 4. Removal Action Alternative Development maintenance), implementation for the soil treatment phase is estimated to take approximately 160 days, including mobiliza- tion and demobilization. Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobilized from the Kuparuk Oil Field (see Figure 2-1) to Umiat using rolli- gons and designated winter overland travel routes. The exact route would be determined during the design phase. Permits and/or ac- cess agreements would be required before mobilization. A route from Kuparik was chosen because it has a north -south orientation. An east -west route is not recommended because it would cross many drainages instead of traveling along the drainages. Well P&A activities would occur before soil excavation opera- tions. This would be accomplished by removing the drilling mud and diesel fluids from the well casings, then filling the boreholes with concrete according to AOGCC and BLM policies. The top portion of the well casing also would be removed so that at the completion of well decommissioning activities, the top of the cas- ing would be approximately 20 feet below the pre -excavation grade of the gravel pad. This is necessary to prevent the casing from be- coming a hazard once the river inundates the wellheads. The fluids removed from the wells would be containerized and shipped off site (by rolligon) for recycling or disposal at a facility on the North Slope. British Petroleum's (BP's) disposal unit lo - BP's cated at the Kuparik Oil Field would be the most logical disposal British Petroleum's site. An exemption from disposal restrictions at the BP facility would be required. Ample time should be allotted for this task during the design. Excavated soil would be transported by truck to a designated treatment area on the Main Gravel Pad and stockpiled on a lined and bermed pad. At the completion of excavation activities, the soil in the stockpile pad would be covered with an impermeable liner to minimize infiltration of precipitation for the remainder of the winter. The stockpile pad would be built the previous summer using three layers of geosynthetic materials (two geotextile layers with an im- permeable geomembrane layer in between). A 6 -inch layer of soil would be placed over the top geotextile layer to serve as a running surface during the winter soil stockpile activities. The soil used for this layer could include the petroleum -contaminated soils resulting from separate removal actions at Units A and B of the former Umiat AFS. Additional borrow material, however, would be nec- A 0 s ec0lopv and emirmunent urc. 0 4. Removal Action Alternative Development essary. Figure 4-1 shows the proposed haul route between the well site and the Main Gravel Pad. Most of the route follows existing road structures. A portion of the route (between NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 and the existing road) would require overland tundra travel because the river has washed out the old road structure. An ice road would be created in this section to support the dump trucks and to mini- mize damage to the tundra. Assuming a width of 30 feet and a thickness of 6 inches, it is estimated that 360,000 gallons of water would be needed to create the ice road. Water would be obtained from the Colville River. Confirmation samples would be collected from the base and side- walls of the excavation during excavation activities to confirm that cleanup levels are met. Most of the samples could be analyzed on site using quantitative field test kits that detect petroleum hydro- carbons. Split samples would be collected at a frequency of 10% and shipped to an off-site laboratory for DRO and RRO analyses. The excavation would not be backfilled following completion of excavation activities. The backfill could not be compacted ade- quately to prevent erosion into the Colville River, and therefore would only add to sedimentation of the river. The excavation sidewalls, however, would be sloped to minimize localized slumping. Thermal treatment of the contaminated soils would be conducted during the summer following excavation activities. The LTTD unit would be equipped with an afterburner to destroy the petroleum hydrocarbons in the off -gases. The LTTD unit also would be equipped with air pollution control devices (e.g., wet scrubbers or baghouses) to maintain emission rates within permitted levels. Wet scrubbers would require a continuous water supply during treatment operations. Treated soil would be quenched with water to recondition it and minimize dust formation during subsequent handling activities. A temporary water distribution system would be needed to supply water to the treatment area. Water would have to be obtained from the Colville River in order to meet the esti- mated flow requirements of 10 gallons to 15 gallons per minute (14,400 gallons to 21,600 gallons per day). Confirmation samples would be collected from treated soil at regular intervals to ensure that the treatment levels are met. In or- der to minimize future restrictions on the use of treated materials, the soil would be treated to Category A levels (less than 100 mg/kg 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_AB03 4-9 A t•« ecobgv and emiminen4 inc. 0 4. Removal Action Alternative Development of DRO and 2,000 mg/kg of RRO). At these levels, the soil could be used as fill material for road and/or pad maintenance or im- provement projects, provided that it is not placed in direct contact with surface waters. Treated soil would be stockpiled in a desig- nated area to serve as future borrow material at Umiat. Once soil treatment operations are complete, the stockpile pad would be de- molished and the geosynthetic materials used to construct the pad would be transported off site for disposal in a landfill. 4.3.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On-site Thermal Treatment by HAVE This alternative has the same components as Alternative No. 2, ex- cept that the excavated soils would be treated on site using the HAVE process. The HAVE system would treat individual soil piles in a batch process. Each treatment pile would have a volume of 500 cy to 600 cy. The piles would be constructed on a liner to prevent cross -contamination of clean areas, and in layers with a pipe distribution system embedded in the soil so that air could be circulated through the piles. The piles then would be enclosed within a metal Quonset hut. Hot air (approximately 1,000° Fahr- enheit) would be circulated through the pipes to heat the soils and to facilitate removal of volatile organic contaminants from the soils. The off -gases from the HAVE system would be vented di- rectly to the atmosphere. Air pollution control devices and air permitting would not be required because the units would process soils at less than 5 tons per hour. Treatment times for individual piles typically range from seven days to 10 days, depending on the contaminant. Heavier petroleum fractions typically would require longer treatment times because of reduced volatility. Confirmation samples would be collected from the treated soil piles to verify that treatment levels are obtained. Once treatment levels are confirmed, the Quonset but and pipe distribution system would be removed. The treated soil piles would be sprayed with water to recondition the soil and to control dust during subsequent soil handling operations. An estimated 5,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons of water would be needed to recondition each treatment pile. Treated soil then would be moved to a designated area to serve as future borrow material at Umiat. To reduce downtime, treatment activities would be conducted such that while one pile is being treated, another pile would be under construction. There is sufficient room on the east side of the Main Gravel Pad for the soil stockpile pad and for construction of sev- eral soil treatment piles. For cost estimating purposes, it was as- 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 4-11 ,F.. 9 .a ecoloF_v and environment. inc 4. Removal Action Alternative Development sumed that two HAVE systems would be mobilized to the site in late spring or early summer via air cargo so that soils could be treated in one field season. Treatment activities would occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Alternative No. 3 would be implemented in the same sequence as Alternative No. 2. Implementation times for the soil stockpile pad, well decommissioning, and excavation phases would be the same as those described in Section 4.3.2. Assuming that 1,100 cy of soil could be treated every 12 days, the implementation time for the soil treatment phase is estimated to be 210 days, including mobilization and demobilization. The HAVE system can operate in cold weather. 4.3.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming This alternative has the same components as Alternative No. 2, ex- cept that the excavated soils would be treated on site by land - farming. This alternative would be implemented as follows: ■ The landfarm cells would be constructed during the summer before the soil excavation. Materials and equipment to con- struct the cells would be flown to the site. Implementation for this phase is estimated to be approximately eight weeks, in- cluding mobilization and demobilization; ■ Excavation and well abandonment equipment would be mobi- lized to the site during mid -winter, as described in Alternative No. 2. Implementation for the excavation and well abandon- ment phase is estimated to be approximately eight weeks, in- cluding mobilization and demobilization; and ■ Landfarming equipment would be mobilized to the site over land near the end of the soil excavation activities and stored in Umiat. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that land - farming operations would occur four months each for two years. During these months, maintenance tilling would be per- formed weekly and watering would be performed no less than once every two weeks. Under this alternative, contaminated soil would be excavated and hauled to several preconstructed landfarm cells for treatment. The landfarm cells would be bermed and lined with a durable geomem- brane to contain the soil and prevent infiltration of contaminated leachate (generated from the percolation of precipitation through F ecoloa and emironmcnt, urc. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development the soils) into underlying layers. A 6 -inch layer of soil would be placed in the cells to serve as a protective cushion during the sub- sequent winter earthwork activities. The soil used for this layer -- could include the petroleum -contaminated soils resulting from separate removal actions at Units A and B of the former Umiat AFS. Contaminated soil would be placed in the cells at a maximum thickness of 28 inches. Using the estimated volume of 16,800 cy, approximately 194,400 square feet (or 4.5 acres) of lined and ber- med area would be needed to treat the soils. Potential sites for landfarming cells are shown in Figure 4-2. At the completion of excavation activities, the soil in the landfarm cells would be cov- ered with an impermeable liner to minimize infiltration of precipi- tation into the cells for the remainder of the winter. The soil piles would be uncovered during the summer following the excavation, once ambient temperatures have allowed the soil to thaw. The soil would be tilled thoroughly to break up any remain- ing frozen areas and to homogenize the soil. Baseline samples would be -collected to assess initial contaminant concentrations. The soil then would be treated with enzymes and nutrients to fur- ther enhance biodegradation. The enzyme and nutrient application is a proprietary formulation from a vendor in the Northwest. The vendor has successfully used this product in landfarming opera- tions at other Arctic sites with similar contaminants. Other ven- dors may be investigated during the design phase. Once the soils are inoculated, maintenance tilling (for aeration) and watering would take place on a predetermined basis throughout the summer. Routine sampling would be conducted monthly to monitor contaminant degradation rates and to determine when cleanup levels are met. Because of the harsh winter conditions and short summer season at Umiat, and heavy fractions of petroleum contaminants present in soils from the well site, it is assumed that landfarming operations would be needed for two summer seasons in order to meet Category A cleanup levels. At the end of the first season, the soil cells would be covered to minimize intrusion of precipitation during winter. Treatment operations would resume the following summer. Once sampling shows that the soil is treated successfully, the soil would be removed from the cells and stockpiled in a designated area for future use as borrow material. The landfarm cells then would be decommissioned. Geosynthetic materials used to con- struct the cells would be transported off site for disposal in a land- 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 4-13 Pi ecakep_y and environsuent, inc. I* 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98�A803 4-15 � I-- -- — 0 C Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives Previous sections of this document provide the rationale, the proc- ess details, and an initial screening of various potential removal alternatives. In this section, the removal alternatives that were not screened out are discussed and compared. 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives Each alternative is evaluated for its overall effectiveness in achieving RAOs, its implementability under the site-specific con- ditions at Umiat, and total costs based on detailed cost estimates. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarize cost estimates for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Supporting information for the al- ternative cost estimates is in Appendix A. Because of the com- plexity of site logistics, Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the implementability of all alternatives except the no -action alterna- tive. This table points to the difficult and costly nature of fuel and water requirements for the soil treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3. 5.1.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action For this alternative, the petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 would remain as they are. Effectiveness. This alternative would not meet the RAOs identi- fied in Section 3. Erosion of contaminated soil by the Colville River would continue unchecked, violating state regulatory re- quirements for protection of surface water resources. Continued erosion of the riverbank eventually could compromise the integrity of the well casings, potentially causing releases of crude oil or contaminated drilling muds into the river. This alternative would not be protective of human health or the environment. Implementability. This alternative would be implemented easily because no work would be involved. Cost. No cost would be associated with this alternative. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 5-1 R_UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 Construction Oversight (tib) $166,860 Total Indirect Capitol Cosa (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1,335.150 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $109200,000 Notes: a The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. 2 Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. Cost provided is a conservative estimate; actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the unit at the time of the project. 5-2 19'000977.AK06.00.02.95_A603 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4,99 Table 5-1 Overhead and Profit (25%) $1,668,640 Tota/ Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $8,343,000 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE No. 2 Indirect Capital Costs LTTD Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) $57.020 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT Engineering and Design (2%) $166.860 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.590) $125,150 NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA _ Capital Costs Reference Item Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Factor r Cost = DC15 Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $87.242 1.35 3117.780 DC 16 Stockpile Pad Construction 1 lump sum $179,160 1.35 $241,870 Contractor Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $1,360,000 1 $1,360,000 — Contractor Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 2 each $670,000 I $1,340.000 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $266,552 1 $266.550 DC04 Excavation. Hauling and Stockpiling of Im • cted Soil I lump sum $315.969 1.35 $426.560 DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,640 E & E Trial Burn 1 lump sum $50,000 1 $50,000 DC11 LTTD Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiat' 1 lump sum $120.852 1 $120.850 DC 12 LTTD (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) Treatment 18,200 cubic yard $150 1 $2,730,000 DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I sample/200 CY) 100 sample $69 1 1.35 $9,320 Construction Oversight (tib) $166,860 Total Indirect Capitol Cosa (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1,335.150 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $109200,000 Notes: a The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. 2 Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. Cost provided is a conservative estimate; actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the unit at the time of the project. 5-2 19'000977.AK06.00.02.95_A603 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4,99 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $6,674,570 Overhead and Profit (25%) $1,668,640 Tota/ Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $8,343,000 Indirect Capital Costs LTTD Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) $57.020 Engineering and Design (2%) $166.860 Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.590) $41.720 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.590) $125,150 Construction Oversight (tib) $166,860 Total Indirect Capitol Cosa (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1,335.150 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $109200,000 Notes: a The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. 2 Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. Cost provided is a conservative estimate; actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the unit at the time of the project. 5-2 19'000977.AK06.00.02.95_A603 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4,99 0 a7�1 V V,V V V Notes: u The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Z Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided is a conservative estimate, actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the units at the time of the project. The unit cost includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis. 5-3 19:000977.AK06.00.02.88 A803 Table 3-2 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.3 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT. ALASKA Capital Costs Reference DC15 Item Description Quantity Unit I Stock ile Pad Cost/Unit Factor'l Cost a DC16 Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I I lum sum Stockpile Pad Construction $87,242 1.35 $] 17,780 Contractor I lum sum Well Abandonment ui ment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lura $179,160 1.35 $241,870 Contractor sum Plu and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 $1,360,000 1 $1.360000 DC03 2 each Earthwork ui ment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lum $670,000 I $1,330,000 DC04 sum Excavation, Haulin and Stock ilio of Impacted Soil I $266,552 1 $266,550 DC05 lum sum Excavation com liance soil sample collection and analysis $315,969 1.35 $426.560 DC13 125 sam le HAVE ui ment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiat � $69 I.35 $11,640 DC14 2 each HAVE (Hot Air Vapor Extraction) Treatment ° $75,176 1 $150,350 18.200 cubic yard Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $112 1 $� 038.400 Overhead and Profit (25%) $5,953.150 T Direct Capital Carts (Rounded to Nearest $1,0001 $1,488 290otal Indirect Capital Costs $7441 000 HAVE Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) Engineering and Design (2%) $43.780 Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) $148,820 Contractor Reporting Re uirements (1.5%) $37,210 Construction Oversight (2%) $111,620 To Indirert Capital Cost' (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) S148.820 Subtotal Ca ital Costs 5490.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $7,931,000 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) 51.189.650 a7�1 V V,V V V Notes: u The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Z Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided is a conservative estimate, actual mobilization/demobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the units at the time of the project. The unit cost includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis. 5-3 19:000977.AK06.00.02.88 A803 0 0 Table 5-3 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.4 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE BIOREMEDIATION BY LANDFARMING ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Reference DC06 DC07 Contractor Capital Costs Item Description Landfarm Cell Construction Equipment Mobilization/ Construction of Landfarm Cell Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobil Contractor DC03 DC04 DC05 Contractor DC09 DC05 Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization Excavation, Hauling and Stock -piling of Impacted Soil Excavation compliance soil sample collection and anal Landfarm treatrnent3 Landfarm Cell Decommissioning Compliance soil sample collection and analysis 0 Sam $1,360.000 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs Overhead and Profit (25%) Total Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1,06 rect Capital Costs farm Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) r neerine and Desi n (2%) l Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) Total Indirect Capital Costs (rounded to nearest $1 Subtotal Capital Costs Contingency Allowance (15%) Total Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $I00 Quantity lization 1 I Unit lump sum cost/unit $114,242 Factor' 1.35 Cost` $154,230 1 lump sum $432,490 1.35 $583.86C I lump sum $1,360.000 1 $1.360,000 2 each $670,000 1 $1,340.000 1 lump sum $266,552 1 $266,550 I lump sum $315,969 1.35 $426,560 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,640 16.800 cubic yard $73 1 $1.228,250 1 lump sum $201,634 1.35 $272,210 CY) 1 84 1 sample $69 1.35 $7,820 $5.651,120 $1.412,780 $7,064,000 $35,320 $105,960 $141,280 $448.000 $7,512,000 $1.126,800 $8,G00,000 Notes: I The factors represent adjustments for materials and installation by specific city location. the USAED. Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided for 2 years of landfarm treatment. 5-4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_AB03 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATE.XLS • 11/4/99 Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well _ Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat. Alaska 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A 803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03/99-HP4 Alternative No. 4 Evaluation Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 3 Ex Situ Bioremediation On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD On-SiteCriteria Estimated 160 days 210 days (if two units used 2 years treatment simultaneously) duration Logistical The most difficult alternative to Somewhat easier to implement than Much easier to implement than considerations implement for the following reasons: Alternative No. 2 for the following Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 for the following • Requires significant logistical reasons: reasons: planning to supply fuel to the LTTD • HAVE system equipment is easier to • Does not rely on sophisticated equipment—estimated daily mobilize to remote sites; equipment to treat the soils; consumption rate is 4,000 gallons to 5,000 gallons; . A batch water system (e.g., water • Does not require highly trained labor truck) may be sufficient because water during treatment operations; • Requires installation of a water distribution system to meet water is needed only for reconditioning treated soil piles—the quantity of . Does not require large volumes of fuel demands for quenching and/or water needed per pile is estimated to to be mobilized to the site; pollution control—daily water needs be 6,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons; • Does not require the installation of a are estimated to be between 14,400 •Uses less -sophisticated equipment water distribution system—watering gallons to 21600 gallons depending than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so delays can be accomplished with a truck; and on the type of air pollution control; caused by equipment failure are less • Does not require an air permit. • Uses sophisticated equipment, so likely; treatment operations are more susceptible to delays caused by • Fuel consumption rate is less than that equipment failure; and for a rotary -kiln LTTD unit— estimated consumption rate is 1,600 • Requires an air permit if processing gallons to 2,400 gallons per day for rates are greater than 5 tons per hour. two treatment units; and • Does not require an air permit. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A 803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03/99-HP4 Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR-4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska Alternative No. 4 Evaluation Alternative No. 2 Alternative No. 3 Ex Situ Bioremediation by Criteria • On-Site Other Reliability of the method in meeting Reliability of the method in meeting Reliability of the method in meeting considerations I treatment levels is high. I treatment levels is moderate. Heavier treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions could increase petroleum fractions more difficult to treatment times significantly. degrade, and method is susceptible to site weather conditions. Key: HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.96 A803 T54.DOC-11/03199-HPA 0 U • • ecoloa and en vro nlent, iurc. 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 5.1.2 Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by LTTD The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.2. Effectiveness. Removal of contaminated soils from the well site would meet the RAO of preventing migration of contaminated soil into the Colville River. Proper plugging of the two well casings would prevent future releases of hazardous substances to the envi- ronment. Thermal treatment of contaminated soils would comply with ARARs and provide for the protection of human health and the environment. LTTD is a proven technology for treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils. It offers a long-term, permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants would be re- moved from the soil and destroyed. Short-term effects associated with LTTD include off -gas emissions and dust generation. Implementability. Soil excavation and well abandonment could be implemented at the site. Much of the equipment and materials needed for these tasks is available on the North Slope and could be mobilized to the site via overland access routes. However, special permits and/or access agreements would be needed to provide a suitable route to the site. Mobile LTTD equipment is available in Alaska. Smaller units (e.g., 5 tons to 15 tons per hour) would be needed if the equipment were transported to the site by air cargo planes. Trained operators would be needed throughout the project to mobilize, operate, and demobilize the LTTD unit. A critical issue in the viability of this method is the ability to supply fuel to the LTTD unit. A water dis- tribution system from the Colville River may be needed to supply sufficient water to the treatment area. A site-specific air permit would be required for units that process more than 5 tons per hour. Because contaminants other than pe- troleum hydrocarbons have been detected at the site, a trial burn likely would be needed to obtain the permit. Extensive health and safety monitoring may be required during the soil treatment phase. Cost. The total cost associated with Alternative No. 2 is $10.2 O&M million. No long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) or operation and present worth cost was determined because it is anticipated that maintenance this alternative could be completed within one construction season. Table 5-1 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate for this alter- native. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 5- nJ eC.1ory and environment, inc. 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 5.1.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.3. Effectiveness. Removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plugging of the well casings are consistent with the RAOs for the site. Thermal treatment of contaminated soils would comply with ARARs and provide for the protection of human health and the environment. The HAVE system is a proven tech- nology for treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils. HAVE of- fers a long-term, permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants would be removed from the soil, reducing the risks associated with the excavated soil. Short-term effects associated with HAVE would include off -gas emissions and dust generation. Implementability. The implementability of the excavation and well abandonment phases is the same as that for Alternative No. 2. Mobile HAVE equipment is available in Alaska and is transported easily by air cargo planes. Two units would be needed to treat the soils within. one extended field season (seven months). Significant logistical planning would be needed to keep sufficient fuel supplies on site throughout the project. Because the HAVE process would require water to recondition the soil only at the end of the treatment process, a water distribution system may not be needed. A water truck may be sufficient. Cost. The total cost associated with Alternative No. 3 is $9.1 mil- lion. No O&M costs are presented and no present worth cost was determined because it is anticipated that this alternative could be completed within one season. Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate for Alternative No. 3. 5.1.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.4. Effectiveness. Consistent with Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 above, the removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plug- ging of the NPR -4 well casings would meet site RAOs. Biodegra- dation of the contaminants in the excavated soil by landfarming would be protective of human health and the environment provided that cleanup objectives are met. Landfarming offers a long-term, Is$ ecology and environment, inc. 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants could be degraded. Short-term effects associated with this alternative would include worker exposure to petroleum -contaminated soils. Implementability. The implementability of the excavation and well abandonment phases is the same as that for Alternative No. 2. Construction of the landfarm cell would not require specialized equipment or highly trained labor. Administratively, no special permits would be required. All materials could be obtained easily in Alaska, and they could be mobilized to the site by air cargo planes. This alternative would have minimal infrastructure re- quirements and would be well-suited for a remote site. Although it is innovative, the proprietary process chosen for this evaluation has been shown to be effective in Arctic environments. Cost. Although this process is expected to be carried out over a two-year period, costs were assumed to be allocated as a one-time capital cost. No long-term O&M costs have been assigned, nor has a present worth analysis been performed. The total capital cost as- sociated with this alternative is $8.6 million. Table 5-3 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate. 5.2 Comparison of Removal Action Alternatives In this section, the four alternatives analyzed individually in Sec- tion 5.1 are compared to each other using the following four crite- ria: protection of human health and the environment, effective- ness, implementability, and cost. The comparative analysis of the alternatives is presented in Table 5-5. The information in this table will be used to support the selection of an appropriate alternative for addressing petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 5-9 Table 5-5 Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat. Alaska Imple- mentability Is the easiest alternative to im- plement because no work is required. The most difficult alternative to implement (see additional discussion in Table 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Somewhat easier to implement than Alternative No. 2 (see Ta- ble 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Slower processing rates mean treatment opera- tions would need to extend into the winter. Much easier to implement than Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 (see Table 5-4). More susceptible to delays caused by poor . weather conditions. Total cost $0.0 $10.2 million $9.1 million $8.6 million Key: ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. RAOs = Removal action objectives. i 19:000977. A K06.00,02 18-A 803 T55.DOC- 11/03/99-nP4 Conclusions and 6 Recommended Removal Action In this section, the recommended removal action alternative for petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 is identified. To determine the most feasible removal action for the well site, the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost were considered using the results of the individual and comparative analyses presented in Section 5. Alternative No. 1, which specifies no action, was eliminated be- cause it would not prevent future releases of hazardous substances to the Colville River. Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are considered equivalent in their protection of the Colville River because each includes provisions for P&Aing the two wells and removing the contaminated soils from the eroding riverbank. Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 differ in the method used to treat the contaminated materi- als that have been removed from the well site. The thermal treatment methods included in Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 may be considered more reliable for meeting the Category A cleanup levels within a specified time frame, but logistically they would be the most difficult treatment methods to implement at Umiat. Both thermal treatment units would require additional in- fastructure, including large quantities of fuel and water. Because no fuel source is readily available on site, all fuel would need to be imported. The availability of an adequate number of fuel flights for a steady supply is a concern. Weather conditions, airstrip maintenance, and the increased chance for fuel spills during fuel transport and transfer operations are legitimate considerations. Both thermal treatment alternatives would require large quantities of water for soil quenching and dust control. Additional water may be required if the rotary -kiln LTTD unit is equipped with a wet scrubber. In order to meet the water needs of these two treatment methods, a water distribution system would have to be constructed from the Colville River to the Main Gravel Pad. ac."Tice• eE ; 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 6-1 ecology and emvonmmnf, inc. 6. Conclusions and Recommended Removal Action Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming, was selected as the preferred removal alter- native to address petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. The primary factors contributing to the selection of this alternative are: ■ Significantly reduced equipment requirements, ■ Minimal power, fuel, and water requirements, and ■ Lower cost of implementation. 4.1) References 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 60, Solid Waste Manage- ment Regulations. 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control Regulations. 18 AAC 70, Water Quality Standards. 18 AAC 75, Articles 3 and 9, Oil and Hazardous Pollution Control Regulations. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 1999, Draft Guidance on Developing Soil Cleanup Levels Under Methods Two and Three. , 1998, Guidance on Cleanup Standards Equations and Input Parameters. Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, Abandonment and Plugging Regulations, 20 AAC 25, Article 2. Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1999, Final 1998 Field Investiga- tion Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1998a, Final Phase III Remedial Investigation Re- port, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, An- chorage, Alaska. , 1998b, Technical Memorandum, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Former Umiat AFS, Anchor- age, Alaska. , 1998c, 1998 Final Field Investigation Work Plan, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 7-1 .= ecology and emi ronment, hic. 7. References , 1997a, Risk Assessment Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997b, Remedial Investigation Report for the Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997c, Phase III Remedial Investigation Work Plans, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. , 1997d, Request for Proposal, Indefinite Delivery Type (IDT), Remedial Action (RA), Anchorage, Alaska. , 1997e, Technical Memorandum, Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Former Umiat Air Force Station, Anchorage, Alaska. , 1995, Umiat Remedial Investigation Project Report, Former Umiat Air Force Station, Umiat, Alaska, Anchor- age, Alaska. LCMF, Inc., 1996, Property plans for the former Umiat Air Force Station, prepared for Ecology and Environment, Inc. Parkhurst, D.F., 1998, Arithmetic Versus Geometric Means for En- vironmental Concentration Data, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 32, Issue 3, pp. 92A -98A. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998, Re- gion 9, Preliminary Remediation Goals. , 1993, Guidance on Conducting Non -Time -Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA. , 1988, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investiga- tion and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Washington, D.C. (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01). 0 0 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98-AB03 A-1 DERIVED COST DC03 DERIVED COST DC04 DERIVED COST DC05 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Dehved Costs • EARTHWORK EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATIOWDEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor rolligon transport - mobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80,000 Contractor ice road construction 0.6 miles $45,000 $27,000 E&E aircraft support 2 each $8,500 $17,000 016 408 0340 (BCCD) Excavator, crawler mounted, 3.5 CY bucket 2 weeks $7,600.00 $15,200 E&E Hauling, 3-30 CY dump trucks 6 weeks $5,500.00 $33,000 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Dozer, 200 HP 2 weeks $3,000.00 $6,000 Crew 87 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 Contractor rolligon transport - demobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80,000 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4laborers 30 days DC03 $266,552 Assumptions: Covers additional equipment not mobilized to the site by the well decommissioning contractor All costs include labor and materials EXCAVATION, TRANSPORTATION & STOCKPILING OF IMPACTED SOIL reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard 016 408 0340 (BCCD) Excavator, crawler mounted, 3.5 CY bucket 4 weeks $7,600.00 $30,400 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Excavator operator 30 days $357.20 $10,716 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Oiler 30 days $292.80 $8,784 E&E Hauling, 3-30 CY dump trucks 12 weeks $5,500.00 $66,000 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator 90 days $270.80 $24,372 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Dozer, 200 HP 4 weeks $3,000.00 $12,000 Crew B -10B (BCCD) Dozer Operator 30 days $345.60 $10,368 016 420 3600 Light towers, 4000W (4) 16 weeks $410.00 $6,560 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4laborers 30 days $1,375.20 $41,256 Crew B-35 (BCCD) Mechanic (skilled labor) 30 days $354.00 $10,620 E&E Camp, 12 crew 0 30 days 360 man -days $220.00 $79,200 016 420 7200 (BCCD) Crew truck, 4 -WD 4 weeks $245.00 $980 015 904 0550 (BCCD) Building (warm-up shack) 1 month $273.00 $273 016 420 2600 (BCCD) Generator, diesel engine (3) 12 weeks $370.00 $4,440 016 420 7290 (BCCD) Miscellaneous, rope, soap and dope 1 lump sum $10,000.00 $10,000 DC04 $315,969 EXCAVATION COMPLIANCE SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS - EXCAVATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/sample E & E geologist 0.3 hr $25.00 $8 E & E field technician 0.3 hr $20.00 $7 33 02 0401 (ECHOS) disposable materials per sample 1.0 sample $6.74 $7 33 02 2023 (ECHOS) 4 -ounce sample jar 1.0 each $2.66 $3 E & E sample shipment from Deadhorse to Anchorage 0.025 cooler $60.00 $2 E & E petroleum hydrocarbon immunoassay field test 1.0 ea $30.00 $30 Contractor diesel range organics analysis 0.1 ea $60.00 $6 Contractor residual range organics analysis 0.1 ea $60.00 $6 DC05 $69 Assumptions: 10096 of the samples analyzed in the field by immunoassay; splits analyzed by offsite lab at a 10% frequency Assume 1 cooler is shipped off-site per week of excavation A-3 DERIVED COST DC06 DERIVED COST DC07 DERIVED COST DC09 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs LANDFARM CELL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost E &E Air transport 9 each $8,500 $76,500 E &E Trucking 1 each $20,000 $20,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 $1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 $4,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days S365.00 $2,190 Liner Construction Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment S114,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. 60 mil geotextile, nonwoven 440,000 square ft $0.16 Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 220,000 square ft $1.28 Allow 3 flights to mobilize geosynthetic materials Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/sand) CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFARM CELL(S) reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Berm Construction each $8,500 $51,000 Remove and stockpile soil near cell 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator 14 days $270.80 $3,791 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Liner Construction Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment 33 08 0531 (ECHOS) 60 mil geotextile, nonwoven 440,000 square ft $0.16 $68,913 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 220,000 square ft $1.28 $281,261 Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/sand) 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 2 weeks $750.00 $1,500 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 10 days $345.60 $3,456 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 4 weeks $1,125.00 $4,500 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 20 days $270.80 $5,416 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 2 weeks $1,100.00 $2,200 Crew B -10B (BCCD) Dozer Operator 10 days $345.60 $3,456 Cover 33 08 0590 (ECHOS) Waste pile cover, 135 Ib tear, 2-2.5 year life 24.400 square yard $2.01 $49.058 DC07 $432,490 Assumptions: For a 16,800 CY volume, 4.5 acres of treatment cell area are needed for a 28 -inch thick soil layer Allow for 4 cells, each with an interior dimension of 100' x 500' For liner area, allow for an additional 100 of total area for seaming and covering berm. LANDFARM CELL DECOMMISSIONING reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/event E & E Mobilization/demobilization 6 each $8,500 $51,000 Remove and stockpile soil near cell 022 238 0200 (BCCD) Excavation, backhoe 20430 cubic yard $1.62 $33,097 022 266 0310 (BCCD) 12 CY dump truck, 1/4 mile round trip 20430 cubic yard $2.15 $43,925 022 2041300 (BCCD) Transport & spread, bulk dozer, 300' haul 20430 cubic yard $0.96 $19,613 Liner disposal E&E Dispose of geosynthetics at offsite landfill 60 tons $900 $54,000 DC09 $201,634 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow $50 per ton for disposal, $850 per ton for transport to Fairbanks area landfill Soil volume includes 6 -inch protective layer A-4 DERIVED COST DC11 DERIVED COST DC12 DERIVED COST DC13 DERIVED COST DC14 DERIVED COST DC15 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor Trucking 2 each $35,000 $70,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 S8,352 Contractor Air cargo plane 5 each $8,500 542,500 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days DC11 $120,852.00 Assumptions: Unit is transported via trucks to Deadhorse, then flown in to Umiat LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard Contractor LTTD treatment of soil 1 cubic yard $150.00 S150 DC12 $150.00 Assumptions: Unit cost covers labor (4 crew), equipment, per diem, crew transfers, fuel (flown in from Fairbanks) Unit cost does not include cost of confirmation sampling and analysis Unit cost includes an allowance of $75,000 for a temporary water distribution system. HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/unit Contractor Trucking (mobilization/demobilization) 2 each $10,000 520,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 5 days $835 $4,176 Contractor Air cargo plane 6 each $8,500 S51,000 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days DC13 S75,176.00 Assumptions: Unit is transported via trucks to Deadhorse, then flown in to Umiat Allow 3 flights for mobilization and 3 flights for demobilization HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard Contractor HAVE treatment of soil 1 cubic yard $111.92 $112 DC14 S112.00 Assumptions: Unit cost covers labor, equipment, per diem, crew transfers, fuel (flown in from Fairbanks), and includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis Unit cost includes an allowance of $5,000/month for 7 months for a water truck. STOCKPILE PAD EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Contractor Air transport, round trip 7 each $8,500 559,500 Contractor Trucking 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 S8,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 Of capacity) 6 days $200.00 S1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 $4,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days $365.00 S2,190 DC15 S87,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow 1 flight to mobilize geosynthetic materials Costs based on national averages A-5 DERIVED COST DC16 Uiat Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs STOCKPILE PAD CONSTRUCTION reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Berm Construction 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 14 days $270.80 $3,791 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Crew B -10B (BCCD) Dozer Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Geosynthetics 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 90,000 square ft $1.28 $115,061 E&E 12 -ounce nonwoven geotextile (2 layers) 180,000 square It $0.15 $27,536 33 08 0584 (ECHOS) Plastic laminate waste pile cover 100,000 square ft $0.15 $15,298 Protective soil layer (6 -inch gravei/sand) 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 1 weeks $750.00 $750 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 5 days $345.60 $1,728 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 10 days $270.80 $2,708 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 1 weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 5 days $345.60 _ $1,728 DC16 $179,160 Assumptions: Stockpile dimensions are 275'x 275' (interior); allow 300'x 300' for geosynthetics (for seaming and bene coverage) Geomembrane liner is cushioned between to geotextile layers; 6 inch gravel layer placed over cell bottom for additional protection in the winter. A-6 0 • Umiat NPR4 Well Nos. 2 and 5 EE/CA Basis for Cost Estimate The following assumptions and data are used as a basis for the cost estimates for various alternatives for the Umiat site project. 1 Costs are estimated at current 1999 levels. 2 Environmental Cost and Handling Options and Solutions (ECHOS 1996) estimating data are used for some of the estimate line items; ECHOS reference numbers are provided for those items. ECHOS costs include labor, equipment and materials except for sample supplies. The 1996 costs were adjusted to 1999 assuming a 3% increase per year. 3 R.S. Means, Building Construction Cost Data (BCCD), vendor quotes and a contact report were used for some of the estimate line items. The R.S. Means numbers are provided for those items and include labor, equipment and materials. 4 The assumptions and calculations for derived cost items are shown on the respective work sheets for those items. 5 Line item costs as presented in the summary sheets are for direct costs only. Overhead and profit is added as a separate line item at the bottom of these sheets. 6 The capital cost estimates assume that a contractor would have complete access to the sites for the entire duration of the removal action. Ecology and Environment. Inc. 11/1J99 A-7 FPLY TO .TTENTION OF: Programs and Project Formerly Used Defense DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.O. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 December 8, 1999 Management Division Sites Ms. Tamar J. Stephens Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention & Response 610 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99501-3643 Dear Ms. Stephens: Enclosed for your information and comment is the draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Test Wells Number 2 and 5 at the former Umiat Air Force Station. Ecology and Environment, Incorporated, prepared the report for the Alaska District. You are invited to attend a review conference for the draft document at 10:30 a.m. on January 11, 2000. The conference will be held in Room 202 at the Alaska District Offices at 2204 Third Street on Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska, if you wish to attend. Comments sent by facsimile, (907) 753-5626, are acceptable, but should also be mailed for the official file. The mailing address is. James R. Baker USAGE, Alaska District CEPOA-PM-P (Baker) Post Office Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-089 Please contact me at (907) 753-5665 if you have any questions. Sincerely, QVN-�� IR James R. Baker Project Manager Enclosures Copies Furnished: Ms. Arlene Thomas, Restoration Advisory Board, North Slope Borough Planning Department, Post Office Box 69, Barrow, Alaska 99723 • 0 -2- Elsie Itta, Tribal President, Native Village of Barrow, Box 1139,Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. Don Thornburgh, North Slope Borough, Post Office Box 69, Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. William Thomas, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Post Office. Box 129, Barrow, Alaska 99723 President, Kuupik Corporation, Post Office Box 187, Nuiqsut, Alaska 99787 Mayor, City of Nuiqsut, Post Office Box 148, Nuiqsut, Alaska 99787 Ms. Jean Harrison, Alaska Department of Transportation, & Public Facilities, 2301 Peger Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Ms. Susan Flora, Bureau of Land Management, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3899 President, Nunamuit Corporation, Post Office Box 21009, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska 99721 Mayor, City of Anaktuvuk Pass, Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska 99721 Arctic Slope Native Association, Post Office Box 1232, Barrow, Alaska 99723-1232 Arnold Brower Jr., President, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope,. P.O. Box 934, Barrow, Alaska 99723 Mr. Richard Riech, North Slope Borough, 3000 C Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3914 I*Mr. Peter Ditton, Bureau of Land Management, 6881 Abbot Loop Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Mark Morry, President, Village of Anaktuvik Pass, P.O. Box 21065, Anaktuvuk Pass Alaska 99721 Thomas Napageak, Tribal Mayor, Native Village of Nuiqsut, P.O. Box 1232 Barrow Alaska 99723 STATE OF ALASKA ALA& OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVAL klk7l< 20 AAC 25.280 1. Type of Request: A do Suspend Operational shutdown Perforate Waiver Annular Dispos. Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Other Change approved program ❑ Pull Tubing❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Re-enter Suspended Well El� S�+I ci 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill tuber: _ Bureau of Land Management Development ❑ Exploratory ❑✓ Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002120 3. Address: 6. API Number: V 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000400 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 483' Conductor Pipe 482' GL Umiat Test Well #4 8. Property Designation: 10. Field/Pools(s): AA -081726 842000 11. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured): Junk (measured): 840' 840' 840' 840' N/A 792' Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 34' 113/4" 33' 33' Surface Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft): Perforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Packers and SSSV Type: N/A Packers and SSSV MD (ft): N/A 12. Attachments: Description Summary of Proposal ✓ 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program 0 BOP Sketch Q Exploratory Q Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: 4/10/2004 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged ❑✓ Abandoned ❑ WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ 16. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: 17. I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan Porhola Title Petroleum Engineer Signature Phone 907-267-1469 Date �t t LO SI COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: �3 p Plug Integrity ❑ BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Cl ' ,° ! f <, `1 f` ? 9 Other: i C `' \E RECEIVED t � CEIVEV IM of MAY 0 3 2004 T Subsequent Fo4R_=Uirjed::,e\ Alasa Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage Approved by: 0 BY ORDER OF �I IG4 hjAj THE COMMISSION Date: i � � r Form 10-403 Revised 12/2003 INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE Submit in Duplicate O. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Site Condition Report Date: 10/07/02 4:10 PM 10/07/02 Site and Well Name. Location. Condition: Pad Condition: Pit Condition: Site: Umiat Well Name: Umiat Test Well #4 Township and Range, Section and Meridian: TIS, R1W, Sec 3, UM Coordinate System: Geographic Units: Decimal Minutes Latitude: 69° 23.251'N .Longitude: 152° 04.982'W DATUM: WGS 84 (NAD 83) Quadrangle: Umait B-4 Wellhead is located up the hill from Umiat #3. No existing pad. No existing pit. Cellar Condition: No existing cellar. Well Head Assembly: Open hole with a steel plated cover. No oil or gas seeping on site. Well Head Description (2 1/2" stick up): 113/4" casing to flange (12 x 3/4" studs with 6 in place) 2 plugged 2" side outlets top of blind flange, 2" plug and 3" welded collar with 1" rod clamped off i a _ c w r�} BLM � Umiat #4 Is BOP Diagram BOP Description 1.) Remove top plug and 1" rod 2.) Nipple up Diverter spool, divert line, ball valve and rubber packing element Well Head Description (2 1/2" stick up): 11 3/4" casing to flange (12 x 3/4" studs with 6 in place) 2 plugged 2" side outlets top of blind flange, 2" plug and 3" welded collar with 1" rod clamped off SCANNED MAY 1 4 2004 Lot: 69'23'20"N Long: 152'04'53"W 15" }Hole 10 3/4" Hole 8" Hal. S* _ LEGEND Cement ® Formation Fluid/Water FAIR/UMIAT, Umiat Test Well 4 Well Schematic 1-4 SR -20- J Spud: May 26, 1950 -Comp: July 29, 1950 Tap of Surface Pipe, 1' -AGL All Depths from Top of SuT-Face Pipe 1t, 11 -3/4" leasing, Cemented w�12 sx Cal—Seal Formation Fhiid Level unknown. Last Reported at 157' Prior to Lost Pump Test. e Tool Fish w/Top Tsh — 79Vto 802' NO SCALE y_:. R �- ��• �,�„•�,.^� .4 ��y � -ri� � JTi• i�,Y , ' „lR.. f 7 � ",.� ��J .I-'ln.,,C4 • S k! r 1 •t a i- � •�i.•_.,.ulkl�•.' - ., Y.i T 1 , LC�✓� x1 ri .. .. L � ,.fir jL ft ` I t' s� • rpt. ..� fie.: '+�.� � - ^. 'x -�%+. � `- -, ,l. 4+ .”"°`��+:i � < "`1ly +�.'i ,-_•� ✓ _ vi —moi �J yy y- .„8 �r•� : sem” .,y: - � . • - N ; ,+t - : i� � � ,. rr :`� - _ ''e- � u i Ie r � � � ••t,-y _ , � w � ti �1111 �• -_ --! � __ ^,�.' � r� � � �� " `.. __�_?-'y-Li•.��, . f-�� .� _" `. - fi ` _ � � ..R .. -il T � � "ate f Umiat #4 Winter 2004 0 0 P`'�T oFryF United States Department of the Interior, fi BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT �gRCH 3 ' 9 Campbell Tract Facility TAKE PRIDE' 6881 Abbott Loop Road ►NAMERICA Anchorage, Alaska 99507-2599 http://www.ak.blm.gov Umiat Plug & Abandonment (941) stp April 7, 2004 Tom Maunder Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W. 7ch Ave. Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Maunder, Enclosed is the latest version of the statement of work for the Umiat Plug and Abandon project scheduled to begin now in mid April, 2004. This is a hard copy of the newest version that was released back on March 24, 2004. This is being sent to meet the needs of the sundry notice for a summary of the proposal and operations program. If you require an electronic copy of this document let me know. C � cj.0 Sincerely CZc Cc. G nv r��r C3 -}��v ��E �� C© V' -J\ �O T-- U��t CR BLM Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 ECOVE APR — 8 2004 Alaska Oil &t Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage 7 1C,O-a \5 t bo -21 v - D -\e1 BLM Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 ECOVE APR — 8 2004 Alaska Oil &t Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage Lot: 69'23'20"N Long: 152'04'53"W 15" Hole 10 3/4" Hole 8" Hal, b" Hi LEGEND Cement ® Formation Fluid/Water Umiat Test Well 4 Well Schematic FAIR/UMIAT/tAOWA~ x/99- 1.0 SR -20- Spud: May 26, 1950 -Comp: July 29, 1950 Tap of Surface Pipe, 1' AGi_ All Depths from Top of Surface Pipe 111 3/4" Casing, lemented W112 sx Cal—Seal Formation Fluid Level unknown. Last Reported at 157' Prior io Last Pump Test. Is Tool Fish w/Top Tsh 792'to SM' NO SCALE • Well 1 Well Head Description: 11 3/4" casing with collar 11 3/4" casing welded on blind plate 2" nipple 2" gate valve (water -type) - operational TOTAL STICK UP: 36" '�o Well 4 Open hole with a steel plated cover. No oil or gas seeping on site. • Well 2 Well P&A in winter 2002. Well Head Description (2 1/2' stick up): 11 3/4" casing to flange (12 x 3/4" studs with 6 in place) 2 plugged 2" side outlets top of blind flange, 2" plug and 3" welded collar with 1 " rod clamped off �j Open hole with thermistor cables. There is no indication of any oil or gas seeping within the area of this wellhead. Well Head Description (3' stick up) Open ended casing (7"?) with collar, looks like thermistor cables inside Well 8 Gas Well with SITHP 250 psi Well _1 _0 Two valves and zero gauges. No oil or gas seeping on site Well Head Description (10' stick up): 5' of 11 3/4" casing with collar clamp to 8 1/2" casing with collar welded to flange 2 side outlets below flange, 1 plugged and one 2" Walworth Gate Valve (DD 500, 4892) Flanged (8 x 5/8" studs) Walworth Master Valve (DD 200, V -S344 -A) 2 ft of 8 1/2" flared open casing Well Umiat #4 Cemented 12 sx Cal -Seal 33' 11 3/4" Casing Sand starts at 100' • Grandstand Formation 320'- TD DST'd Oil Rates 18 Day Test averaged +80 BOPD Open Hole Telescopes from 10 3/4" hole to 8" hole to 6" hole (10 3/4" to 426': 6" starts at 692') Cable Tool Fish at 792' D 840' Cement Yield 1.56 cf/sx for the smaller 65 IbsJsx 2 x .,� 4 5 6 9 10 rkotals Production Casing OD 11.75 P&A 7 11.75 P&A 8.625 6.375 8.625 5.5 8.625 10.75 Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' 72 33 35 1196 1231 1257 1339 486 Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug 6 10.75 8.625 6 10.75 Csg to TD 7.75 9.625 Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel 572 840 758 1384 1327 1573 3303 Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill 0.221 0.6599 0.3192 0.1912 0.3422 0.12 0.3422 0.5195 - Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 0.1963 0.6303 0.4057 0.1963 0.6303 0.3276 0.5053 sx in 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus 21 64 38 19 34 12 34 52 340 Sacks of Cmt (at 1.56 cf/sx) 42 13 41 24 12 22 8 22 33 218 60' Gel Plug, cu. ft. 40 12 38 24 12 38 7 21 31 Minimum Displacement, Bbls 19 6 18 11 6 13 3 10 15 100 Bottom Plug, cu. ft. Not 163 163 Sxs of Cmt Needed None None None Fish 340' 105 plug 440' 105 Displacement, Bbls 0 0 0 Maximum Sxs Cmt to Fill Well 801 24 88 69 15 270 34 121 375 1797 Max Displacement, Bbls 633 19 69 55 12 75 27 96 297 1283 Comments Rods in Well Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs Open pipe Wet well Pipe Wet well FL brine is never Wet well below OWC below OWC 600 ft back produced North of fault Fish 340' when well any fluid Cmt Plug 440' 761.25 was drilled Tagged 337' in 1954 L f. Weatherford Inflatible Packers Rods in Well Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs 2 ru,, ^'` Try i"r..mJ hi produced Fish 340' when well ar 11dTotals Production Casing ID 11 P&A 6.3 11 P&A 7.921 5.921 8.625 4.67 7.921 9.76 Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' 72 33 35 1196 1231 1257 1339 486 Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug 6 10.75 8.625 6 10.75 Csg to TD 7.75 9.625 Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel 572 840 758 1384 1327 1573 3303 Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill 0.221 0.6599 0.3192 0.1912 0.3422 0.12 0.3422 0.5195 Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 0.1963 0.6303 0.4057 0.1963 0.6303 0.3276 0.5053 sx in 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus 21 64 38 19 34 12 34 52 gallons 494 156 478 284 143 256 90 256 389 Weight of 100' cement, lbs. 5,282 1,670 5,116 3,039 1,530 2,739 960 2,739 4,158 PSI on packer 56 59 56 52 56 56 56 56 Inflatible Packer Size, inches 7.25 5.63 7.25 5.63 3.50 NA 3.50 5.63 7.25 Inflatable working psi from chart 230 500 250 200 210 400 280 320 Rods in Well Open Open pipe SITHP=250 Perfs Wet well Pipe Wet well FL brine is never below OWC below OWC 600 ft back produced Fish 340' when well any fluid was drilled • Open pipe Wet well North of fault Cmt Plug 440' Tagged 337' in 1954 i� Artic Set 3 Lite Recipe Artic Set 3 Lite cement +9% D44 (NaCl) + 30%D53 (gypsum) + 50% D124 (spheres) + 1.5% S1 (CaC12) + 1.5% D79 (ext.) + 0.4% D46 (defoam) Slurry Weight 10.7 ppg Slurry Yield 4.44 cf/sx Stan confirmed this with Telecon to Schlumberger Thickening Time 6+ hours 1/9/2004 (Mike Martin) ph 273-1700 2656205 229-6266 The lower density of this cement is favorable to place the cmt plug on top of a gel pill. Cost is approximately $280 per 188 Ib sack Based on telecon with M. Martin 3-11. From cement calculations spreadsheet 500 cf Conventional 112.6 sx 188 lbs/sx 21,171 lbs Special packaging 325.7 sx 65 lbs/sx Slurry volume 4.44 cf/sx Smaller sacks will yield 1.56 cf/sx Cost if require 500Ai - f,40 • • • -04 Water 20.7 gals/sx 1.25 gais/sx. OT WELLS, UMLAT AREA, ALASKA Notes from drill records—Continued Depth (feet) Remarks Remarks cement was found 7 ft below cellar floor, 0-1 and 5 sacks of portland cement were added ----- by hand to cement pipe. After setting 7 No sample. "Hard sand" reported by hr, cement was warmed with steam to about 150°F for 4 days. Failing rig was moved over hole during this time. Top of cement shale" from 75 to 90 ft. found at 67.5 ft and drilled out with Failing 90-100 equipment. 155 ----------- Deviation 0'45'. 236 ----------- Drilled 5% -in. hole from 72 to 236 ft with a 5% -in. Hughes roller bit. Mud used was natural, with the addition of Aquagel and light -gray very argillaceous siltstone and water. 280 ----------- Deviation 15'. 390_ ---------- Deviation 2'15'. 525 ----------- Deviation 2°30'. 572 ----------- Cored 236-572 ft with a 3 -in. by 10 -ft Okla- homa -type "N" double -tube core barrel gray very fine-grained silty argillaceous with drag -type cutter heads, recovering 57.5 percent of rock cored. Hole reamed to 538 ft with 5ys-in. Hughes roller bit, and of subangular clear and white quartz Schlumberger electric log run from bottom of casing at 72 ft to 525 ft. Mud weight at time log was run was 74 Ib per cu ft, and grains and coaly particles, and rare mica. viscosity was 37 sec API. 100-110 At end of bailing tests hole was frozen below 460 ft, and fluid level was at 147 ft. Just stone. Ice reported by driller 100-108 ft. before pumping tests began, hole was found 110-120 to be bridged or frozen at 240 ft, and fluid level was 145 ft below top of casing. silty, noncalcareous, with some medium - Hole abandoned with 7 -in. casing capped by flanged head having two 2 -in. plugged ports. On top of casing head was a flanged tubing ironstone. head, capped by swages with plugged nipples 120-130 on the side and 2- by 4 -in. nipple with 2 -in. - gate valve on top. Top of installation is 5 micaceous, noncalcareous, with very small ft above ground. UMIAT TEST WELL 4 Q O` *_ t Z Location: Lat 69°23'20" N, long 152°04'53" W Elevation: Ground, 482 feet; top of surface pipe, 483 feet. Spudded: May 26, 1950. Completed: July 29, 1950; pumped 100 barrels of oil per day; shut in. Total depth: 840 feet. Because the first 3 holes on the Umiat anticline produced only a small quantity of oil, drilling ceased for more than 2 years. In 1950, however, it was decided to drill a cable -tool hole to see if the low production of the earlier wells was caused by the fresh water from the drilling fluid. If the fresh water had lowered permeability of the sandstone by reacting with the matrix or freezing in the pore spaces, then a cable -tool hole, using just enough brine to lubricate the tools, might be a much better test of the possible yield of the anticline. The experiment was successful, as a pumping test produced oil at a rate of 100 barrels per day from Umiat test well 4. The hole (see pl. 8A ) is about 1,000 feet northeast of Umiat test well 3, 125 ind although it is higher structurally than the older well, it started in younger beds, probably of the Ninuluk Formation. because of its greater elevation. No sam- ples from the Ninuluk formation were saved, but corre- lation with other wells would place its base at about 40 feet. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS The first sample, at 90 feet, is in the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation, which is present as alternating clay shale and sandstone to the base of a thin persistent sandstone at 320 feet. Clay ironstone and coal are both present between 180 and 260 feet; the clay iron- stone is more common. At a total depth of 840 feet, the drilling had penetrated only about 80 feet of the lower sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation; a broken drilling line which left tools stuck in the hole prevented deepening the well. Oil was found in both the upper and the lower sandstone units of the Grand- stand; the proportion produced from each is uncertain. The hole was shut in for over a year and a half and then pumped to obtain oil for oil -base mud. Lithologic description [Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples) Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 0-1 Top of surface pipe to ground. ----- 1-90 No sample. "Hard sand" reported by driller from 2 to 75 ft, and "hard sandy shale" from 75 to 90 ft. ----- 90-100 Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, slightly silty, micaceous, slightly calcar- eous, with a very small amount of medium - light -gray very argillaceous siltstone and moderate -yellow-brown slightly calcare- ous clay ironstone with conchoidal frac- ture. Small amount of medium -light - gray very fine-grained silty argillaceous slightly calcareous sandstone, composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments, yellow grains and coaly particles, and rare mica. ----- 100-110 Sandstone and shale, with rare clay iron- stone. Ice reported by driller 100-108 ft. ----- 110-120 Clay shale, dark -gray, slightly carbonaceous, silty, noncalcareous, with some medium - to medium -dark -gray clay shale, and clay ironstone. ----- 120-130 Clav shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous, with very small amount of siltstone. 130-140 Sandstone, very light -brown, fine-grained, noncalcareous, friable; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz with some light -brown grains and dark rock frag- ments; small amount of clay shale is medium dark gray, very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 140-150 Siltstone and clay shale with small amount of sandstone. ----- 150-160 Clay shale, medium -gray, very alightly silty, noncalcareous, with rare siltstone and clay ironstone. R itEBERVE NO ALASKA, 1944-53 Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks 3 343-345 126 EXPLORAON OF NAVAL PETROLEUl Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 160-170 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine- Recovered 5 ft:' Not sampled for micro - grained, ' very argillaceous and silty, fossils. slightly micaceous, noncalcareous, with Shale. 5 scattered carbonized plant flakes. Some Recovered 3 ft: 2 Not sampled for micro - clay shale and siltstone present. ----- 170-195 Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark - Shale and coal, with 2 in. of sandstone. ----- gray, very slightly silty and micaceous, Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, noncalcareous, with small amount of very slightly silty, friable, noncalcareous; black dull to shiny coal with irregular to composed of subangular clear and white poor shaly fracture at 180-190 ft. quartz, gray chert, and dark rock frag- 195-235 Sandstone, very light -brown, fine-grained, ments. Dark -gray slightly carbonaceous slightly argillaceous, noncalcareous, fri- clay shale rare. ----- able; composed of subangular clear and No sample. 6 white quartz with some light -brown Recovered 3 ft:a Not sampled for micro - grains and dark rock fragments. Silt- fossils. s shale, and clay ironstone rare at Sandstone. _____ ee, __--- 235-240 Sandstone, medium -gray, very fine-grained, dark -gray clay shale, and rare black dull silty, argillaceous, slightly to very cal- coal with shaly fracture. Dark -gray careous, with some medium -gray sandy carbonaceous clay shale in lower part. ----- argillaceous slightly to very calcareous Clay shale, medium -dark- to dark -gray, siltstone. ----- 240-245 Clay shale, medium -gray, slightly silty, No sample. ----- slightly calcareous, with very small Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine - amount of yellowish -brown slightly cal- and fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, with careous clay ironstone with conchoidal small amount of medium -gray silty non - fracture. ------ 245-255 Siltstone, with very small amount of clay rare black carbonaceous shale at 410- . shale and sandstone. ----- 255-260 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, noncalcareous, with rare bluish -white slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with bentonite. ----- 260-265 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine-grained, stone in upper part. ----- silty, argillaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 265-280 Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, grained sandstone and siltstone. slightly to very silty; slightly calcareous Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, in part; some siltstone and dark -gray noncalcareous, friable; composed of sub- fissile clay shale at 270-275 ft. ----- 280-298 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, dark rock fragments. ----- very slightly silty, noncalcareous, friable; Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcareous, composed of subangular clear and white very silty in upper part; small amount of quartz, gray chert, and dark rock frag- grayish- to greenish -white bentonite with ments. 1 298-299 Recovered 1 ft:' Not sampled for micro - yellow grains. ----- fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- and Siltstone and very fine-grained sandstone, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - indurated, noncalcareous. 2 299-300 Recovered 1 ft: Not sampled for micro - silty clay shale, with rare dark -gray fossils. carbonaceous shale and medium -gray Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- very fine-grained sandstone. ----- grained, silty, argillaceous, slightly Sandstone and siltstone with small amount micaceous, noncalcareous, massive; of clay shale. ----- composed of subangular clear and white Bentonite, pale -yellowish -brown, conchoidal quartz with some gray, yellow, and fracture, with medium -gray silty clay dark grains. ----- 300-305 Siltstone, medium -light -gray, slightly argil- Bentonite, white, argillaceous, shale frac- laceous, noncalcareous. ----- 305-310 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, silty shale. noncalcareous, with medium -gray very Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; slightly silty argillaceous noncalcareous siltstone. ----- 310-315 Sandstone, light -gray, fine-grained, silty, black shale. ----- argillaceous, noncalcareous, with small Bentonite, grayish -white, and medium -gray amount of medium -dark -gray very silty calcareous siltstone. ----- clay shale. ----- 315-320 Sandstone and clay shale. ----- 320-325 Siltstone, with very small amount of clay shale. Top of Grandstand formation at noncalcareous, with rare medium -gray 320 ft. _____ 325-335 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcare- Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, ous; slightly silty in part; rarely very noncalcareous, with medium -gray very silty. ----- 335-343 Siltstone, medium -gray, slightly to very stone. See footnotes at end of table. argillaceous, noncalcareous, with small amount of clay shale. See footnotes at end of table. R itEBERVE NO ALASKA, 1944-53 Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks 3 343-345 Recovered 2 ft:2 Not sampled for micro - fossils. Shale. 4 345-350 Recovered 5 ft:' Not sampled for micro - fossils. Shale. 5 350-353 Recovered 3 ft: 2 Not sampled for micro - fossils. Shale and coal, with 2 in. of sandstone. ----- 353-355 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, very slightly silty, friable, noncalcareous; composed of subangular clear and white quartz, gray chert, and dark rock frag- ments. Dark -gray slightly carbonaceous clay shale rare. ----- 355-357 No sample. 6 357-360 Recovered 3 ft:a Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone. _____ 360-375 Sandstone as above, with rare medium - dark -gray clay shale, and rare black dull coal with shaly fracture. Dark -gray carbonaceous clay shale in lower part. ----- 375-385 Clay shale, medium -dark- to dark -gray, noncalcareous; rarely very slightly silty. ----- 385-395 No sample. ----- 395-427 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine - and fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, with small amount of medium -gray silty non - calcareous clap shale in upper part and rare black carbonaceous shale at 410- 420 ft. ----- 427-445 Clay shale, medium- to medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with some medium -gray very argillaceous silt - stone in upper part. ----- 445-450 Clay shale, with medium -light -gray fine- grained sandstone and siltstone. 450-475 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, noncalcareous, friable; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments. ----- 475-485 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcareous, very silty in upper part; small amount of - grayish- to greenish -white bentonite with conchoidal fracture, some of which contains yellow grains. ----- 485-490 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- and very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous, and medium -dark -gray very silty clay shale, with rare dark -gray carbonaceous shale and medium -gray very fine-grained sandstone. ----- 490-495 Sandstone and siltstone with small amount of clay shale. ----- 495-500 Bentonite, pale -yellowish -brown, conchoidal fracture, with medium -gray silty clay shale and rare black shale. 500-505 Bentonite, white, argillaceous, shale frac- ture, with medium- to medium -dark -gray silty shale. 505-510 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; slightly silty and slightly calcareous in part; very rare black shale. ----- 510-515 Bentonite, grayish -white, and medium -gray calcareous siltstone. ----- 515-520 Sandstone, siltstone, and clay shale. ----- 520-545 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly silty, noncalcareous, with rare medium -gray very argillaceous siltstone in upper part. 545-550 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, noncalcareous, with medium -gray very argillaceous very slightly calcareous -silt - stone. See footnotes at end of table. WWELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 Lithologic description—Continued Gore I Depth (feet) ( Remarks ----- 550-560 Clay shale with small amount of siltstone. ____ 560-565 Siltstone with small amount of clay shale. ----- 565-570 Clay shale with some siltstone. ----- 570-590 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, noncalcare- ous; very slightly silty in part; rare silt - stone and medium -gray very fine-grained slightly calcareous very argillaceous sand- stone. ----- 590-595 Clay shale with small amount of sandstone. ----- 595-600 Siltstone, medium -gray, very argillaceous, noncalcareous, with some slightly to very silty clay shale. 600-610 Siltstone and clay shale with very small amount of sandstone in lower part. 610-630 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with small amount of siltstone at 620-630 ft. ----- 630-640 Siltstone, medium -light -gray, slightly to very sandy, argillaceous, noncalcareous, with very small amount of sandstone. ----- 640-715 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous, with rare siltstone in upper 10 feet. ----- 715-720 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, calcareous, pyritic, friable, with clay shale. 720-725 Sandstone, with rare medium -dark -gray clay shale and dark -gray slightly car- bonaceous clay shale. ----- 725-735 Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, non - calcareous; slightly sandy in part; very small amount sandstone, and rare clay shale in lower part. _ _ _ _ _ 735-745 Clay shale, with some sandstone. ----- 745-760 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, noncalcareous, friable. ----- 760-764 No sample. 7 764-767 No recovery. 8 767-768 Recovered 1 ft: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, very silty and argillaceous slightly micaceous, noncalcareous, mas- sive. Lower part medium gray, cal- careous; composed of clear quartz with some white quartz and unidentified yellow, gray, and dark grains. 768-775 Sandstone as above. ----- 775-820 Sandstone, with very small amount of medi- um -dark -gray very silty shale in upper 20 ft. 820-821 No sample. 9 821-826 Recovered 1 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine - to fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous, with rare small carbonized plant fragments. Sand composed of' subangular clear and white quartz with some unidentified gray, yellow, and dark grains. 10 826-826 51 Recovered 6 in.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone as above. ----- 826. 5-831 Sandstone as above. ----- 831-840 No sample. I Core not received in Fairbanks; description made by well geologists. 2 Core not received by Fairbanks laboratory; description made by driller. CORE ANALYSES The table below shows the porosity and permeability of four core samples from Umiat test well 4. Effective porosity was determined by the Barnes method; air 127 permeability was determined on a permeameter, the general requirements for which are detailed in American Petroleum Institute Code No. 27, second edition, April 1942. Analyses of core samples from Umiat test well 4 Depth (feet) 299---------------------------- 767---------------------------- 821---------------------------- 826---------------------------- dive porosity Air permeability (percent) I (millidarcys) 10.3 1 0 .8 0 10.3 0 5.49 0 01L AND GAS SHOWS Shows of oil noted during the drilling of Umiat test well 4 are given below. Depth (feet) 283-298 --------------- Strong odor of oil. 298-300 --------------- Good show of light -green oil. 353-360--------------- Oil sand. 395-430 --------------- Thin beds of oily sand. 748-826 --------------- Slight odor of oil and gas. FORMATION TESTS Two bailing tests and four pumping tests, the latter ranging from several hours' to 18 days' duration, were made before the well was shut in. The following discussion of the tests is based primarily on observations by Gordon Oosting, petroleum engineer. Test 1, 33-863.6 feet.—After drilling 6 inches into an oil-bearing sandstone at 353 feet, a 15 -minute bailing test was made. Slightly gas -cut oil was produced at a rate of at least 200 barrels per day, taking into con- sideration the drop of fluid level during the test. Test 2, 33-427 feet.—A 5 -hour bailing test produced 6.75 barrels of oil. During the test, ice was noted on the bottom of the bailer and in the oil, suggesting that water from the formation was freezing in the sandstone and limiting production. The temperature of the oil bailed from the hole was 27.5°F. Test 3, 33-4,27 feet.—Brine made with 610 pounds of salt in 8 barrels of water was used to fill the hole to 350 feet (just above the oil bearing sandstone) in order to thaw any ice in the sandstone. Fluid levels checked after 12 hours showed top of fluid at 315 feet, top of salt water at 360 feet. A barrel of brine (made with 80 pounds of salt) was added to bring the salt ,water to 350 feet. In order not to remove the brine during the test, the pumping equipment was placed at 348 feet, just above the top of the brine; the oil, being lighter than the brine, would presumably flow from the sandstone through the brine and be picked up by the pump. Eleven joints of 2'% -inch inner -diameter ex- 128 EXPLOROON OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE 44, ALASKA, 1944-53 ternal-upset tubing were run with the shoe at 348 feet and two 20 -pound sacks of salt suspended by rope from it at 351 feet and 355 feet. Using a 12 -inch stroke at 24 strokes per minute, the fluid rose to the surface in 31 minutes. After pumping one-fourth of a barrel of j brine, 5 barrels of water -free oil was pumped in 1 hour and 24 minutes. In the next 10 hours and 10 minutes, 6 barrels of oil was pumped, indicating a rate of 14.4 barrels per day. During the pumping for oil, salt water was pumped up with the oil only during 2 hours in the middle of the test. Test 4, 33-840 feet.—After drilling to 840 feet the drilling line broke, and this and subsequent tests were made with the cable -tool fish between 802 and 840 feet. Tubing, sucker rods, and pump were installed with the bottom of the mud anchor at 800 feet and the bottom of the pump at 791 feet. There were thirteen '�- by 1 -inch slots spirally placed from 783 to 787 feet. Oil reached the surface after 10 minutes of pumping with 24 -inch strokes. After being shut down 25 minutes, the well pumped 4-5 barrels of oil; brine reached the surface in 35 minutes. Eleven barrels of brine was pumped in the next hour and 10 minutes, when oil again was produced and was pumped at 12 strokes per minute for 5 hours and 25 minutes. The rate was then increased to 22 strokes, which was con- tinued for 24 hours. The well averaged 3.6 barrels per hour during this time. In one 24-hour period 88.5 barrels of water -free oil was pumped. Only a trace of gas was noted. Test 5, 33-840 feet.—With the bottom of the pump at 776 feet, the fluid reached the surface in 14 minutes. After pumping for about 2% hours, the pump stopped because of mechanical trouble; it had pumped 10.8 barrels of oil in the time. After 1% hours for repairs, the well was pumped continuously with a 24 -inch lstroke at 23 strokes per minute and produced 104.6 barrels in approximately 20 hours, including a 34 -barrel fluid column in the hole. In the next 24 hours 88.6 barrels was pumped. Test 6, 33-840 feet.—After an unsuccessful fishing operation, the pump was again installed, with the bottom of the pump at 787 feet, the bottom of the mud anchor at 800 feet, and 13 spirally placed 1- by %-inch slots between 787 and 791 feet. The well was pumped continuously with a 24 -inch stroke for 18 days, except for a few shut -downs of a few hours' duration. The daily production for this period is shown in the table below. The variable production rate may have been caused by mud plugging the pump and then being washed out by the head of oil built up in the hole; the indicated rate of production was 90-100 barrels per day, with no decline. Daily' production in 18 -day pumping test, Umiat test well 4 Date Hours pumped Strokes per minute Barrels oil 1950 Jul 29----------------- 16 23 54.0 30----------------- 18 23 78.3 31----------------- 18 23 73.6 Aug 1--------------- 5% 23 27.7 2---------------- 22 23 102.0 3---------------- 15% 23 75.0 4---------------- 24 14 80.0 5---------------- 20 23 90.0 6---------------- 19 23 83.0 7---------------- .24 23 101.5 8---------------- 24 20 90.5 9---------------- 24 23 90.5 11---------------- 16 20 92.0 12---------------- 24 20 100.5 13---------------- 16 20 64.0 14---------------- 21 23 114.0 15---------------- 8 23 36.0 Total ------------ 1,269.6 t Shut down on August 10 for repairs to rig engine. OIL AND GASOLINE ANALYSES In June 1950 two 5 -gallon samples of oil from Umiat test well 4 were sent to the U. S. Bureau of Mines Petroleum Experiment Station, Petroleum Chemistry and Refining Section, Bartlesville, Okla., for analysis. One sample was from a bailing test, and one from a pumping test (tests 2 and 3, respectively; see pages 127-128), the oil coming from between 353 and 427 feet. The analyses made by the U. S. Bureau of Mines are shown in the table on p. 119. The bailing test is represented by U. S. Bureau of Mines sample 50103, the pumping test, by U. S. Bureau of Mines sample 50104. In order to obtain oil for use in oil -emulsion mud, a boiler was constructed at Umiat to remove some of the lighter fractions of crude oil. As an experiment lighter fractions of oil from Umiat test well 4 were separated at temperatures as high as 330°F, and the cuts were analyzed by the U. S. Bureau of Mines at Bartlesville, Okla. The gasoline, as shown in table (p. 130) has a high natural octane number which can be raised appreciably by the addition of tetraethyl lead. OST WELLS, UMUT AREA, ALASXA 0 129 Analyses of Bureau of Mines crude -petroleum samples 60101 and 50104 from Umiat test well 4 [General characteristics of samples follow: Sample 50103: Sp gr, 0.841; sulfur, <0.1 percent; Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100°F, 37 sec; gravity, 36.8°API; pour point, -5°F color, Natl. Petroleum Assoc. no. 4�j. Sample 50104: Sp gr, 0.842; sulfur, <0.1 percent; Saybolt Universal viscosity at 100° F,37 sec; gravity, 36.60API; pour, point, -5°F color, Natl. Petroleum Assoc. no. 4] Dktillatfon by Bureau of Mines routine method Stage 1: Distillation at atmospheric pressure, sample 50103: 749 mm Hg; sample 50104: 749 mm Hg First drop, sample 50103: 48°C (1181F); sample 50104: 54°C (129°F) - ------- Cut at- Percent Sum percent Specific gravity 1 Gravity °API at 60°F Correlation index Aniline point (°C) Saybolt Universal viscosity Cloud test (°F) Fraction 41 42 65.6 65.4 40 41 Below 5 at 100F "L--------------------------- 75 °C I °F 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 150104 50103 I 50104 Stage 1: Distillation at atmospheric pressure, sample 50103: 749 mm Hg; sample 50104: 749 mm Hg First drop, sample 50103: 48°C (1181F); sample 50104: 54°C (129°F) - ------- 50 122 ------- ------- ------- 629 0.866 0.888 31.9 31.5 41 42 65.6 65.4 40 41 Below 5 Below 5 "L--------------------------- 75 167 1.1 1.3 1.1 ------- 1.3 ------- 0.695 ------- 0.691 ------- 72.1 ------- 73.8 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- -- - - - - --- - - ---- ------ ------- ------ -- - I____________________________ 100 212 5.1 4.9 6.2 6.2 .738 .742 60.2 59.2 30 32 40.5 41.0 -- ----- ------- ---------- ---------- 1---------------------------- 125 257 9.0 9.5 15.2 1& 7 .767 .769 53.0 52.5 35 36 35.0 3& 8 _------ ------_ ---------- ---------- --------- �---------------------------- 150 302 6.8 6.6 220 22.3 .785 .787 48.8 48.3 36 36 34.2 34.5 ------- ------- 55 --------_- 1---------------------------- 175 347 6.7 6.8 X 7 29.1 .798 .799 45.8 45.6 35 35 38.9 39.3 -_----- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------------------- 200 392 5.7 5.4 34.4 34.5 .808 .809 43.6 43.4 33 34 46.6 46.9 ----_-- ----_-_ -:_------- 1____________________________ 225 437 6.2 7.0 40.6 41.5 .822 .825 40.6 40.0 34 36 53.7 54.0 ------- ------- __________ _----_---- ---------- 250 482 7.8 7.0 48.4 48.5 .840 .842 37.0 36.6 38 39 67.7 57.6 ------- ------- 275 527 8.9 9.8 57.3 5&3 .855 .855 34.0 33.3 40 41 60.5 60.0 __--___ ------- __________ ---------- ---------- ---------- Stage 2rDistillation continued at 40 millimeters Hg ll___________________________ 200 392 6.6 4.6 63.9 629 0.866 0.888 31.9 31.5 41 42 65.6 65.4 40 41 Below 5 Below 5 "L--------------------------- 225 437 7.9 &6 71.8 71.5 .872 .870 30.8 31.1 40 39 71.6 722 46 46 20 20 13___________________________ 250 482 6.1 6.1 77.9 77.6 .881 .881 29.1 29.1 41 41 ------- ------- 60 60 35 35 l4--------------------------- 275 527 5.3 4.6 83.2 82.2 .889 .887 27.7 28.0 42 41 -_----- ------- 85 88 50 50 .5--------------------------- 300 572 4.7 5.1 87.9 87.3 .897 .895 26.3 26.6 43 42 ------- ------- 175 155 55 56 Eteslduum'----------------- ------- ------- 110 121 99.9 99.4 .915 .915 23.1 23.1 _ I Specific gravity at 60°F compared with water at 60°F. Carbon residue of residuum, sample 50103: 1.6 percent; sample 50104: 1.5 percent. Carbon residue of both samples of crude: 0.2 percent. Approximate summary Constituent Percent Specific gravity Gravity, °API Saybolt Universal viscosity 50103 50104 .50103 50104 50108 50104 50103 50104 Light gasoline -------------------------------------------------- 6.2 6.2 0.730 0.731 62.3 81 1 Total gasoline and naphtha-------------------------------------------- 34.4 34.5 .777 .778 50.6 50.4 ------------ ------------ gerosene distillate----------------------------------------------------- 6.2 7.0 .822 .825 40.6 40.0 ------------ ------------ Gas oil-------------- - -- 29.3 27.8 .857 .858 3& 6 33.4 ------------ ------------ Nonviscous lubricating distillate --------------------------------------- 11.5 11.5 0.875-890 0.873- .888 30.2-27.5 30.6-27.9 ------------ 50-100 ------------ 50-100 Medium lubricating distillate----------------------------------------- 5.6 6.5 .890- .899 .888- .899 27.5-25.9 27.9-25.9 100-200 100-200 Viscous lubricating distillate------------------------------------------- . 9 ---------_ .899- .901 -------------_ 25.9-25.8 ------____-- Above 200 Above 200 Residuum - - --- -- - - -- -- - -- 110 12 1 915 .915 23.1 23.1 Distillation loss - - - - - 1 .6 - - - - - - ---- - - ----------- --- - ------------ 130 ESPLOOON OF NAVAL. PETROLEUM RESERVE 14, ALASKA, 1944-53 Analyses of gasoline samples distilled from crude oil from Umiat test 11 well 4 [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] Sample 1 I 2 I 37 4 I 5 General characteristics Distilled at____________________ _ F__260 156 280 295-305 320-325 325-330 Specific gravity_____________________ 0.757 0.775 0.792 0.799 0.805 Gravity --------------------- API__ 55.4 51.1 47.2 45.6 44.3 Reid vapor pressure ------------ lbs__ 2.9 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 Distillation by American Society for Testing Materials method D 86 Initial boiling point ------------ °F__ 156 186 210 216 236 5 percent evaporated___________ °F__ 178 206 220 248 256 8 percent evaporated___________ °F__ 184 208 228 252 264 10 percent evaporated__________ °F__ 185 210 238 256 270 20 percent evaporated__________ °F__ 192- 218 250 268 284 30 percent evaporated---------- °F-- 199 224 263 281 296 40 percent evaporated__________ °F-_ 206 231 275 295 308 50 percent evaporated ---------- °F-_ 214 243 293 311 329 60 percent evaporated_________ °F__ 224 255 313 331 349 70 percent evaporated____ ____ °F__ 236 275 337 355 377 80 percent evaporated ---------- °F__ 258 300 368 387 407 90 percent evaporated ---------- °F__ 300 340 420 434 454 95 percent evaporated__________ °F__ 340 376 463 468 484 End point --------------------- °F__ 420 462 510 514 526 Sulfur ----------- percent by weight__ 0:0027 0.0042 0.0066 0.0072 0.0091 Motor octane nos.: Clear---------------------------- 6& 7 61.8 53.4 50.0 48.0 1.5 ml tetraethyl lead --- per.gal__ 80.8 76.1 69.7 66.9 65.2 3.0 ml tetraethyl lead --- per gal__ 84.9 81.2 75.2 72.6 71.1 LOGISTICS Personnel and housing. -The supervisory personnel consisted of a petroleum engineer -geologist and a drill- ing foreman. Drilling crews included 1 driller, 2 tool dressers, and 1 pumper and gauger, making a permanent personnel of 6. Other employees coming from the Umiat camp as they were needed included a welder to dress drill bits, a mechanic, a bulldozer operator, and laborers. Shelter at the rig site consisted of a shed and canvas windbreaker around the drill rig; the crew lived at Umiat camp. - - Vehicles and heavy equipment. -Vehicles were bor- rowed from Umiat camp when they were needed. These included 1 D8 Caterpillar bulldozer, 1 small crane (cherrypicker), and 3 weasels. One each of the follow- ing major items of drilling equipment was listed by the Arctic Contractors as having been used. Bucyrus -Armstrong water -well drill, model 29-W, with 45 -ft all -steel mast. Buda 6 -cylinder gasoline engine, model HP -298. Kohler 1.5 -kw light plant. Wisconsin engine model VF -4, for water pump. Water tank of bolted steel, 100 -bbl capacity. Oil tank of bolted steel, 250 -bbl capacity. Compressor unit for mosquito control. Lufkin TG3A pumping unit. Le Roi 4 -cylinder gasoline engine (power supply for Lufkin pump) . Oilmaster 2yyz-in. by 2 -in. by 8 -ft. stationary barrel top - anchor oil pump, model A-528-8. Fuel, water, and lubricant consumption. -The ma- terials recorded below were used in drilling the hole to 170 feet and from 299 to 840 feet, the total depth. Diesel fuel and 72 -octane gasoline consumption was 415 and 1,110 gallons, respectively. Lubricating compounds totaled 34 gallons of No. 2170 lubricating oil and 112 pounds of grease; 5,805 gallons of water were used. DRILLING OPERATIONS The Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig was mounted on skids and pulled to the well site with a D8 Cater- pillar tractor. Data on drilling operations presented below was recorded by Gordon H. Oosting, petroleum engineer. Notes from drill records Depth (fed) Remarks 33 ------------ Drilled 15 -in. hole to 33 ft, and cemented 1 joint of 11Y4 -in. casing with 12 sacks of Cal -Seal. 130 ----------- Added rock salt to 10-25 gal of fresh water being used to lubricate bit. Hole froze up whenever bit was out for several hours; 2-3 lbs of rock salt with 25 gal of water found sufficient to keep hole from freezing. 298----------- Ran Widco electric log from 33 to 285 feet, in fresh water. Bailed hole dry; drilled and reamed ice out of hole. 427 ----------- Ice in oil during bailing test suggested ice in the sand; brine added to prevent ice forma- tion. (See section on Formation tests.) 565-------- Beamed out ice from 427 to 565 ft. 585----------- Added 8 bbl of brine made with 400 lb of salt, bringing brine level to 427 ft. 630----------- Added 2 bbl of brine made with 200 lb of salt. 693----------- Fluid level was at 316 ft, with oil -water inter- face near 670 ft. Temperature of bottom - hole sludge 30°F,1 and its salinity (at 675 ft) was 1,906 grains per gal, compared with 6,432 grains per gal of brine added. De- crease in salinity was caused by addition of small amounts of fresh water as hole deep- ened, and possibly by some thawing of permafrost. 760 ----------- Temperature of bottom -hole sludge was 33°F; fluid level at 307 ft. 826 ----------- Temperature of bottom -hole sludge was 36°F; fluid level at 307 ft. 1 Sludge -temperature measurements were made at the surface in fluid brought up by the bailer. The bit had not been in use for 1-3 hr previously, and the bailer remained on the bottom at least 10 min. It was brought to- the surface, and the temperature of the fluid In the bottom of it was measured as rapidly as possible. aWELLS, VMIAT. AREA, ALASKA 9t',Xotes from drill records—Continued - Remarks Drilling line broke off just above socket, leaving tools, including 6 -in. bit, stem, jars, and socket, in hole with top of fish at 802 ft. " Several unsuccessful attempts made to re- cover fish. On second attempt fish was lifted 10 ft off bottom, but tools stuck, and f fish and four 3}4 -in. slips lost. Fishing with wall hooks also unsuccessful. Pumping equipment installed, and well tested. (See Test 4, p. 128.) Pumping equipment then removed, after half a barrel of hot salt water was poured into tubing and allowed to remain for 2 hr to free pump from tubing. :...__ ... Pump cleaned and reinstalled, but when the oil stopped flowing after 15 min of pumping, pump was again removed and found full of mud. When pump was put back, a 15 -ft joint of tubing was removed and mud -anchor based at 785 ft, 15 ft above its earlier posi- tion. After pumping about 2 days, pump again removed and hole cleaned, including removal of 7 ft of savings. A 2 -lb charge of dynamite set off just above fish, but fishing operations that followed were unsuccessful. Pump put down _ hole again, and 18 -day pumping test begun. (See Test 6.) Rig moved off well location at that time. After pumping test, Lufkin pumping unit removed. April 1952 Umiat test well 4 was cleaned out and >gu�nped from it in order to supply oil for oil -base ' A Bucyrus rig was installed over the hole, and inch cable -tool bit used to clean out the hole. Only t amount of bridging was found, and this was at Y greater than 400 feet.- The top of the fluid was 106 feet. It was bailed down to 616 feet, and after ding an hour, the fluid level rose 157 feet. A f was installed, and the well pumped 145 barrels in 12 hours; a shorter pump stroke later recovered 11 barrels in 9 hours, and 110 barrels in 11% hours. :total of 500 barrels of oil was produced. The casing as capped, and the pipe -line valve at the well closed. 3t DRILL AND CORE BITS ,tip Thirteen drill bits were used in making' the hole; as each became dull it was redressed by hard -surface *-e1ding at Umiat camp. The Baker cable -tool core barrel No. 6 was used with two 5% -inch ,core bits for the 24.5 feet of coring done. About: 17:5 feet of cored rock was recovered, all badly broken. On the graphic log (pl. 12) bits used to ream through cored intervals are shown as having drilled these intervals to avoid confusion from short intervals of alternate drilling and reaming by one bit. Bit no. 8, not shown on the log, was used only for reaming ice from the hole. 423224-65-6 . 131 ELECTRIC 110GGiINGi After the hole was filled with fresh water, an electric log was run with the Widco (Well Instrument Develop- ing Company) Logger, from 33 to 285 feet. TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT STUDIES By MAX C. BREWER Umiat test well 4 had been abandoned for 20 months and should have very nearly reached thermal equi- librium when a thermistor cable was lowered on April 1, 1952, to a depth of 291 feet where an obstruction, thought to be a thin plug of ice, was reached. Readings were taken in this upper air-filled part- of the hole the following day when the thermistors had had sufficient time to come to thermal equilibrium with their sur- roundings. Permafrost is here used in Muller's sense (Muller, 1945) of a thickness of soil or other surficial deposit or of bedrock at a variable depth beneath the surface of the earth in which a temperature below freezing has existed ccntinuously for a long time. Although not explicitly stated in this definition, Muller has consist- ently used the term "permafrost" to apply to material whose temperature is perennially below 0°C, and it was his intention to do so (oral communication). The thermal profile in this hole (temperature vs. depth) showed that the minimum permafrost temper- ature is approximately —6.20°C at a depth of 100 feet. The temperatures above 100 feet are slightly warmer than those at similar depths in Umiat test well 6, but temperatures at depths below 100 feet are considerably colder (1.1°C at 250 feet). Because both wells are subject to about the same climatic effects and are in rather similar lithologic surroundings, any dif- ferences in temperature in these two holes should be the effect of either topography, the Colville River, dif- ferences in well -filling material (Aquagel or air), surface cover, or a combination of these factors. Temperature and other data are not sufficient for a complete inter- pretation of the role of these factors in the temperature differences in the wells, especially at Umiat test well 4, but they indicate that the temperature differences above 100 feet in depth (the approximate depth of seasonal change) may well be caused by topography. The hole is very close to the south -facing slope of the ridge and thus, to depths on the order of 100 feet, may be exposed to certain warming side effects not ' in holes in flat areas. The differences below 10f be caused by topography and (or) the near Colville River to Umiat test well 6. 132 ESPATION OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE"':QO. 4, ALASKA, 194453 It is doubtful if drilling penetrated through the bottom of permafrost as the total depth of the well is 840 feet, while the indicated depth of permafrost is 890 feet according to an extrapolation of the geothermal profile curve. This extrapolation, for a distance of 600 feet, is subject to error, but there are several lines of evidence favoring this conclusion. First, the inverse geothermal gradient of the bottom eight measurements and the extrapolated part of the curve_ is 115 feet per degree centigrade, whereas the inverse geothermal gradient at nearby Umiat test well 6 is 117 feet per degree centigrade from 250 to 700 feet in depth. Sec- ondly, the depth of permafrost at Umiat test well 6 is approximately 770 feet, and the difference of —1.1°C at 250 feet, if carried on to greater depths in accordance with the observed gradient, would indicate a depth of permafrost of 897 feet at Umiat test well 4. UMIAT TEST WELL 5 00 - 213 Location: Lat 69123105" N., long 152°04156" W. Elevation: Ground level 334 feet; rig floor, 335 feet. Spudded: July 5, 1950. Suspended: September 22, 1950. Resumed: April 22, 1951. Completed: October 4, 1951; pumped 400 barrels of oil per day; shut in. Total depth: 1,077 feet. To demonstrate further the value of drilling with cable tools and using brine, Umiat test well 5 was drilled close (174 feet east and 97 feet north) to Umiat test well 2, which had several oil shows but produced only a trace of oil when tested. Umiat test well 5 produced 400 barrels of oil per day and expanded the known producing area of the field in addition to testing the lower sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS The hole probably spudded in the Ninuluk forma- tion, but the first sample, at 65 feet, was taken 5 feet below the top of the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation as determined by correlation with nearby wells. Thin coal beds are common between 85 and 105 feet, and clay ironstone is present throughout the formation, which consists primarily of interbedded sandstone and clay shale. A slight show of gas was noted just below 200 feet, with oil in a lower sandstone. The base of the formation, at 335 feet, is marked by sandy siltstone instead of sandstone as in other wells. All the sandstone beds in the Grandstand formation (335-1,060 feet) had shows of oil and are the source of the oil produced from the well. When the well was drilled below 800 feet, however, salt water also entered the hole. Pressure in the lower sandstone held the fluid level 195 feet higher in the hole than pressure in the upper sandstone; this probably caused movement of oil from the lower to the upper sandstone while the hole was idle. The open hole produced oil at the capac- ity of the pump, with very little water; no decline was apparent in a 93 -day test. (See table on p. 135.) The bottom of the hole is 17 feet below the top of the Topagoruk formation (1,060-1,077 ft). Several rigs were employed in drilling Umiat test well 5; they are described on page 136. Depths in the well are measured from the derrick floor used with the cable -tool rigs, 1 foot above ground level. Lithoiogic description [Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks ----- 0-65 No sample. ----- 65-70 Sandstone, siltstone, clay shale. Sand- stone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, silty, micaceous, noncalcareous; com- posed of subangular clear and white quartz and gray and dark rock frag- ments. Siltstone, medium -light -gray, argillaceous, sandy, micaceous, non - calcareous. Clay shale, medium -dark - gray, very micaceous, noncalcareous. 70-75 Clay shale and siltstone as above, with rare clay ironstone and carbonaceous shale. 75-85 Sandstone as above, with small amount of siltstone and clay shale, and rare clay ironstone. ----- 85-90 Siltstone, with small amount of light - olive -gray very fine-grained micaceous sandstone and clay shale, with very small amount of clay ironstone and black shaly coal. 90-100 Siltstone, medium -light -gray, argillaceous, slightly calcareous, with very small amount of clay shale, carbonaceous shale, and coal. ----- 100-110 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, very silty, noncalcareous, and small amount of very argWaceous siltstone; rare coal in upper part; some light -grayish -brown noncalcareous clay ironstone with con- choidal fracture in lower part. ----- 110-115 No sample. ----- 115-120 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained, silty, noncalcareous. ----- 120-125 Sandstone and siltstone, medium -light - gray, very sandy, argillaceous, with rare black carbonaceous clay shale. ----- 125-130 Sandstone, siltstone, and clay shale. ----- 130-135 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to medium -grained, noncalcareous, fri- able; composed of subangular clear and white quartz, gray chert, and dark rock fragments. ----- 135-140 Clay shale, very silty, with small amount of siltstone and sandstone. ----- 140-150 Sandstone, with small amount of silt - stone. ----- 150-155 Sandstone and very silty clay shale. ----- 155-170 Sandstone, with very small amount of clay shale and siltstone. ----- 170-180 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly silty, slightly micaceous, noucalcar- eous, slightly carbonaceous. _____ 180-185 Sandstone, with some siltstone and very silty clay shale. 185-195 Clay shale, with siltstone, medium -gray, slightly to very argillaceous, and clay ironstone in lower part. UMIAT TEST WELL NO. 4 CRETACEOUS Chandler Formation, Killik tongue: 9017-320' Grandstand Formation: 320'-840' Form 9-593 (April 1964) , , , N. P. R.4 Land offince ______ • UNITED STATES • DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONSERVATION DIVISION INDIVIDUAL WELL. RECORD Date---- June--��- �-��-5�--------- ,.�---------------------- State----Al.etsks Serial No_ __________________ --- Lessee ------------------------- --- Operator ----- U. -S. -Navy ----------- ---------- -------------------------------------- -------- Field ---------- Umiat Area -- - ---- ----- - West Coast Region District------------------------------------------------------------- Well No. _---Umi_a _-That_WeZI.-��F-------------------- Subdivision * Location I.at. _ 6Q'3_`_�"_--- Drilling approved ------------------ ------------------ 19-------- Well elevation-------kO2 -Ur--------------------------- feel Drilling commenced --------- m ay__26____-----, 19.50__ Total depth ------- $±------------------------------ - feet Drilling ceased ------------ Ju1Y__ 24 _______________ 19_59__ Initial production __ Completed for production _____4 4y___29___1 19.50__ Gravity A. P. I. ________ 3 0 ------- - -------------------- ____ Abandonment approved _______- Geologic Formations Surface Lowest tested WELL STATUS 19-------- Initial R. P. ------------------------------------------------ - — Productive Horizons Name Depths Contents __----- 2-------------------- -M3-300 ---------- ------0-11----------- YEAR TAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE .JULY Aua. SEPT. OCT. Nov. Dime. 1950 --------- ----- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- Drg. - Drg. - POW gI - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ----- - ---------------- ----------- - 1952 -------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----SI +� REMARKS---Unsurveyed----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- =" - c� _33 _feet _ w-1-'��------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -- -- - -- ---- ----- t3eoio�icai-Barye pro�`essional Pia,--er-- _0 -)�3 --------------------- - --------------- ---------------- ---------------------- -- --- -- y------------------------------- — ------------------------------------------------------------- V. S. "VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 16-86057-4 --- --- EXPLANATION 0 OIL WELL ' GAS WELL OIL AND GAS WELL -� OIL SHOW -ABANDONED - GAS SHOW -ABANDONED ARCON BARROW SUSPENDED GAS WELL • OIL AND GAS SHOW ABANDONED S. BARROW 2 -- i S. BARROW -4 DRY AND ABANDONED 0 SUSPENDED OIL WELL 0 BARROW AREA C E �• `�` TULAGEAK I 4 w S.BARRO 1N. D SEI WALAKPA WOBAY I F SIMPSON I . .. , + + WALAKPA 2 E. SIMPSON 2 J. W. DALTON 1 s FF I KUYANAKJ �, -. E.SIM�P,SLQ.@�11.,. FO ULL CL SIMPSON I_ •• • ,,,�"^W.T. RAN I �I /Jf PEARD I r -- i _ ..- _ ._ 4, .. I N l xf POINT I S. - CAP — - TOPAGORUKI - s - f - -- _ KUGRUA 1 . { j - E. TOP _RUK ITESHEPUK S.MEADE I. ._:• PIKPUK-I� �a -i i �I1 l.n b. rA N. KALIKPiK.1= W. FISH CREEK I N.INIGOK i + — N*ADE I. - �� . _.- _e Q � : INIGOK i -KA'OLAK I - - — t � �I. + 5 ', 4. 1., r 1 _ i 1_ OUMAL K AKOWKTA fir_ SQUA E1. }} I V TITALUK - - WOLF CREEK140 SEABEE 4WUNA I V ! NIFEBLADE--/ E HALKETTI ATIGARU �^ POINT I HARRISON B4V '�7 CREEK I 1 0..( �� 1 KILLIK'sI + RAVER I (in d. stryj 1 i SENTINEL '11HILL I PIM GUBIK IT + AREA GU2IK ARI _ GRANDSTAND I 17 z iLISBURNE 1 I i I 25 5i0 Mi. o" 0 i5 55o 75 Km. �OlOQ®. �'(•• 6 TETRA TECH REPORT NO.8200 TeT�pA� T�6 �eNc,•�, INDEX MAP -PET -4B NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS. 1944 - 53 1974 _6L Npp ALASKA BARROW AREA i -¢- ARCON BARROW -� S. BARROW 1 S. BARROW 2 -- i S. BARROW -4 S. BARROW 5 S. BARROW 6 ii S. BARROW 7 S.,BARROW 8 E S. BARROW 9 S. BARROW 10 S. BARROW 11 j S. BARROW l2 S. BARROW 13 'j S. BARROW 14 S. BARROW 15 S. BARROW 16 S. BARROW 17 1 S. BARROW 18 S. BARROW 19 S. BARROW 20 AVAK I • UMIAT AREA -¢- UMIAT I -� UMIAT 2 UMIAT 3 ® UMIAT 4 • UMIAT 5 ¢ UMIAT 6 - UMIAT 7 E UMIAT 8 UMIAT 9 UMIAT 10 - UMIAT 11 FIGURE 2 "Old" 11avy wells (1944-53) well 14ame Avak - ! South Barrow -1 /60-06F3 South Barrow -2 100-Oo�L/ j South -Barrow -3 Y00 Ib i South Harrow -4 /6Urpo1(c Fish Creek -1 /DO -!o% Grandstand -1 g 00 ' 3 Gubik-1 /60-09 1 Gubik-2 f00 -aa a Kaolak-1 !UO -aay j Knifeblade-1 )6U - /0 1 j Knifeblade-2 160 -off Kni.feblade-2A 1S No J wJ+'.blade 5 i i Meade -1 OiLmalik-1 East 0umalik-1 /00 //b__ i Simpson Nas-f� Si%npsoq-/ oU�o/� Squere Lake -1 Titaluk-1 16b-106 Topagoruk-1 100 -!q Eadt Topagoruk-1 -4.1 b Umiat-1 10U Umiat-2 !(>v-'�!O Umiat-3 100-G'11 Umiat-4 lOv -ala Umiat-5 /DO -ala (II Umiat-6 /130 Umiat-7 /C)6'a16 LUmiat-8 /00 2-1 !v } Umiat-9 Umiat-10 Umiat-11 /00'9/1 f Wolf Creek -1 Wolf Creek -2 t vvI l t I Wolf Creek -3 "Intermediate" wells at Barrow•(1955-1974) South Barrow -5 166-ba?S South Barrow -6 South Barrow -7 /W;-030 ,South Barrow -8 /(i6;-,03/ South Barrow -9 /00-63Q South Barrow -10 /oU-653 South Barrow -11 /(D -03y South Barrow -12 /lSU�05� s