The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About100-213o>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 'At.E1SK.A 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: eTZ1!. 1,-1- P_nt G LnV1,LwCLI,_rne a L 4eD . �,P U `Z01 c4q'Lis6fi:rvcTLLo k 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 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 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 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. n•\ennu\re\FAAP.1 F-1-1 AaPnriez\T)nT\BT.M\Projects\LeeacvWells\71113 Letter to BLM on LegacyWells.docx Wayne Svejnoha 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 GASPAR\CS\Federal Facilities\Civilian Federal Agencies \DOI \BLM\Projects\Legacy Wells\7 1113 Letter to BLM on Legacy Wells.docx SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 1 of 14 Evidence 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 Simpson Core Test #5 US Navy / BLM Low None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Simpson Core Test #6 US Na / 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 Na / BLM Low None INone Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA and SI incl drill fluid assessment, workplan incl sampling stressed debris, partially Simpson Core Test 3#16 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, f None None Unknown areas clas blowout and fire revecletated site Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #17 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 #18 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 #19 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 #20 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Simpson Core Test #21 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #22 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 #23 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 #24 US Na / 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 None 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 ILow INone None No appears healthy Pluaaed to surface site not cleared Page 1 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx vience 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 plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #3 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3092 Yes, see file Plued b 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 None 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 I Low lNone I None lYes lCleanup. lmud & diesel to surface ldebris. 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 / RPI Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status J Need HRR, PA, SI with �a r— 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 INone Yes Istressed vegetation Ito surface I Pylons Page 3 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx vi aence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup motes 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 rig 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 Sloe 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, SF 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 None None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill fluid tubing in well, no perfs, South Barrow #17 JUS Na /North Sloe Boro None INone None Unknown assessment & workplan unknown fluids no data Page 4 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx 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 Status South Barrow #18 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well - 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 Na / Unknown Low None None yes areas completed after blowout. no data two downhole cement plugs of unknown depth Grandstand #1 US Na / 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 Na / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI csg to 27' open csg csg @ 31'. 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and core Oumalik Core #1 US Na / BLM None -No observa None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI. barrel left in hole. reve etated Page 5 of 14 C SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 6 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk vi ence of — 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 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 Navy / BLM Low None None Yes surface csq to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal Oumalik Core #12 US Navy / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data debris buried by landslide, Need HRR, PA, SI. Well not no data on Sentinel Hill #1 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown apparent in site photos csg to 30'; underwater status Need HRR, PA, Sl. 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 Navy / 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 Na / 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 61' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #3 US Na / 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 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 csg cemented @25'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #13 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy rillin fluids left in hole out of ground Need HRR, PA, Sl. Vegetated, no evidence of csg cemented @20'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 US Na / BLM Low None None No release. drillin fluids left in hole out of round Page 6 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 7 of 14 vience o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR 1Morkgroup Notes Status Status 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 Na / BLM Medium None None Yes Plugged by BLM in 2004. unassisted flow. and rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Sl. 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 Navy1 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 Na / 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 Na / BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. gas blowout at 423' as 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 Na / BLM INone INone I None IYes, see notes IBLM in 2004. 1 drilling fluids left in hole out of round Page 7 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 vi ence of BLM 2013 Risk Historic Subsurface AOGCC Surface— Well Name Operator I RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workg�oup Notes Status Status J — _AOGCC 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 ka 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 Navy / 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 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 • vience 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 Add to Site list. Need HRR, 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 healthy 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 vegetation Drilling mud left in hole Concrete debris. plate welded to pipe; 1' 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, teller. No offical reserve pit plug; unknown fluids in metal, and glass East To a oruk #1 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No noted open hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, states that there was no metal, and glass Knifeblade #1 US Navy/ 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 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 Status j - - 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 Na / BLM Low None None No (drums) in hole hazard. open casing sticking up; metal & Knifeblade #2a US Na / 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 Navy / BLM Low None None No the summer drilling fluids left in hole ? No data —during crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, SI. 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, Sl. 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 NRR, PA, SI. 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 None lNone IYes lwater durinq breakup. no data Idata Page 10 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 11 of 14 vi enceot 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 Na / 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 plao 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 cleared, 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 Na /BLM - High None None Yes -Report notes retain water 1950% tbg to 1939' affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA, SI. 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 lNone 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 tubin . 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 None Yes surface water in well cellar fluids and water debris Page 11 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx yr ffence 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 no data. Likely r_ 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 MonthlyMeetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no AP I#, 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 I None-uncased hcl None lNone jUnknown 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 I RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR lMorkgroup Notes Status Status no data. Likely -- - - - - �---r------ — _- �----- — -_�- 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 AP I#, 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 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 Meeting properly abandoned per then -applicable South Barrow #7 US Na / BLM None None lNone Unknown Need HRR, PA, properly plugged re s no data to support proper Umiat #2 US Navy / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plucicied 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 Na / BLM Hi h -PCB cleanul Active 335.38.001/3093 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #6 US Na / BLM None Pending Cloi 335.38.001/3080 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #7 US Na / BLM lNone Pending Clo 335.38.001/3091 Yes, see file labandoned remediated Need HRR, PA, Plugged by property 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 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface FAO(GCC Surface Well Name Operator'/ RPI Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes --- — _ Status us 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 INone 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 Slope 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 INone lNone INone IYes reserve and flare pits. abandoned remediated Page 14 of 14 i 0 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 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 Undat 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 remediation. Photo taken August 2001. historic value. The Alaska Heritage 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 • 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 s. and completed as a dry a. bole. 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 Umiat 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 determine 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 0 • LO 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 corner 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 sediments (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992). Figure 16: J.W. Dalton with exposed conductor (left), and rat hole (right). The mouse hole (not pictured) is completely exposed. 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 3 _ � '! $inv" on E6 Simpson_ �2 Stmpsor►i€15 i Simpson #14&14A o$impson #3t Simpson AR29e ��.,.. .,if"a i t,°'w:- ,•$011�l Simpson 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. Gas 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 fmdings 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 cased to 101 feet. The objective of drilling was to 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 i 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 i Simpson Core Test #30 0 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 '/2 -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 i 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. common 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 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 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 inuds 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 Topagoruk 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 Figure 28: Fish Creek #1 with concrete cellar. 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 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 atmosphere. There is no solid waste, nor is there anything hazardous regarding this location. It should not be considered a risk to surface or sub -surface resources. Simpson Core Test #15 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 '/g 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. 0 i 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 39 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 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 enviromiient. 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. Several pilings and light trash are present, but s 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 Figure 33: Meade #1 wellhead. resources. 41 • Titaluk #1 0 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 #I 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. Surfrcially, 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 fonnations. 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 confirmed 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 did not encounter on 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 Oumalik 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 Topagoiuk 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 '/z -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 #1 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 numerous algae and other aquatic vegetation obscuring the wellbore. Surficial 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 • 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 t/4 mile in an Figure 36: Topagoruk #1 casin on its Figure g east -west direction and 1/8 of a mile in a north- side. When the casing was pulled out of south direction. Solid wastes exist in the fonn of the ground, thermistor cables were piping remaining from a refrigeration system that discovered. circulated diesel to keep the permafrost frozen. A potential hazard exists because diesel 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 (1/4 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. U Figure 37: Drilling muds and a wooden box that resembles a cellar are located about '/< mile east of the wellhead. East Topagoruk #1 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 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. 0 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. Surfrcially, there are no concerns associated with this well. A drill pad does not exist and the wellhead consists of open-ended casing (Figure 38). The wellhead is 8 '/8 - inch pinup inside 11 by 12 V4 -inch Figure 38: Knifeblade #1 is located in a marshy area at collar. The plumb -bob hit solid at 12 the headwaters of a small creek. feet. Total height for the well is about three feet. If this well is left in its current condition, it poses no risk to adversely impacting the surface or sub -surface resources. 46 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 enviromnent 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 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 a _ _ 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. Surficially, 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 49 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. • 9 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 surficial 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. annual basis Tunalik # 1 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 . It is also worth mentioning that the same type of scenario is unfolding at (another USGS well). Wave action from the reserve pit is beginning to 51 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 extremely friable. It is likely that these uncased core holes test, are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center. Barrow Gas Wells 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 Plugged Wells Square Lake #1 • 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 12 and wooden platform Figure 44: Plugging operations at Umiat #5. March 2002. 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 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 maximurn 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 3/ -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. Umiat #8 Figure 46: Umiat #4 prior to plugging. The wellhead is located in the center of the photograph. 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 Formations. 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 9 ! 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 help lubricate the 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 a roximatel 10 feet The 8 s/8 -inch casing is flared and� open at the top. This well was plugged May 6, 2004 (Figure _ 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 • APPENDIX B • 20 Wells Currently Monitored by the United States Geological Survey: NAME Atigaru Awuna* Drew Point East Simpson #1 East Teshekpuk West Fish Creek #1 Ikpikpuk Kugura Koluktak* Kuyanak Lisburne North Inigok North Kai ikpik 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 In 2002, Umiat #2 and 95 were plugged and abandoned by Corps of Engineers (COE). As the landowner, BLM remained on site throughout the duration of the project. The COE spent approximately $25 million plugging the two wells and remediating the soil which contained PCBs, diesel range organics, and barium (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1993). In 2003, the BLM let a contract to investigate potential staging areas as an option to help ZD facilitate the lack of infrastructure in NPR -A. A contractor analyzed possible locations, pad designs, and construction materials to assist in the potential development of a staging area that can be used in plugging and remediation of the legacy wells and by industry for exploration. After the 2004 field season, it was determined only eight wells pose a potential risk to the environment and building a staging area will be more costly than the benefits it will offer to the BLM legacy well efforts. It may, however be beneficial to continue to investigate the possibilities of a staging area as a tool to manage the NPR -A and to facilitate future exploration. Figure 8: A temporary enclosure was built around Umiat #8, a live gas well, to circumvent the elements. To minimize surface impacts, plugging occurs during the winter. Costs In early 2004, the BLM plugged four wells at Umiat (Figure 8). The wells posed a potential threat to the health and safety of both the environment and the local human population. Umiat is regarded as the main hub for activities in southern NPR -A for fuel, recreation, and other activities as it is one of the few areas in this roadless environment that provides fuel, lodging, and meals. BLM has estimated the cost of plugging and abandoning 37 legacy wells to exceed $40 million dollars. These costs only represent the cost to place cement plugs in the wellbores. The plugs designed for a well must; 1) eliminate the well's potential to allow oil and gas to flow to the surface and 2) prevent any sub -surface movement of oil and gas that would adversely impact sub -surface resources or interfere with future development operations. The BLM cost estimates are based on recent experience in Umiat and data gathered regarding mobilizing equipment and camps on Alaska's North Slope but must be r 1v►i� � �. 8 �,0�� ,P� `" 10 1 b recognized as rough estimates. Costs can increase significantly if the downhole well conditions pose difficulties that are not apparent from the surface (e.g. collapsed casing, junk in hole, lost circulation). The cost estimates also do not represent the costs associated with removing barrels, piping, pilings, and other remnants of the legacy well exploration activity. These "solid wastes" pose no identified risk to surface resources other than being an unsightly reminder of the early exploration and the potential costs to remove these items have not been evaluated in any detail. Seven legacy wells have been plugged to date. One well is Square Lake #1 where several downhole plugs are documented up to a depth of 700 feet. No surface plug was documented but field investigations by BLM personnel revealed the existence of a cement surface plug. Based on professional judgment, this well is considered plugged. Two were plugged in Umiat by the COE at a cost of $4.1 million in 2002. Umiat #2 and #5 had down -hole problems that could not be predicted or identified until the well plugging work commenced. The COE actually spent closer to $25 million after including the cost of soil remediation. With no down -hole problems and simplified plugging procedures, the BLM plugged the other four at a total cost of $1.4 million in 2004. Umiat has several unique conditions that contributed to keeping the costs to plug the wells relatively low including the maintained airstrip, fuel supply and camp facilities. These facilities greatly facilitated moving equipment to the wellsites and conducting the subsequent work but are not found at the other legacy wellsites. Another factor that makes plugging wells simpler at Umiat is the shallow depth of the wells. With the remaining legacy wells situated in more remote locations of NPR -A and some of the wells being significantly deeper, the costs to plug them will be much greater than at Umiat. Fuel, camp facilities, and equipment will have to be brought to the sites overland by Cat -Train. The average cost to plug the Umiat wells has thus far been $920,000, although the BLM was able to plug four of them for an average cost of $350,000. The average cost to plug the remaining wells in the more remotelocations of NPR -A outside of Umiat is expected to exceed $1,000,000 each. Below is an example of the cost estimate to plug a Simpson Peninsula well. The example also illustrates how wells in the same area can be plugged for a reduced incremental cost; Cost to plug Simpson Core #26 Incremental Well 7 Total Wells Mobilization $500,000 $40,000 $740,000 Demobilization $250,000 $25,000 $400,000 Equipment $750,000 $125,000 $1,500,000 Labor $150,000 $83,300 $650,000 Lodging $75,000 $42,500 $330,000 Materials $750,000 $66,700 $1,150,000 Disposal $30,700 $30,700 $215,000 Sampling $3,000 $3,000 $21,000 Total $2,508,700 $416,200 $5,006,000 11 C / The 11 Umiat wells were drilled from 1 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 aircraft. 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 Umiat Air Force Station. In Tune of 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 historic value. The Alaska Heritage 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. Figure 11: Umiat #2 and #5 prior to removal and remediation. Photo taken August 2001. 23 lV • 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 42 and #5 have been successfully plugged and abandoned. Umiat wells 43, #4, 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. .P�laiV� D Wig" wig 1 8 20'10 13 � 0 IDD-C�l3-0 Henri R. Bisson State Director Bureau of Land Management 222 West 7`h Avenue, # 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 September 8, 2006 FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR 333 W. T" AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Re: Recent Work at NPRA Simpson Wells and Prior Umiat Work Dear Mr. Bisson: 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 vour 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. V • Henri R. Bisson September 8, 2006 Page 2 of 2 0 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 provift these documents so that the AOGCC's well files can be brought up to date wiljXe ap reciated. Work Reporting y 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] 4/12/2006 10:32 AM a U 1111QL 0 0 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 LJ APPENDIX F Well Plug and Abandonment 0 IAumiad05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc DRAFT AKT-J07-OSM318-722-0004 6/18/02 TABLE OF CONTENTS SE_ PAGE 1.0 WELL 2........... 1.1 Introduction ........................ 1.2 Umiat Test Well 2 historical Condition as known prior to site work ..................... F-1 1.3 Historically Significant........................................................................................... F-3 1.4 Permits BLM and AOGCC ....................... 1.4.1 BLM Regulatory Requirements Summary ..................... ...... F-3 ............................... 1.5 Well 2 Modified Procedure for Plug and Abandonment ................. ...... F-4 ................. 1.6 Planned P&A Equipment Layout for Wells 2 & 5 .................................................. F-7 1.6.1 Well P&A Equipment ............................ .................. F-9 ........................................... 1.6.2 Fluid preparation and Well 2 .............................. ............F-9 1.6.3 Intervention Actions............................................................ F-9 ................................ 1.6.4 Ice Plug............................................................ ............................. F-11 1.7 Cementing........................................................................... F-12 .................................. 1.7.1 Well 2 P&A Plan Review ............................................... F-12 .................................. 1.7.2 Revised Plan for the Plug and Abandonment of Well 2 ................................... F-12 1.7.3 Actual Wash and cement work ................................ .............. F-14 ........................... 1.8 P&A Waste fluid/soils/gravel mixing. Planned V actual ...................................... F-14 1.9 Well 2 Casing Excavation and Mechanical cut off ........................... 1.10 Variances .......................... 1.10.1 Well Condition Variances ................... . L10.2 Waste E&P Non -Hazardous Materials Generated ........................................ F-17 2.0 Well 5.......................................................................................... F-18 .............................. 2.1 Introduction......................................................... ...... F-18 2. 1.1 Umiat Test Well 5 Present Condition as known prior to site work .................. F-18 2.2 Permits.....................................................:...... . F-18 ...................................................... 2.2.1 Well 5 Modified Procedure Proposed for Plug and Abandonment ................... F-20 2.3 Planned Well P&A Equipment Layout for Well 5 ................................................ F-20 2.4 Fluid Preparation Planned V actual ........................... ... F-20 ......................................... 2.5 Intervention actions....................................................................................F-23 2.5.1 Casing Removal Procedure ................................. F-23 .............................................. 2.5.2 Variances to Casing Removal Procedure ................................... I:\umiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-1 AKT-J07-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6/18/02 0 • TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Materials Recovered from Well 5................................................................................. F-26 2.6 Cementing............................................................................................................. F-26 Actual Well 5 as Plugged and Abandoned is shown in Figure F-8 .............................. F-26 2.6.2 Cement Plug#1................................................................................................. F-27 2.6.3 Set Bridge Plug Cement plug#2....................................................................... F-27 2.6.4 Cement Plug # 3................................................................................................ F-27 2.7 P&A Waste fluid/soils/gravel mixing. Planned V actual ...................................... F-28 2.7.1 Wastes resulting from the Well 5 P&A work over are: .................................... F-28 2.8 Well 5 Casing Removals Explosive Cut off followed by Excavation and MechanicalCut off............................................................................................... F-29 2.8.1 EXPLOSIVES................................................................................................... F-29 2.9 Variance summary................................................................................................ F-30 2.9.1 Well condition variances................................................................................... F-30 FIGURES Figure F-1 Umiat Well 2 —As -Built Completion...................................................................F-2 Figure F-2 Umiat Well 2 — Planned P&A..............................................................................F-6 Figure F-3 Umiat Wells 2 & 5 — Planned Brine Injection Equipment Setup .........................F-8 Figure F-4 Umiat Well 2 — Actual Brine Injection Equipment Setup..................................F-10 Figure F-5 Umiat Well 2 — Actual P&A...............................................................................F-13 Figure F-6 Umiat Well 5 — As -Built Completion.................................................................F-19 Figure F-7 Umiat Well 5 — Planned P&A............................................................................F-21 Figure F-8 Umiat Well 5 — Actual P&A...............................................................................F-22 I:\umiaA051M1801\vp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc F -ii AKT407-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 611 V02 2.0 WELL 5 This section of Appendix F describes the activities associated with the P&A of the second well addressed in this removal action. 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.1 Umiat Test Well 5 Present Condition as known prior to site work. Umiat Test Well 5 was drilled in 1950 and 1951 with cable tool drilling equipment to a total depth of 1,077 feet. The well is located adjacent to a 16 -foot high bank of the Colville River and shares the same drill pad as Umiat Test Well 2, which was drilled in All depths referenced in this proposed program are RKB unless otherwise noted. The height of the RKB above the current ground surface is unknown but is estimated to be 10 feet. An 85/8 -inch conductor is set at 32 feet and cemented to the surface. A 5'/2 -inch surface casing strung is set at 1,068 feet. The annulus between the 85/8 -inch casing and the 5%2 -inch casing is also cemented at the surface. A gate valve is attached to the top of the 5'/2 -inch casing. The well was filled full of Umiat crude and or diesel prior to being left in 1953. Figure F-6 Well 5 as built illustration. 2.2 PERMITS The Bureau of Land Management has ownership of the Umiat well site and wells 2 and 5 and all work was completed in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management regulations 43CFR3160 for both wells 2 & 5. The BLM Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells (form 3160-1) Approval was obtained for both wells. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) was also consulted and their guidance obtained to incorporate their regulatory requirements contained in 20 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 25.105 through 20 AAC 25.172a in the work carried out Application for Sundry Approvals (form 10-403). The regulatory summary is the same as outlined for Well 2 above. IAumiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 ReportingMeporLdoc F-18 AKT407-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6/18/02 F-19 8-518" CASING 10-3/4" OPEN HOLE TO TO 32' GROUND LEVEL =1111— r= _ = GROUND LEVEL 8-5/8" CASING SHOE 32' .i 8-518" TO 5-1/2" CASING ANNULAR CEMENT TO 30' \-7-7/8"HOLE 5-1/2" CASING APPROX. TOC 400' r'r .h .II SHOE 1068' III III :r III III -• :' IIII 'III=IiII�! 1=111i UMIAT WELL 5 - AS -BUILT COMPLETION CEMENT UMIAT, ALASKA MUD AND/OR FORMATION FLUID PFOJWr WHAGM F" HALF- DAM S Koch Umiat Wei 5 May 20, 02 uroUrrAft RUMMM WEIGHT UNKNOWN oMAM�: As -Built F-6 ��BP F"LOCATM xj I Umiat / 05M31801 / 2002 Phase 2 F-19 71 0 Cm 2.2.1 Well 5 Modified Procedure Proposed for Plug and Abandonment. Figure F-7 shows how we proposed that Umiat Well 5 was to be abandoned in accordance with the BLM and AOGCC regulations. A cement plug was to set from the 5 1/2 -inch casing shoe at 1068 -feet up to 958 -feet bgs. Brine would be left in the hole from 958 -feet to 180 -feet bgs were a surface plug would be set. Cement would then be set from 180 -feet back to 90 -feet bgs in the 5 %2 -inch casing. At the 90 -feet bgs level the 5 %2 -inch casing would be perforated and cement squeezed out of the 5 %2 -inch casing and into any gaps which may exist in the original annular cement between the formation and the 5 %2 -inch casings. The surface 8 5/8 - inch casing ended at 32 -feet bgs and would not be an issue with this cementing plan. The cement squeezed out from the 5 1/2 -inch casing would assure that the 5 %2 -inch casing remaining within the well was securely cemented to the rock formation. The fmal pour of cement would be placed in the casing from the 90 -feet to the 40 -feet level. The 5 1/2 -inch casing would then be explosively cut off at the 40 -feet bgs level. 2.3 PLANNED WELL P&A EQUIPMENT LAYOUT FOR WELL 5 The equipment layout used for the work on Well 5 is shown in Figure F-3 and is the same as discussed in write up for Well 2 above. The P&A proposal for the setting of the concrete plugs in Well 5 closely followed the BLM and AOGCC regulatory requirements. The proposed plan is summarized in Figure F-7. The actual P&A cement placed in Well 5 is summarized in Figure F-8 2.4 FLUID PREPARATION PLANNED V ACTUAL In the case of Well 5 the brine fluid weight of 9.4 ppg used for the P&A work was the same as that proposed in the P&A plan. The well cleaning and re -circulation allowed the minimum of brine loss while recovering the volume of oil that remained in the well. I:\umiat\05M31801\wp\Phne 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-20 AKT-J07-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6/18102 0 10 TO 12, 5"-6" HOLES 38' DEEP, 8-5/8" CASING AROUND WELL CONCRETE ON 12"-14" RADIUS CENTERS =11 l — ' :. ?'• I I=II = GROUND LEVEL 8-5/8" CASING SHOE 37 40• PERFORATIONS 90'• 1 10-3/4" OPEN HOLE TO GROUND LEVEL — ANNULAR CEMENT TO APPROX. 110' 180' \--- PERFORATION DEVICE HOLES: 4 PER FOOT BETWEEN 90'-91' c@ 90',180',270-,360- SURFACE 0',180',270",360°SURFACE PLUG IN 5-1/2" CASING 5-1/2" CASING APPROX. TOC 400' SHOE 1068' ORIGINAL CEMENT NEW P&A CEMENT MAY BE OVER OR MIXED THROUGH OLD CEMENT Y -2i 7-7/8" HOLE PERMAFROST CEMENT PLUG FROM SHOE 100'+ 10% 8-5/8" CASING CUT AND CAPPED AT APPROX. 26' TO 2T (SEE PLATE DETAIL =1111 8-5/8" CASING SHOE 32' TOC AT 40' PERFORATED SPF AT 90' BRIDGE PLUG AT 265' APPROX. TOC 400' f10W5 2 PLATE DETAIL STEEL PLATE WELDED ON CUT-OFF CASING SHOE 1068' ® 15.6 ppg PERMAFROST CEMENT CEMENT - ORIGINAL COMPLETION MUD AND/OR FORMATION FLUID WEIGHT UNKNOWN F-22 8-5/8" TO 5-14ASING ANNULAR CEMENT TO 32' 10-3/4" OPEN HOLE TO GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL 26' BEDROCK SURFACE PLUG #3 10 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 40' TO 90' 122' CALCULATED BOC ANNULUS SQUEEZE 15 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg INTERMEDIATE PLUG #2 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 95' TO 265 7-7/8" HOLE 5-1/2" CASING 9.3 ppg NaCl BOTTOM PLUG #1 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 885' TO 1055 055' PBTD 2.5 INTERVENTION ACTIONS Well 5 was reported to have been filled to the surface with Umiat crude oil then capped with a tubing head and shut in. No tubing string was reported in the well. The well inspection of February 14, 2002 revealed that there was no pressure in the well. It was observed that the tubing spool flange bolts were missing; and that the spool with its wing and swab valves could be rocked by hand but not lifted. A 966 loader was used to pick the tubing head up. This revealed a 2'/g -inch tubing string made up to the spool. No oil was observed at the surface. The plumb bob tape was run down the tubing by casing annulus to 100 ft. Three tubing collars were felt at 30 ft intervals. The tape was dry with minor rust dust when recovered. While there was no measurement of the weight of the string, observations of the loader reaction while lifting allow the conclusion that the string weight is in the —inch several thousand pound -inch range. This weight would reasonable for 1000 -feet of 2'/8 -inch tubing. The tubing spool was set back in place on the casing head. The presence of the 2'/8 -inch tubing string, and the absence of fluid in the well, present several items for consideration. The standard well control practice for a cased well to be open without a BOP is that the casing shoe be cemented and the casing loaded with kill weight fluid. The first question was how to fill the well with brine while displacing any remaining crude prior to the installing of the BOP ? Alternatively how could we install the BOP before loading the casing with fluid? Since neither precaution had been taken and the well had been sitting in the same condition for many years it was concluded that there was no need for fluid loading the well or installing the BOP prior to pulling the tubing. The BLM Inspector on site agreed with this conclusion and we proceeded to remove the tubing from. the well. 2.5.1 Casing Removal Procedure The summary of the procedure for removal of the Well 5 casing is as follows: • Lift and rotate the tubing head to secure the flange with at least 3 bolts. I:\wniat\05M31801\wp\Phaw 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-23 AKT-J07-0SM318-J22-0004 DRAFT 6/18/02 • Plumb the inside of the tubing and. determine the depth of any oil which may remain within the tubing as reported in the original records. • If oil is confirmed present prepare a covered lay down area for the tubing that may contain oil residue. Locate and rig up the drilling rig as planned excluding the BOP installation, but with the addition of tools to handle 2 7/8 -inch tubing. (No 2 7/8 -inch tools were not onsite since we did not expect to find this tubing in the well. • Pull and lay down tubing taking care if oil was found to be in the well. • Rig up wellhead and BOP as shown in Figure F-3. • Proceed with original plan for the P&A of Well 5 as described above. 2.5.2 Variances to Casing Removal Procedure The variances to the previously defined procedures are summarized as follows: When preparing to plumb for the fluid depth in the 2 7/8 -inch tubing it was discovered that the tubing had parted from the tubing spool and dropped down hole. The tubing head was removed and examined. The tubing had parted at the thread root of the pin end that was made up to the tubing spool. Approximately 1/16 -inch of fresh metal was observed in the break area. It appeared from the rusty surface of most of the broken thread that the tubing had been partially broken for some time. The well was plumbed with a 300 -feet survey tape. The top of fluid (Umiat Crude) was found at 122 -feet sub surface and the top of the 2 7/8 -inch tubing fish was found at 266 -feet sub surface. A plywood hole cover was secured on the casing flange. The specialist fishing tools and a fishing engineer were mobilized to site. The first fishing attempt was carried out using an overshot grapple which was run in to 266 - feet where it tagged the 2 7/8 -inch broken pipe end (fish). The grapple was worked to 267.5 - feet but without attaching to the fish. On recovery it appeared that the did not-inchfish-inch did not pass through the grapple mill guide. A lead impression block was prepared to try and determine the size and position of the end of the fish within the Well 5 %2 -inch casing. I:\umiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-24 AKT407-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6!]8/02 • The lead impression block image indicated that the end of the -inchfish-inch had a 2.5 -inch ID and an eccentric orientation. It was decided that a second run with the original grapple may yet be successful and it was run again. On this run we tagged the -inchfish-inch at 267-feetand worked down 22 -inch before again pulling out of the hole with no recovery. The grapple mill was carefully examined for wear. It appeared that the -inchfish-inch had passed the cut lip and mill guide but had not entered basket grapple. We again reran the grapple tool and tagged fish at 268 -feet. The tool was worked 271.25 -feet and again recovered with no recovery of the - inchfish-inch. Again we evaluated the grapple mill tool wear and again it appeared that fish had not entered cut lip guide. At this time we prepared for the possibility that we may not be able to recover the fish and that we may yet have to revise the P&A Plan based on the abandonment of the Well 5 at the 270 -feet bgs. The 8 5/8 -inch surface casing was cut off at 5 ft bgs and 5 %2 -inch casing at 4 ft bgs. The CalSeal cement in the 8 5/8 -inch to 5 %2 -inch annulus was found to be in good condition. The BOP mounting and adaptor flange were welded onto the 5 %2 -inch casing. A Schaffer double gate BOP with Blind and 3 1/2 -feet pipe rams was installed and the wellhead prepared for fishing for the lost 2 7/8 -inch pipe. It was decided to change the size of the grapple basket and a run was made using a 3 21/32 - inch tool without success. The grapple size was changed to 3 7/16 -inch and run into the hole. After working the tool onto the fish it locked on and took the weight of the tubing string that was pulled to the surface and the tubing secured at the drill table below the first collar. A heavy reinforced waterproof liner was laid out adjacent to the wellhead on which to lay the 2 7/8 -inch pipe as it was being recovered. The overshot was reversed out of the pipe and disconnected. We found a 4 -inch long nipple and 4 ft. pup on top of first joint of tubing. The tubing was also found to be standing full of oil. Pipe handling tools were rigged for the pipe removal. A 1 -inch diameter polished rod was found inside the top joint of tubing. The base plate and lifting eye tools were built on site to pull the rod. After the 20 -feet length the polished tubing was connected to pump sucker rod material. Some 90 -feet of rod was pulled wet and after IAumi405M318011wp\Ph se 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-25 AKT-107-0SM318-J2240004 DRAFr 6/18/02 being wiped down were laid down on the prepared plastic. At this point the oil drained from the tubing and the sucker rod became stuck and could not be drawn from the tubing. A second set of base plate and lifting eyes was made to attach to both the rod and the tubing simultaneously. Due to the mismatch in the lengths of the tubing and the sucker rod the tubing was broken at the joints since they were 25 -feet lengths and the sucker rod was cold cut at each tubing length and left within each tubing joint. Materials Recovered from Well 5 Materials recovered while the string was wet consisted of 20 ft of 1 -inch polished rod, 100 ft. of %-inch sucker rod and 20 ft. of 2 7/8 -inch tubing. After the string drained we recovered 39 joints (780 ft.) of 2 7/8 -inch tubing and sucker rod with the down hole pump with tailpipe attached to the last joint. On closer examination we found Gypsum cement residue packed in tailpipe perforations indicating that the tailpipe had fallen all the way down the well and landed on the casing shoe cement plug. 2.6 CEMENTING Actual Well 5 as Plugged and Abandoned is shown in Figure F-8 2.6.1.1 Flushing crude from the hole Having mixed 25 barrels of 9.3 ppg brine the 3 %Z -inch work string was filled and lowered into the well. A float shoe was used to wash to the set 5 1/2 -inch casing shoe while displacing the crude to the surface tanks. Fluid was found at a depth of 235 -feet bgs in the well bore and the bottom of the well tagged at 1043 -feet. Washing the well displaced 10 bbl of Umiat crude oil to the surface tanks. An additional 12 bbl of Umiat Crude was recovered through ongoing recirculation of the brine in Well 5. We continued to circulate the brine in the hole until clean brine returns were obtained. A-inchDrop ball -inch assembly with an over pressure cut off was used to shear off the Jetting sub close to TD. I:\umiat\05W I901\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-26 AKT )07-05W 18422-0004 DRAFT 6!18M 2.6.2 Cement Plug #1 Setting Plug # 1 in the Well bore as shown in figure D-8. A 15.6 ppg permafrost cement plug of 4.23 bbls was made up using 25 sacks. The cement was displaced with 0.5 bbl fresh water and 7.0 bbl brine. The calculated top of the cement was at 873-feetbgs. Actually found at 885 - feet bsg. The well was left full of brine above the TOC at 873 -inch and the work string was pulled out of the well. 2.6.3 Set Bridge Plug Cement plug #2 A bridge plug was made up, run in the well and set at 265 -feet. The plug was sheared off using 20,000 pound over pull and then weight test with 20,000 pound set down weight on top of the bridge plug. We then pulled the work string out of the well and assembled the 2 -inch HDPE cementing string. The work string was run into the well and tagged the Packer at 265 - feet. Some 25 sacks (4.23 bbl) 15.6 ppg Permafrost cement were mixed and prepared for pumping. Based on the bridge plug location and the volume of cement pumped we calculated the top of the cement (TOC) and circulated the hole until minor cement contaminated returns were observed at the surface tanks. On checking by running into the well with the HDPE cement line we found that the top of the cement, which was soft -inch was at 140 -feet bgs. 2.6.3.15 %-inch Casing Perforation The work string was rigged up to the pressure operated perforation guns and run into the well to 90 -feet bgs. The 5 %2 -inch casing was perforated over a 1 foot interval from 90 -feet to 89 - feet using explosive charges set at 90 degree spacing using a 3 3/8 -inch Halliburton TCP gun loaded with 8 shots per foot set at 45 %. The work string and spent perforation gun were removed from the well. 2.6.4 Cement Plug # 3 Following the perforation of the well casing it was filled with 9.3 pounds per gallon brine. It was observed that the well perforation was allowing the brine to leak out to the formation at a rate of'/ bbl/hr. We then ran the 2 -inch HDPE cementing pipe into the well to 100 -feet. We IAumiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 ReportinglReport.doc F-27 AKT-J07-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6118102 mixed and placed 2 bbl of 15.7 ppg Permafrost cement from the 140 to 40 -feet bgs. The BOP was closed and pressure applied to the brine in the well bore to squeeze the cement out through the perforations to ensure the best possible seal between the 5 '/2 -inch casing and the well formation The following day we checked the depth of the cement plug # 3 using the 2 - inch HDPE cementing line. The top of the cement was confirmed at 42 -feet bgs. Approximately'/2 a barrel of cement had been squeezed out through the perforations. 2.7 P&A WASTE FLUID/SOILS/GRAVEL MIXING. PLANNED V ACTUAL Planned Waste Volumes were based on the information know about the wells prior to the start of intervention on the site. Known conditions up to the point of intervention at the wellhead included: • The well was intact and the casings were in reasonable condition. (i.e. no collapse or significant corrosion) • The well was left full of oil which may include some naturally salt water which may have separated out from the oil in the well. • There were no blockages in the well other than the possibility of some minor bridging of salt materials due to water/oil separation within the well. • There could be some cement residue at the bottom of the well which may come out during well circulation clean up prior to cementing. • The well did not contain any pressure. Actual conditions are discussed above and summarized as: • A 2 7/8 -inch production tubing string, pump rod and down hole pump were found within the 5 '/2 -inch casing and removed before the P&A work could begin. • A fishing operation was required to recover the 2 7/8 -inch tubing string, pump and pump rod. • The 5 '/2 -inch casing was actually 5 9/16 -inch in diameter. 2.7.1 Wastes resulting from the Well 5 P&A work over are: • Cement rinsate/brine/oil traces 46 barrels • Crude oil 16 barrels • Cement returns from down hole 1 barrel IAumiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Reporkdoc F-28 AKT-107-05M318422-0004 DRAFT 6118/02 • Well solids 0 2.8 WELL 5 CASING REMOVALS EXPLOSIVE CUT OFF FOLLOWED BY EXCAVATION AND MECHANICAL CUT OFF 2.8.1 EXPLOSIVES It was originally anticipated that explosives would be used to remove both of the well casings. With the collapsed casing at Well 2, explosives could not be used since the shaped charge could not fit through the collapsed point where the explosion needed to occur. At Well 5 the casing was intact, and explosives were utilized. Before detonation, the explosives were stored in two separate locations (Figure 3-3). A blasting expert was contracted by Tester Drilling to perform the casing removal. The blaster arrived on site on 11 March 2002 and participated in a preparatory inspection for that phase of work. The following day, when the blasting was to occur, the sequence of the work was disrupted and the work halted. A second preparatory inspection was performed that evening and blasting plans initiated the following day. To prepare for blasting activities, Tester Drilling drilled four relief holes around the 8 -inch outer casing to assist in providing relief to the explosive energy. In addition to this, the relief holes were used to inject hot lake water into the holes, which would assist in creating a thaw bulb around the casing, aiding in removal. When installation of the relief holes was completed, all personnel other than the blasters left the well pad area. The blasters then placed a prepared, shaped charge to within 1 foot of the cement plug. Once the charge was set and the all -clear signals given, the blasters set off the charge, which severed the inner 5 -inch casing. Following blasting activities, the drillers mobilized back to the pad, saturated the relief holes with hot lake water, and started the attempt to remove the inner casing that had been severed. For the rest of the day and the following day Tester Drilling attempted to remove the inner 5 - inch casing and the outer 8 -inch casing. The only piece removed was a 10 -foot section of the inner casing. This portion required attaching a downhole hammer to the rig and beating and I:\umiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Repoding\Report.doc F-29 AKT-J07-05M318-J22-0004 DRAFT 6/18/02 • spinning the casing upward to force it past a cement ring plug and fabric, underwear seal that had been placed during the construction of the well. Once this 10 -foot section of the inner casing was removed, the removal of the outer casing was attempted without success. Work was halted by Jacobs on the casing removal due to the schedule delays, and the remaining removal was performed by Copper Valley, the civil subcontractor. 2.9 VARIANCE SUMMARY 2.9.1 Well condition variances • 780 feet of 2 7/8 -inch tubing found in the well. • A down hole pump and drive rod were also found attached to the 2 7/8 -feet tubing in Well 5. e The 5 Y2 -inch casing was actually 5 7/8 -inch diameter • The Well 5 had 18 barrels of fluid after removal of the tubing, rod and pump. • 16 barrels of crude oil were recovered. Wastes produced from Well 5 are listed above I:\umiat\05M31801\wp\Phase 2 Reporting\Report.doc F-30 AKT-J07-05M318-J22-0004 DRAFT 6118/02 T OF pyo p United States Department of the Interior, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT T!' �'9ACH Campbell Tract Facility TAKE PRIDE' 6881 Abbott Loop Road I NAM E R ICA 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. 7ffi 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. 1 Sincerely (D'� � \,=, - , _�� 4t, poZ1z� k��--�� BLM Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 RC' \/J APR - g 2004 AlaskaOil & Gas Cons. Conxnissio Anchorage n ° Oat -00 —a- � (--) _0_1A IZO 1c 0- -\ BLM Stan Porhola BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 RC' \/J APR - g 2004 AlaskaOil & Gas Cons. Conxnissio Anchorage n Lot: 69'23'05"N Long: 152*04'56"W Umiat Test Well 5 Well Schematic LEGEND R3CEMENT Mud and/or Formation Fluid wt. Upknown Umiot Grade FAIR/UMIAT/UWML5//_WW_43 Wt SR -23- Spud: July 5, 1950 Comp: Oct. 4, 1951 All -dep-ths -from GL Annulus Cemented with 20 sx Calz=l Tap Job Ground Level 10 3/4" Hole i Est BOC w 100' Hole Sizes 9 1/2" to 913' 7 7/8" from 913' to TD PBTD = 1,065' TD = 1,077' •riz Well 3 Well Description (from base to top): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1" studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve 1�4 TOTAL STICK UP: 6' Well 5 Well P&A in winter 2002. Well 7 Open hole. There is no oil or gas seeping around this wellhead. Plumb bob solid at 8 feet. Well Head Description (3' stick up) 7" casing w/collar clamped in 11 3/4" casing, inside 12 1/4"? filled with water Well 9 Casing extends 3' from ground. A 3" gate valve attached on top of the casing head. No gauges. Likewise, there was no indication of oil or gas seeping on site. Well Head Description (stick up 5'): 3' of 8 112" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? We11-1 —1 Open hole. No evidence of oil or gas was noted seeping at this location. Well Head Description (5 1/2' stick up) 10 1/2" casing with collar sticking up inside 30" conductor filled with water Well Umiat #5 Annulus Top job 20 sx of Cal Seal, estimate bottom of cmt at 100'. li;� 32' 8 5/8" Casing Cement plug Cement job failed, then drove conductor 9'. 42'-265' During March '02 P&A, perforated at 90' to attempt to get cement behind pipe. P&A'd in 2002 No documented perforating of the 5 1/2" casing. Cement Plug 25 sx 874'-1044' Top of Cement estimated at 400' Grandstand Sands 350' - 1050' Tested for 93 Days Averaged 280 BOPD i rMJ 1068' 5 1/2" Casing 15 Ib 8R l_.—._._._. , TD 1077' Umiat 5 P&A Actual Work e- Note: Prior to RU, the wellhead was nippled down and Z a front-end loader lifted the wellhead, only to find z that tubing and rods were attached. However, M when the rig arrived it found the tubing had separtated, leaving a fish downhole. Day Sniff for gases. None Cut-off 8 5/8" and 5 1/16" casings. Weld on flange. N O O -Ly • 0 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 r 5 Nwii up ww. . RIH with overshot on 3 1/2" pipe. Try again with smaller overshot. Fish at 278'. POOH until fish is hung at surface. Find 3/4" sucker rods in 2 7/8" tubing. Continue POOH with fish. Continue recovering fish (rods are 30' lengths and require band saw) Fish length is 766'. (PBTD 1065') Trip in with jetting head on 3 1/2" pipe. Oil to surface after 18 its. Well fluids to closed waste storage tank. Continue RIH and tag bottom at 1044'. Prepare brine to circulate oil out of well. Pump 24 bbls 9.4 ppg brine, displacing oil to waste storage tank. Circulate the hole clean, returns to circ tank, absorb oil with diapers. Drop ball and pressure up to shear -off jetting head. Start mixing 15.6 ppg Arctic cement at 1:15 P.M. Pump 5 bbl fresh water spacer, 4.23 bbl (25 sx) cement, 5 bbl spacer. Displace with 7 bbl brine. Cmt plug spotted 874'-1044'. POOH at 2:30 P.M. RIH with EZ SV bridge plug and set at 265'. POOH. wmp 4.23 bW (25 u),6"rn and 0.5 bbl fresh water spacer. wM 4,5 W b K)OH. Ctrl p set 95'-265'. W0000Ihm sed * ` x „ st 40;30 P.M. RIH with pert gun. Shot 8 holes (4 spf) at 90'. POOH. Observe well, fluid level falling 1 foot per hour, fill hole with brine. RIH 2" PVC to 100'. Pump 2.1 bbls (12 sx) cement, taking continous returns. Allow plug to balance, while cleaning surface lines. Observing returns shows that cement is displacing downhole to balance point. No cement to surface. POOH. Calculated plug set 20'-100'. Observe well, fluid level falling 1.5 foot per hour. t t" c _ VAW,1011.. n LJ Cement Yield 1.56 cf/sx for the smaller 65 lbsJsx FA 2 }, , ,.;t 4 5 6 9 10 totals 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 3 Sacks of Cmt (at 1.56 cf/sx) 42 13 41 24 12 22 8 22 33 210 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 19� Weatherford Inflatible Packers 2 �,r 5 „ r s� . 10; , T oCAs 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 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' was drilled Tagged 337' in 1954 • 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 500e,:8,4d4 0 -04 Water 20.7 gals/sx 725 gals/sx Ll C7 All t State Email ` Inbox(24) 1346 Unsent Messages Drafts 11 ,& Templates 2 Curtis z 4 , Junk (2) 2 Trash 19 3 - 1 -IN -2002 back (7) 1038 ALPINE 12 Alpine Satelites (7) 211 Aurora-NiCrk (1) 33 BADAMI 10 44 Casing Pressures CRU Issues 5 CTU issues 5 3 - DGC ??? i Drilling&Comp-SPE (6) 110" ,QJD57-8A ??? Endicott ??? { EPA Issues (26) 579 EPA Thor ??? Evergreen ?77 v = .SiFleckenstein 7?7 Forest 268 "> Gas Line ??7 GO Request 12 GWPC 234 ,SaHUMOR ??7 Inspectors Jim White 29 % ti King5almon Milne Mon 74 Re: Email contacts Curtis, Enclosed is the front sheet of the 407 I have. For your purposes, the 2nd sheet doesn't apply. Be sure that someone signs the 407 at the bottom. A lot of the information required was on the 403 you submitted prior to the job. The information you need to provide is how the well was left. A daily summary of the job is one of the critical pieces of information. The information on the actual plugs needs to be submitted as part of the data. If you have photos, especially ones taken this summer when everything was melted and thawed you should submit them. I know Bo Brown was out there and was approving the work as it developed. Submitting the 403 will hopefully complete the paperwork on the two wells. Thanks for the quick reply. "King, Curtis A POA02" wrote: Tom,ls the form 407 available on the net or do I need to come by your office and pick one up? I'll look into getting that completed if we haven't already done so.Curtis -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Maunder [ma iIto: tom maunder@admin.state.ak.us] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 7:51 AM To: King, Curtis A POA02 Cc: 'Koch, Skip' Subject: Re: Email contacts Curtis and Skip, I don't know if you are still at these eddresses. I am following up on the abandonments at Umiat. I know they were completed some 7 months ago. To my knowledge the final "form" (form 407) we require has not be received by the Commission. Could one of you get contact me with what information you might have. Thanks much. Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC 1 of 2 2/13/2004 10:47 AM Re: Email contacts "King, Curtis A POA02" wrote: Tom, With this message you should have both skip's and my email address. I cannot speak for skip on schedule, but l do not see a problem with giving you 20+ days to review, approve, and permit our well abandonment. Skip,µ ,,, Tom is with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and will be involved in reviewing and blessing our well abandonment.; Curtis Tom Maunder <torn maunder(c�adrnin. state. ak-.us> Sr. Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel 10-407ALT Content -Encoding: base64 2 of 2 2/13/2004 10:47 AM All umiat State Ernaill u Inbox (24) 1346 ' - Unsent Messages 3114J2002 9.34 AM Greg Noble@blm,gov &25 Re: Umiat plugging a Drafts 11 212212002 2:51 PM Rob Mintz 09 Re: [Fwd; TERC; TO 18, Umiat - Delays] Templates 2 'j 19,12002 2;22 PM Caminy Oechdi - Sent 1324 414120018:39 AM Daniel Seamount &95 Proposed Corp Umiat Abandonments a Py ; 12J2612000 1:24 PM Daniel Seamount [Fwd; FW: ... ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMI,.. a Junk (2) 2 Trash 19 1-IN-2002 back (7) 1038�..L ,SJALPINE 12 7 CU Alpine Satelites (7) 211 Aurora-NiCrk (1) 33 BADAMI 10 . Casing Pressures 44 CRU Issues 5 CTU issues 5 DGC ??? Drilling&Comp-SPE (6) 110 D57-SA ?77 Endicott ??? EPA Issues (26) 579 } EPA Thor ??? Evergreen 777 xy Fleckenstein 777 ' Forest 268h Gas Line 7?7 GO Request 12 HUMOR 234 7?? , Inspectors Jim White 29, KingSalmon ?77 f Milne Mon 74 • [Fwd: Fishing at Umiat] Enclosed is an email I received from Curtis King at the Corp. We discussed that they are now fishing on Umiat #5. Not surprising. In our earlier discussions it had been mentioned that it was very difficult to predict what they might or might not find when going into those old wells. I agree with what BLM says, that just placing a plug on top of the tubing was not a good faith effort to clean out the well. The Corp is trying to satisfy the contracting hoops and loops. He asked me how many trips I would recommend and I indicated that was difficult to answer. They are supposed to be running an impression block to get a look at what is sticking up and then they plan to attempt further fishing. It is difficult to predict how things will turn out. I will keep you informed as to any information I receive. Tom Tom, This is Jacob's discussion of the details of the fishing issue at Umiat. I will put together a position on what the Federal Government feels would be a "good faith" effort to 1 of 4 2/13/2004 10:45 AM [Fwd: Fishing at Umiat] retrieve this tubing string. I need to provide our contractor with some sort of up -front guidance via our contracting officer so that we do not get cross threaded with an anti -deficiency act violation nor get cross threaded with the State of Alaska. I'll shoot a copy of that discussion to you for review and buy -off as soon as I have a day rate for the drilling. Curtis As we discussed earlier, when we pulled the well -head on well 5 on 16 February we discovered that there was a 2 7/8 inch tubing threaded into the bottom of it. This tubing is not noted in the well logs and was unexpected. When the well head was raised approximately 18 inches the threads holding the tubing to the casing failed and the tubing fell into the casing leaving only a short portion of the threads attached to the well head. We plumbed the well and found that the top of the fluid in the well was at 121 ft bgs, and that the top of the tubing was at 266.9 ft bgs. Because of the unexpected ice plug at 18 ft bgs in well 2, we needed to obtain an annular blow out preventer (BOP) to add to our on hand BOP stack. We had to have this shipped from Anchorage to Deadhorse and then flown to Umiat. This prevented us from working on well 2. To effectively use the time available, we switched to well S. We talked to Bo Brown (BLM on-site representative) and Greg Nobel (BLM petroleum engineer) on 17 Feb to discuss how to address well S. We proposed P&Aing the well by placing a packer plug just above the top of the tubing, and then displacing all the fluid above the packer and 2 of 4 2/13/2004 10:45 AM [Fwd: Fishing at Umiat] P&Aing from this depth. Greg said that he expected us to comply with the Sundry Permit which BLM had issued and that he expected us to make a "good faith effort" to fish out the tubing. After additional discussion, Greg and Bo agreed that we could fish for the tubing without setting up the BOP on =- Well 5. - Early in the afternoon on the 17th we contacted Baker Tools in Deadhorse and had them prepare and send us fishing tools for 2 7/8 inch tubing. These . tools arrived this morning. We then proceeded to rig up the ad°, tool and begin ; fishing for the tubing today. We ran the fishing tool down to 266 ft bgs and made contact with the tubing. The tool has a penetration of approximately 1 ft. Steve Lewis (JE's Company Man) worked with Tester Drilling on this. We ran into the hole and tagged the top of the fish at 266 ft. We increased down pressure to 10,000 lbs and rotated the string. This worked the tool down to 267.5 ft. We pulled up the drill string and tool and the tool reappeared at approximately 5:45 PM this evening. The fishing tool had not retrieved the 2 7/8 inch tubing. On examining the fishing tool it appeared that the "dogs" on the tool had not fully engaged the 2 7/8 inch tubing. The reason for this is unknown, however it could be because: 1. The 2 7/8 inch tubing was sinking into tars or mud in the bottom of the well; 2. The 2 7/8 inch threads found in the bottom of the well head were from a connector which was attached to larger or smaller tubing and this 3 of 4 2/13/2004 10:45 AM [Fwd: Fishing at Umiat] larger or smaller tubing would not fit into the fishing tool; 3. The 50 year old tubing could be so weak that the fishing tool either crushed or split the top rather than grabbing it. I will call you early tomorrow morning and recommend that we have a conference call with BLM and AOGCC on whether we have currently made a sufficient "good faith effort" that we should now get a packer and abandon well 5 from 266 ft bgs. Toni Maunder <tom maunder(a�admin.state.ak.us> k .a Sr. Petroleum Engineer.:r Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissions Fishing at Umiat.eml Content -Type: message/r&822 Content -Encoding: 7bit 4 of 4 2/13/2004 10:45 AM [Fwd: FW: ... ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT]] • Dan, I was forwarded this from DNR regarding the plugging of wells at Umiat. I used to work for Randy Ruedrich at ARCO. He and a few others came in and spoke with Blair and I regarding the potential of some work at Umiat. I believe they planned to do some drilling. I am aware there is a push to abandon the wells that are threatened by the Colville River. I believe the Corp of Engineers is the responsible agency. I'm not sure what our involvement should be. I know we issue a permit for any well in Alaska, I suppose we are also on the abandonment end as well. Any comments and guidance will be appreciated. Thanks. Tom -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Schmitz [mailto:ss@dnr.state. ak.usl Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:06 AM To: Glenn Gray Cc: Blair Wondzell; Glenn Gray; John Spaulding; Al Ott; Gary Schultz; Gordon Brower; Kellie Westphal; Leon Lynch; Robert Watkins Subject: ...ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT] Glenn I forwarded this public comment on to AOGCC. As the activity is not on State Oil and Gas Lease land, the Division of Oil and Gas is not involved in a review or approval, we will not be commenting on the activity. Steven Schmitz Division of Oil and Gas -----Original Message ----- From: Glenn Gray [mailto:Glenn Gray@gov. state. ak. ud Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 6:46 PM To: Jack F Winters JR; Tamar J Stephens; Jim Baumgartner; ted rockwell; jeanne hanson; tom lohman; gordon brower; Steven Schmitz; Leon C Lynch; kellie westphall; Alvin G Ott Subject: [Fwd: Comments Relative to PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL AND PLUG AND ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT] ce_ X43 QMH 11 1 of 3 2/13/2004 10:50 AM [Fwd: FW: ... ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT]] Reviewers: Enclosed is a public comment on the Umiat Restoration Project. Please consider this comment when you submit your ACMP comments to me. Thanks, Glenn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Comments Relative to PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL AND PLUG AND ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:18:49 -0900 From: "Randy Ruedrich" <raraep@gci.net> To: "Glenn Gray" <glenn gray@gov.state. ak,us> As an Alaskan citizen and petroleum exploration and production professional, I take this opportunity to comment on the PROPOSAL TO DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL AND PLUG AND ABANDON TWO WELLS AT THE FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION IN THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE -ALASKA (NPR -A). This project scope includes the plugging and abandonment of two of the eleven wells in the Umiat Air Force Station area. The local geology, based on well logs, shows a series of hydrocarbon bearing sands from near the surface to below 1700 feet. The shallowest sands actually outcrop in the bluff to the north of Wells 2 and 5 that are to be abandoned. The tests conducted by the Navy in the 1940's and 1950's proved that the various sands are productive. The oil in these sands is mobile and could flow from improperly plugged well bores. The Bureau of Land Management has sold the Umiat lease that allows for exploration and development of the petroleum resources that exist in these sands. Prior to plugging the wells, the integrity of the cement in the annular space between the casing and the bore hole wall should be established. This should be done via a pressure test. A cement bond log across these shallow frozen formations would be difficult to interpret at best. Therefore the plugging of these existing wells is a critical activity. The well bores should be plugged with a cement slurry that has approximately 500 psi compressive strength when placed in the existing permafrost interval. A continuous cement plug should be placed from at least 100 feet below the deepest oil show to the surface. To ensure quality cement placement, the maximum slurry placement increment should not exceed 5001. Using a lower 2 of 3 2/13/2004 10:50 AM [Fwd: FW: ... ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT]] strength cement (200 to 300 psi) may not effectively confine the potentially productive zones. This complete proper plugging of the two well bores should return the penetrated formations to their original mechanical integrity. The only time to properly plug these two wells is now. Lets do it correctly. With respect to the disposal of contaminated materials cleaned in this effort, the project manager should have discussions with the new lease owner to designate areas to place cleaned soils. Good environmental practice should seek to reuse these cleaned materials where practical in preference to the mining of fill and/or gravel. Thanks for the opportunity to comment to this important conservation and restoration issue. Sincerely Randy Ruedrich 1515 West Thirteenth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501-4214 (907) 227-3031 Torn Maunder <torn maunder@admin.state.ak.us> Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ..... FW: ... ABANDON TWO WELLS @ UMIAT].emlContent-Type: message/rfc822 Content -Encoding: 7bit 3 of 3 2/13/2004 10:50 AM 111NOW11 All curbs I State Email - o � ._. � , 1346 = -,,Unbent Messages 8/31/2001 11,04 AM King, Curtis A PO A02 d2l Re; Email contacts Normal Drafts 11 Templates 2 = 5ent 1324 Junk (2) 2 Trash 19 1-IN-2002 back (7) 1038 ALPINE 12 Alpine Satellites (7) 211 Aurora-NiCrk (1) 33 ' BADAMI 10 Casing Pressures 44 Aa CRU Issues 5 CTU issues 5 3 DGC ??? Drilling&Comp-SPE (6) 110 D57-8A 777 lo Endicott ??? EPA Issues (26) EPA Thor 579 77?A, Evergreen ??7 x Fleckenstein ??? Forest 268 Gas Line 777 x GO Request 12 . GWPC 234 v :` HUMOR 77? Inspectors .•tea �, �:� x � �. Jim White 29 KingSalmon F: 777 ,„ Re: Email contacts Thanks Curtis and Skip. With regard to the sundry, the more lead time we have the better. Enclosed is an electronic version of the sundry form 403 and form 407 completion or abandonment. The sundry is submitted in • advance of the work and the 407 is submitted within 30 days of the completion of the work. As I noted in the conversation with Curtis, the submitted document should include well sketch before and after, the procedure planned, equipment involved, etc. If plans change from what is originally approved, the proposed changes need to be communicated to us and documented with another sundry. Turnaround on any change can usually be done fairly quickly. As I understand there will be a sub -contractor actually performing the work. I would expect (and hope) whoever might be engaged would be familiar with our requirements. Let me know if I can provide further information and insight. Thanks again. Tom Maunder, PE AOGCC "King, Curtis A POA02" wrote: • Tom, With this message you should have both skip's and my email address. I cannot speak for skip on schedule, but I do not see a problem with giving you 20+ days to review, approve, and permit our well abandonment. Skip, Tom is with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and will be involved in reviewing and blessing our 1 of 2 Juil r ,, 4 a < 2/13/2004 10:41 AM Re: Email contacts well abandonment. Curtis Tom Matinder <tom maunder(c�qdmin. state. aUts> Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel. 10-403.xlt: Content -Encoding: base64 Content -Type: application/vnd.ms-excel 10-407.xit Content -Encoding: base64 0 2 of 2 2/13/2004 10:41 AM C3 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT In TWEIuctaion IN a 0( The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requests your comments on this Proposed Plan. 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 • Umiat Test Well 6 • Main Gravel Pad • Umiat Test Well 7 • Umiat Test Well 2 • Umiat Test Well 8 • Umiat Test Well 3 • Umiat Test Well 9 • Umiat Test Well 4 • Umiat Test Well 10 • Umiat Test Well 5 • Umiat Test Well 11 �Umlat AS 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 documeSt informing Alaska Tribes, community leaders, and the public about contaminated sites, aiternatives that were considered for cleaning up the sites, and which alternatives were identified as the preferred alternatives. N.� 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 Alternatives. • Prov de. information on how the public can be - - involved in finai c,%---anup dcc s, =cji ls. 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. Fan--11arly 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. 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 Location and History Umiat is located about 150 miles southeast of Barrow and 70 miles southwest of Nuiqsut 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 Etiviuk River. His report may have been the first record of arctic Alaska's oil potential. hic in 1901. In 923, President Warr G.re started Harding in 19 established the NPR -4. In 1944, Lt. W.T. Foran reported 4 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 Ared 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 Phase 11 RI Work Plan (Areas A, B and C)1995 Phase 11 RI Report (Areas A. B and C) 1997 Phase III RI Work Plan (11 NPR -4 Wells) 1997 Phase III RI Report (11 NPR4 Wells) 1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Work Plan 1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Report 1999 Focused Feasibility Study Wells (4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) 2003 Environmiptal 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 Nuigsut. 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. (Areas A, 6 and C)1995 Assessment Report (Areas A, B and C) 1997 ability Study (Areas A, B and C)1997 in Study (Area 7)1997 Study (Area C and Well 9) 1999 of Lead at Well 7, 2003 :A PCB Soil Removal (Area 7)1997 Soil Removal Action (Area 7) 1998 (Well 2 and 5) 2000 1 Stockpile Construction 2000 II (Well 2 and 5) Plug and Soli Remova1�20017 111 Soil Treatment 2002 1 DDT Sal Study 2002 PCB Oil Study 2002 In 1995, Phase II 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. Cle�nuF� 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. dioxins at either site, no cleanup level was The FeasibRi Study for the Air Strip Complex calculated. However, at both sites the dioxins and Main Gravel Pad provided detailed analysis will be removed with the removal of PCB on four alternatives; 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. cumahupAmmalm The 12 sites\in 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. • 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 altematives 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 alternatives for each site. StripAir Complex 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. --- SB -12 A 1996 RI SAMPLE LOCATION r` • SS -32 1.260 . FA OF SOIL CONTAMNATIDN : — ESTIMATED FTS--, DEPfl1 OF CONTNAINATION IS • 58-31 VOLUME EXCEEDING CLEANUP CtRRSOIL EIN = SII -1 ♦ 1994 Po SAMPLE LOCATION >>Y • SB -JO - e SB -29 118 CV. MW -1 1996 RI MONITORING WELL LOCATION MSB -26 r. TUNDRA RWL-1 a 1996 Po SURFACE WATER AND 'Si -27 EDGE OF GRAVEL SEDIMENT SIMPLE LOCATION P'!NJrr:r APRON y.O_x •x_33 -- EDGE OF WATER D17 -SL • 1996 RI SAMPLE LOCATION • Q I A➢MfGMWIF IXl�n OF FOIB•e•110N sSFD O�N 40R- SPWIES f -�� EME• 1 - OSS-24NT UNKNOWN•58-18 -25 SB -153 •5- B e FUEL L3 ! I kxGfmla 1K iglg6k IEIAINIUM1 GIWCE lML4 (FatxasEO 1vAenk t •Rwl-2 58-8 *SB -19 •68-13 •`'8-1 1`EUOE JF CPA, aw lxaea orm \ �� *SO -23 xw 23.%22 op^ eSB-22 ®� 9 iumm UM.E •5B-21 BHI -3 � ! I SB -20 9SB-6 \ S9-16 U� /58-17 -15 *SB_, *SEI -12 ��✓ uw-z t�—, • •5g -S a �( 017 SL 1-2 S-B'a s Ur � EDOF. •1F GRa•.rE. - se -30 SB -2• �I sB-u f FORNEF FDOT *SS SB -38 • SB_38 NEL TANKS SB -39 .0c � / 1 11 � 1 JAL ;r. -_+�EOGE 3F 'RAVEL SGIE N FEET p 16D 280 308 %. 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. 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 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 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. Beluse 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 Rad 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 STI -56• 1996 Al SAMPLE 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 II 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. 15 5,45-0.• 1998 RI AM IAB SAMPLE LOCATION S IA• �'� f 1995 W MONITORING WELL LOCATION 56-159 BHtOa• 1994 RI SAMPLE LOCATION 9-,6,A -a 1K T ' EDGE OF CANNEL }-tTt• i' SB -t W SO -10 SB -16S - EDGE OF WATER /'�SF1SB„ se -13).y �Ea�-�..!�BN,0.3 11 CONCRETE PAD Y0.J 5636 8„0-, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (S N PUCE -5F9{ • •58-,61 ��a..''-� 1 ,nr rWK .A, ©" ABOMEOROUND STORAGE TANK IN PLACE) 00-5TUNDRA } (t \ _ 58-11] •88-1)t { 5141 i S15hfL] ' BM 3 StKit • •5, K -R SB -J{• B,µ0. qPU a Y/ 5112-R• 3B --J i8N]-, •�SB-SP 58-Im j � .LpEq 7 i •� �- A'� �� SB -111 -8 4r �eI,1-1 -% ••BI'/ 2• % eXJ-2 SB- 0 \s8 -,1z ��-�-sx3-J �•��_,1, i 5B -,z,• /- ��/ -'i �I •sB-w SB -Y 158-)1 r:58 -I1] •SMI,9 m-12} ]e �N,Y_m m -re •se w >:c-8°.v'�`•0 -m �. •se- t -J2 h AREA 3 d I •SB ��-_�'� . 19-61 � -5J �BN2-��W''-• 50-e, •58-110 •58-11. •SB -151 •9B-ee •sB-Bs • "u' 'I ,B-� 5B•_�1 •�-)] .r„ A -Y `Lj' M+2 2 •58-108 / 7.\` •A -t 15 YN-t0� •- •SB -Q •9-61 L. ,-_ •9-103 I � 1 .. '1 ' •58_8. 9-83 'Z98-,00 ) s. ti/ •9-15D � i s I -=� `�: •8X2 -B '� ^ r! � ,05 / % ,]2• ! /--_^- � -� ___ ;� SB -61• V � /��12 •9 -,OB 17x1 9-I]t :� I j /. 9-ryN pBllE-7 •50-,08 _ •-W a I 9-19• 9- =9B-a03•SB-,9 a RF? 5 •015! • aRE9, �-� •58-9] •, -1 •�-4 SB -95%r Y-_�,yy 158-1% �l 06-2.•06-] t9-101 •9-6N •9-,]0 --,. APPRW. AREA OF SBL 14 IS ENARN - SBE FT' OF CONTNtlNARON ESIOIAIFD N BE 4 FEET. N F •SB -101 •0!-,b •58-128 i0 �,u0iva. ESTIMATED I INIS AREA SBL WRNS I U CY. AREA 6 8 USE 8Y A NON- OF A' 86-z• KB -t2) •58 -IK g -9B __ ---_— Y AND IS %OUQME ES DFfENSE PMIY AND 6 NOT WCLWED 8 1XE W WNE ESTIMATE DEFENSE '/ '� �-1}558-es= S0�j81}5 •SB-128 `\ .-N APPROX AREA OF SOB CONTAMINATION - KO FT' OEP1N OF CNTAlIXA98T 6 ESl1Al7B1 TO BE 2:EET, .� •� 3 NOTE: APPROXIMATE IXTEMt OF COMAYINATIDN BASED, SOLL SAMPLES SCALE IN FEET / 0 t50 30O 130 ESAMATID SOL LRE10E = JO CY, EXCEEDING REGULATORY GUDANCE LEMEl.S PRO SED 1&WC75) 86-4•'� �y ( 9-tKA1A- 011 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS, . APW101L AREA OF SOIL CONTAEN].TIN = 625 R' PROPOSED ISMC75: 9-N• W-15 CRO 1{29 ppm SB -,b• SB -,3) OEP1N M OONTALNATION 6 ESSNATED TO BE 15 FEET. ESNAIFD 91L'AIWE = SB CY, \ DRO 12550 �p 4RFA 9 RRO 22222 NMI, \ �: ADEiC NORTH SLOPE PADS ( WRNIN 50' OF EDGE OF PADS) \ APPIM. AREA N SOX CNTNNATIN = 625 R' GRO ICD ppm \ GEP1N OF CNTAWNANN IS ESIWATED TO BE 2 FEET. F51WAt9 SOL WMAAE = K CY. ORO 200 ppm \ RR 0 2.000 Ppm 1998 EPAREGION 3 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS: CLEANUP LEVELS AT SU^ERNND SAES: - .. MPROIL AREA OF SGL CAT-." ANRMONY 31 Ppm LEAD 400 pp., LOCATED BTNN 50 FET OF THE BERANDS _ E%FLm00 TIE NOR. 4CFV CLEANUP LESfl.S = 7.5]0 FT' COPPER 3.,00 ppm IRON 2}.000 ppm CNTAMMA76A IS ERIWAIID TO BE 3 FEET MOL ESIWATED SOA 'AWYE -811 CY. BACXGROUNO CONCENTRATIONS: ,w ARSENIC 5.4 ppm 1994 EPA INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR ESTASUSNING 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 -petrol 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. 1-1 n at Test Wells 2 and 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 0 50 100 Feet _-__1_ 9" Diameter capped Reber primarywell head photopoint WJAI cap ,j. _' 9"'Diameler vertical /Well No.2 steel pipe F� 200SS L I l 201SS 202SS Concrete 3.5' Deep pit' P Drilling mud pit 203SS Approximate gravel pad boundary SD,SW Colocate sediment and su water sample SS surface Saml L I Wood framing Erosion on 5 S) Well No.5 -�'__ 515 56 230SS 516 SB 231SS o NPR -4 Edge of Test Well No.S 232SS ' Distribution valve water mar IY assembly (10' x 20') ttt Reber r Stained photopoint soil W/AI cap ° Discharge i`. 507 SS pipe 209SD,SW ° 521 SB 523 SB 506 SS 210SD,SW `205SS 4i 211SD,SWW ° 531 SB Vertical pipe\\ . _ ; 212SD,SW�_ 508 SS 985-7 CoNiNa RNBi 529 SB ° 5025S NPR -4 213SD.SW ° Bottom of slope 518 SB(gravel pad) 519 SB Top of slope, (gravel pad) 517 SB C c D cr�amg_ �.:-,.._ 515 56 River Bank ;. 516 SB Top of bank i t o NPR -4 Edge of Test Well No.S / 1998 High / Wooden Platform — water mar IY (10' x 20') ttt 533 SB 520 SB 505 SS ° i Edge of Colville River 507 SS ° 521 SB 523 SB 506 SS 500 SS Edge of 511 SB ° 531 SB concrete 512 SB foundation 508 SS 985-7 501 SS 529 SB ° 5025S NPR -4 Test We41 No.2 �! } 513 SB 524 SB 514 SB ° 503 SS ` APPROXIMATE SCALE 18" Rathole pipe — P 532 SB 510 SS ° 0 25 50 Feet 522 SB 530 SS i^= SO4 SS KEt 525 SB - I ;1 / 526S5 .Si'- - Claylnwd piil NPR -4 Test location 509 SS / well 527 SB l / ° Sample location 528 -SB . 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. Unniat Test Wells 3 4� 6P 8s 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: 8 This value is the low er of the ingestionCnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone ffgft mill' rarrs 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: 8 This value is the lower of the ingestionrnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and 82, Arctic Zone lmglkg mill' rams per Mlogram 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. - � ._..� _.,t� ,�� r - 717 SL 716 SL 7.18 SL 719 SL 724 SL 0 0 0 0 0 i 715 SL 723 SL 0 0 Ponded Water 713 SL 714 SL 720 SL 72'I SL/722 SL 730 SL 0 0 0 0 0 705 SL 704 SL 0 711 SL/712 SL 709 SL 728 SL 729 SL 0 0 0 0 255 SS Well No. 7 700 SL 703 SL 710 SL 706 SL 732 SU733 SL 725 SL 731 SL 0 0 0 0 0 707 SL 726 SL 0 0 708 SL 734 SL 735 SU736 SL 737 SL 727 SL 0 0 0 0 0 KEY - 0 Surface soil sample location A Well location APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet In the second study all of th%RO 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. i Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 7 Chemical ADEC Method 2 criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Number of Soil m /k ADEC Highest Samples c 125008 Method 2 Reported t; Above 1 137008 Chemical Criteria Concentration Method 2 ' This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone mgtkg rdir rams per Id ram Soil m Ik i' DRO 125008 25000 1 Lead 4008 2600 2 Notes: I ' This value is the lower of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone mqft mill' rams 2er Idlograrn 1 1_ D : ® - =21 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 the 1997 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 m /k DRO 125008 18000 1 RRO 1 137008 1 29000 1 1 Notes: ' This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone mgtkg rdir rams per Id ram 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. A.041, 1au1C 01 al lu DL, HI GIIG LVI IC mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 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, 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 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 NPRA 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 (IEUBI). 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 ecol'6gical 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 0 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 AVn 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 0&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. Urniat 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 rVb l- IIVU `J Notes: a This value is the low er of the ingestion inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 61 and B2, Arctic Zone mglkg milligrams 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, APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet 973 SS Outline of Depression in Slope 98' SS 98t SS 980 SS O 0 v77 SS 930 SS 976 SS O 0 974 SS 975 SS O 976 SS Bumed Area O 979 SS Drainage SS IS SS 971 SS O 0 967 SS 966 SS O O 961 SS 962 SB O 960 SS 959 SS 970 SS O O 957 SS 955 SS MSS 956 SB 958 SB 954 SS 953 SS 952 SS O O O O O 0 964 SS 947S$ 965 SB sea SS MISS 948 SS 946 SS 945 SS O O O O O 0 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 KEY: 0 Sample locations 0 NPR4 well location 931 SS 950 SS 949 SS 93/5 SS 934 SS 933 SS 932 SB 938 SS 939 SS 0 0 0. O O 0 O 0 905 SS 904 SS 937 SS 936 SS 920 SB 919 SB 0 0 0 0 909 SS 908 SS 923 SB 922 SB 0 O 914 SS 913 SS 929 SB 928 SB 0 0 903 SS 902 SS 900 SS/901 SS 918 SB 91788 915 S81916 SS 0 0 0 907 SS NP8-4 906 SS 924 SB Weil No -8 921 S8 0 i �, O 912 SS 911 SS 910 SS 927 SS 926 SB 925 SS 940 SS 0 0 0 0 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. 0 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 contaminate• ay 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��osec Cl1�n01110 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). Section Guide Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------«------------------------------------«-- 1 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program 2 Site Location and History ---------------------------------«----«---------------«------------------------------ 2 Environmental Investigation and Cleanup History -----«__—.—___—__________--__«____--«__._______—_.-- 3 Cleanup Levels ------------------ 4 Cleanup Alternatives ------ ----------- 5 Site Summaries ----------- 6 AirStrip Complex-«---------------------------_--------------------------_.----------------------- ----------- 6 MainGravel Pad-------------------------------------------«-----------.«------------------------------_—_ 11 UmiatTest Wells 2 and 5-----------------------------------------------«------------------«------------------ 14 Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11------------------------------------------------------ ------__«-- 17 UmiatTest Well 9 --------- -------- —------------- ----------------- ---------------- —--- —--------- ---------------- ------------ 30 Summary of Proposed Cleanup Actions----------------------------------------------- ----- ----- 34 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT FORM i 9 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 Please Fold at Dotted Line 0 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 Commenh and f'rt,ciPtion 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 field 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 9 0 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT 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 o said enNT m 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.......................................................................................... l-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_UM IAT. DC C-11103199-HP4 Tables of Contents ifnt.) 40 Section 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 ADerived Cost Sheets................................................................ A-1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 IV R 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 8 UMIAT.DOC-11/03/99-HP4 Lst 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-13% Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 ................2-12 4-1 Proposed Haul Route................................................................................................4-10 4-2 Potential Landfarming Cell Locations......................................................................4-14 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 Vii R_UMIAT. DOC -11 /03/99-HP4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D Tth dT AT TVV` 11//12/00. 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. rng/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 futher 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 1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 D Tth dT AT TVV` 11//12/00. LMA ecology and en vmment, hic. 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.nnnn n - nn M 00 A OM /. • 0 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 A803 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; 1-1 r ecoloe and emlronment, urc. • 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 Facilifres the site history and characterization is available in the previously BLM published field investigation reports (FIRs; E & E 1998a, 1999). Bureau of 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 r)lqTRlr.T At AAKA F. k 4.1 .... .... .... ... ... S .... . .. . .... A, . ........ . ,.`i.' /+ .. .rri4h t (..,. a t P \ 7 ` 0- EAFL ;t`^ n+ l` 4 ! a 'I tl�'N 4, 77 3' T, 77, �g? 39 NPR 4 TEST WE ILLS tELL -T WELLS J, TOTAL) pi TO . ... . . . ...... P j 11 IN 71 4 IL x V I.... . ........ miat -J, 7- ... . .... ... .. . ...... .1 . ...... A. . . .... ...... .... i SEABEE CREEK AIF STRIP COMPLEX . . ... .... ESTIMATED AREA A IF EROSION 7 1T j .-S M. "T:•R 41L -Ak "zy" 113, V D. . .. . ..... i—N V MAIN GRAVEL PAD z ':xr L. -Y k. .41 .. ........ .......... . . . ..... . . A .......... . '0 Y, 0 7-71, ti t ... ... . ...... ....... KEY: v ..E. DISTRICT. ALM ANCHORAGE. ALASKA ecology and environment, Inc International Specialists in the Environment U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION Shut-in NPRA oil well Ext In of ADOT and I`FePlroperty -4�, Dry NPR -4 test hole SCALE 0 1 2 Miles Figure 2-2 SITE VICINITY AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP - Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Umist, AlaskaThis area (estimated) has Abandoned NPR -4 oil into CoMlis 0 .5 1 2 Kilometers — FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION well eroded River Urnlat Former Umial Air Force Station Alaska —; qE JOB NO. 1 FILE No. DATE I SOURCE: USGS (rapotpaphic) Quadrangle: LIMIt. (B-4) Alaska 1955 A Man AM 0013298 Fig2-2.CDR 99OCT25 'z ecoloe and en-virmine t, uic. 2. Site Characterization NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located on a common gravel pad AOGCC approximately 2 miles northeast of the Airstrip Complex. The Alaska Oil 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&AedCommission (AOGCC) records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. plugged and abandoned 2 was decommissioned (i.e., plugged and abandoned [P&Aed]) 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 i • 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 NPR44-2 NPR4-2-3 NPR4-5-1 NPR4-5-2 NPR4-5-3 NPR4-5-3 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 200 -SS 201 -SS 2 S 233 -SS 204 -SS 205 -SS 230 -SS 231 -SS Du licate Sam le (97-UMT-): 201 -SS 200 -SS 231 -SS 230 -SS ample Date: GRO 8/13/97 4.8 8/13!97 5.2 8/13/97 6.5UJ 8/16/97 (10) 8/13/97 U (2.7) 8/14/97 U (4.5) 8/16197 U 3.2) 8/16/97 4.1 DRO 9,400 J 9,400 67 1,500 2407 160 13,000 21,000 RRO ]0.000 9,800 240 3,700 410J 970 22,000 36.000 Metals Aluminum 14,000 13,000 12,000 8,800 3,600 NA 8,400 7,600 Arsenic Ili 16 J 12 6.5 J 4.4 NA 9.91 6.8 J Barium 4.200 4,100 1,000 260 190 NA 270 360 Beryllium 0.6 0.59 0.59 1 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 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 2401 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 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 NA 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 4,4' -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 0.041 J 0.062 R 0.045 0.012 J 0.036 U (0.0056) 0.049 J 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) UJ (0.05) UJ (0.05) Acetone 0.26 J 0.07 R 0.18 J 0.27 J 0.098 J -0.12J 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 0.011 0.063 0.071 1 Toluene U(0.0014) U(0.0014) 0.002 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) VOCs 2 -Methylnaphthalene U (0.45) 6.7 J 1.6 2 0.191 U (0.56) 0.17 J 1.21 Meth 1 henol U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.23 U (0.34) U (0.56) 0.066 U (1.7) Bis(2-eth lbexvl) bthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U 0.1) 0.044 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Di-n-butvl phthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.72 0.055 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Dibenzofuran 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) 1.61 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. Kev to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichlomethane. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldich)omethylene. DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DRO - Diesel range organics. GRO - Gasoline range organics. I - 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-AK06.0OA299J 902 2-5 _ 5 F9ei INPRAS9-11r"-HP4, - _. <: t --(!-F: • 0 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: NPR4-54 NPR4-54 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SD 211 -SD 212 -SD 213 -SD Duplicate Sam le (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 DRO 2403 310 650 I 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 Copper 18 21 12 17 Iron 17.000 15.000 6,200 18,000 Lead 5.1 5.11 3.4 J 6.2 J 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 430 J 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 0.13J ().181 0.18 J Benzene 0.00099 1 U (0.0013) U (0.0013) U (0.0015) Methylene chloride 0.044 J UJ (0.013) 0.006 JB 0.00611 Toluene 0.00261 0.0023 J 0.021 J U (0.0015) SVOCs 2 -Meth lna hthalene 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) 0.099 U (2.2) Dibenzofumn 0.039 U (0.45) U (0.39) 0.23 Fluorene U (0.52) 0.039 U (0.39) U (0.44) Naphthalene 0.064 0.035 U (0.39) 0.15 Phenanthrene 0.078 0.063 0.052 I 0.33 Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or pans 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 - DichlorodiphenyidichloroethyJene. 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. 19MM77AK06.00,MS8j4M 2-6 File: jNPRASO-1lrMMP4 • • 19:(NA)977.AK06.(H).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIATEECATABLE2-IXLS:NPELASW - 1181" 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 Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SW 210 -SW Sam le Date: 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 Diesel range organics U (270) 300 U (260) U (250) otal petroleum hydrocarbons U (400) 400 U (100) U (100) OCs Methylene chloride 1.9 J 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: IJ - Estimated. U - Undetected at the reported limit ND - Nondetect. VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. SW - Surface water. 19:(NA)977.AK06.(H).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIATEECATABLE2-IXLS:NPELASW - 1181" N I W 19:000977.AKOV '8 A803 11 Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL RESULTS NPR -4 TEST WELI, NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION ITMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 5110 -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 Sant le 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 2,6001 2-Butanone ND [0.004] ND [0.00391 ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.0045] 0.038 Acetone 0.075 J 0.053 0.039 0.029 J 0.062 0.17 _ Benzene ND [0.000331 ND [0.000321 J ND [0.00032] J ND [0.00032] J 0.01 ND [0.000321 Naphthalene ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] ND [0.0053] J ND [0.0052] J ND [0.0061] J ND [0.0053] J Phenanthrene ND [0.1] ND [0.098] ND [0.099] ND [0.1] ND [0.11] ND [0.099] bis-(2-e(h lhex 1)Phthalate ND [0.311 ND. [0.3] ND [0.3] ND[0.311 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 330 J 1,100 J 1,200 J 2-Butanone 0.04 ND [0.004] ND [0.0041 ND [0.00431 0.03 J Acetone 0.17 0.12 ND [0.0037] 0.089 0.18 J Benzene ND [0.00032] J ND [0.000331 ND [0.00032] ND [0.00035] ND [0.00032] J _ Naphthalene ND [0.005L ND [0.0054] J ND [0.00531 J 0.0068 ND [0.0053] Phenanthrene ND [0.099ND [0.1] ND [0.1] 0.057 ND [0.1] bis-(2-eth lhex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31]ND [0.321 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. Key to abbreviations: BGS = Below ground surface. = Estinoted value. ND = Nondetecl at the reported limit. SS = Surface soil sample. 11 19:000977. A K 06.00.02.98_A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/19 0 40 Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SUBSURFACE SOIL RESULTSt 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 1,0001 1,100 J 5,300 J 1,200 J 890 Ili 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 6.0-6A 2.0-2.4 5.0-5.4 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.5 5.0 Diesel range organics 360 J 760 1,200 J 1,700 J 18 J 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. Key to abbreviations: BGS = Below ground surface. = Estimated value. SB = Subsurface soil sample. 19:000977. A K 06.00.02.98_A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XI.S - 11/3/19 0 40 zz i Bottom of slope " `� 518 SB mF ' (gravel pad) 519 SB Top of slope (giavel pad)_ 17S8'"` a P Eroding River Bank, pF 515'SB NPR -4 aN' 516 SB o Test Wel[No.5 Edge of Wooden Platform 533 SB (10'x 20') 520 SB / o 505 SS / o i 507 SS ' ° 521 SB ° „500 ° ' Edge of concrete/' 523 SB 506 SS 511 SB 512 SB 531 SB foundation ° B i SB5-7 �' S 5 513 SB NPR -4 529 SB 514 SB Test Well No.2 524 SB o 503 SS, 18" Rathole pipe o , 510 S5 1 522 SB532 SB ° SO4 SS. 01530SB SB',,;.:' / f v I525 526S6" =•r / / / 509 SS \527SB / Clay/mud pH �as, 528 SB, k,,6 1 Top of bank • 1998 High / water ma$_ / Edge of Colville )liver x s KEY'ecology and environment, inc. U.S. ARMY CT. ALASKA Approximate extent of ""`"""°""9°°""'"'"""E""'°"" " EN AINCHORAGENEER !ALASKA \- , petroleum contamination Figure 2-3 A NPR -4 Test well location APPROXIMATE SCALE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 0 25 50 Feet NPR -4 TEST WELL Nos. 2 AND 5 ° Sampling location Umiat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska Cross section reference SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. A 000887 JR07_00_90 03•A780 Fig2-3.CDR 990CT13 P A u_ North r. 101 SOS -is toe 98 �lJ" A• NPR -4 Well No.5 South S85-4 (projected Into (projected Into cross section A -Al cross section A -A) I 100.87 r — r Colville River (+) 59 teal f—► s 92 1,2D9 ? l 9224Permelrost _ ____________________ 7.099 k kyr ecology and environment, Inc. IVW M,,,,r,y�,y ,yy„��E-- U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA _ 97 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ se 5 - ie ; a S _ _________ _ _ _ _ •. 91 9704 a E�JHORIZONTAL 91.94 Permahost t tik _ 51558 r (Projecletl Into s g 0 20 40 Feet ___________ 5.30 y tp _ )upas aec8on A -A) i 160 y SOURCE: Ecology end Ernkonmonl, Inc. tsss. 1M Approximate extent of contamination based on soil samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg - 0 95 519 SB 11 FILE NO. DATE } m to 1,088 BGS �` 1 1• 1 990CT25 -. (shut in with diesel in place) CoNfOa River i ° t KEN f 94} r ` 93 r s t,::. x •' Eroding Bank 518 S8 x x 7 a 533 Be s 92 1,2D9 ? l 9224Permelrost i t\ - i 7.099 k kyr ecology and environment, Inc. IVW M,,,,r,y�,y ,yy„��E-- U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA , _..� f Sandy gravel Fill -sandy 0 2 4 Feet Figure 2-4 mg/kg t S s 91 a E�JHORIZONTAL 91.94 Permahost t tik SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AT NPR TEST r Break in horizontal scale s g 0 20 40 Feet 500 SS -4 WELL NO.5 90 i 160 y SOURCE: Ecology end Ernkonmonl, Inc. tsss. 1M Approximate extent of contamination based on soil samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg - We115 Casing Extends JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE 65 to 1,088 BGS Permost 000977 AK08 00 02_98 1 990CT25 (shut in with diesel in place) CoNfOa River Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not state plane coordinates. KEN 515 SB 1,200 Sample number DRO concentration in mg/kg SB 5-15 Soil Boring Location DRO Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE kyr ecology and environment, Inc. IVW M,,,,r,y�,y ,yy„��E-- U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Sandy gravel Fill -sandy 0 2 4 Feet Figure 2-4 mg/kg Milligram pet kilogram gravel CROSS SECTION A A' E�JHORIZONTAL Silt and clay ®peat SCALE SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AT NPR TEST N Break in horizontal scale 0 20 40 Feet -4 WELL NO.5 U Nat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SOURCE: Ecology end Ernkonmonl, Inc. tsss. Approximate extent of contamination based on soil samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE A 000977 AK08 00 02_98 Fig2-4.CDR 990CT25 B NPRA Well No.2 Concrete SB5-16 SB 5-10 S;B SB 5-17 West SOe SS 5-14 Foundaton 100.05 9D 99.89, East 140 S85-13 100 9a 89.43' 00' / too 1 DRO concentration in mgfkg S0 5-9 i-1 99 , :.... f/ CROSS SECTION B -B' GQ �y < . (4) 55 Gallon drums stumping from above sediment and vegetation surrounding drama covered In thick petroleum product. C606 Rlvei te: It Well No. 2 awl rings SS 5-13, SB 5-15, 5-10, SS 5-17 and SS I projected Into cross Note: Elevations KEY: ? are relative to local datum, Extent or depth unknown not state plane coordinates. SOBS Sample number Fill -sandy gravel HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 20 40 Feel ..rei.a NaEER p.SI.ARRMIy , AIASNA ANCHORA0E,CAA Figure 2-5 S95-14 Soil boring location- too 1 DRO concentration in mgfkg Peat CROSS SECTION B -B' SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY Sandy grovel VERTICAL SCALE AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.2 DRO Diesel range organics Approximate extent of contamination based on will 0 4 9 Feel Umiat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE mg/kg Wig— per kilogram samples exceeding ADEC screening value of 200 mg/kg ORO SOURCE: Ecology and Environmem, Inc. 1999. Vertical Exaggeration 1:5 000997 AM 00 M 9e FIg2-5.CDR 990CT25 U v' ecology and emironmenf, uic. 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 - Com pensation>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 relevant and [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 toquirIe encs requirements gally 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 tr ecology and em ironment. inc. 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). 1 1n ■ Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 75); AAC Alaska Administrative Code 0 Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60); - RCRA ■ 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). 1 1n 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 19:000977AK06.00.02.98 A803 3-1 ! i ecology and ensirmmen4 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: mg!kg ■ 200 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: e- 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 ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41.DOC- (1//03/99-HP4 Process Screening Method 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. reatment Physical/ Stabilization/ Reduces mobility of contaminants Treatability testing needed to Moderate to Reject; costl is 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. ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41.DOC- (1//03/99-HP4 Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. ° 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 do 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_A 803 T41.1)OC- 11!03199-HP4 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 Ex situ biological ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41.DOC-11!03199-HP4 Hot air vapor extraction Landfarming Biocell Uses hot air to heat soils within a 500-cy to 600-cy treatment pile such that organic contaminants will be removed through volatilization. Effective for petroleum hydrocar- bon removal, particularly for the lighter fractions. Thermally treated soil may be used on site as backfill. Involves the biodegradation of organic contaminants in an engineered system. Commonly used for petroleum contaminants although less effective for heavier fractions. Involves the biodegradation of organic contaminants in an engineered system. Proven effective for treating petroleum - contaminated soils in Alaska, although it is less effective for heavier fractions of petroleum. Long-term operation likely is required to meet RAOs. An air permit would not be required because these units treat soils at rates of less than 5 tons per hour. Dust control measures would be necessary when handling treated soils. Process rates are generally slower than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so it may not be possible to treat soil in one field season. Large volumes of fuel would be required, which significantly increases logistical considerations at remote sites. Because soils must be spread out in relatively thin layers to facilitate treatment, landfarming has large land requirements for treatment cells and soil staging areas. Poor weather conditions can severely hinder treatment. Requires less area than land - farming because soils can be managed in greater thickness. Requires air and water distribution systems to create an environment conducive to microbial breakdown of the contaminants. Contaminant breakdown likely would be limited to the warmer summer months. Moderate to high capital costs. No O&M costs. Moderate mobilization costs for remote sites. Low to moderate capital and O&M costs Moderate capital and O&M costs. Retain; mobile systems are available in Alaska. Retain; sufficient land is available at Umiat for landfarm cells. Reject; air aim water distribution systems would require continuous power and monitoring. 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 Process LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -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: • cy = Cubic yard. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. O&M = Operation and maintenance. RAOs = Removal action objectives. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_ A 803 T4I.D0C- 14403/99-HP4 ., ecolo* and en%Irmment, 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. 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 -1. .1hot air vapor extraction (HAVE), and ex situ landfarming with HAVE enzymatic additives. 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. ecoloF_v and environment, inc. • • 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: 1. 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 -rs; r co _ ter: 19:00091MAK06.00.02.98_003 4-7 =9ecoioU and emimment, inc BP's British Petroleum's E 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- cated at the Kuparik Oil Field would be the most logical disposal 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 n ecoiOFy and enimwiment. inc. 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 e = _ ]9:000977.AM00.02.98_A803 4-9 L» ecology and emironment, hm 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 - t_. 1, f.. 19:000977.AK0G00.02.98_A803 4-11 n w ecotoFv 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 E s; .�. ecolor-v and emirwnmen4 inc. 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 u �e ecoloU and emiromnent, nu. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 is 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4-15 E 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-11103/99-HP4 5-2 18:000977. AK06.00.02.9B_A8W COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 1114/99 Table 5.1 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE No. 2 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA _ Capital Costs Reference Item Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Factor t Cost a DC 15 Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $87.242 1.35 SI 17.7R0 DC16 Stock ilePadConstruction 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 1 $1,340,000 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lump sum $266,552 1 $266,550 DC04 Excavation. Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil I lump sum $315,969 1.35 $426.560 DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,()40 E & E Trial Burn 1 lump sum $50,000 1 $50,000 LTTD Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to UmiatI lump sum $120,852 1 $120.850 DCI l DC12 LTTD (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) Treatment 18.200 cubic Xad $150 1 $2,730,000 DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I sample/200 CY) I I sample $69 1.35 $9,320 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $6,674,570 Overhead and Profit (25%) $1,668,640 Total 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 (0.5%) $41.720 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) $125,150 Construction Oversight (2%) $166,860 Total lndirer•t Capiral Costs (Rounded to Nearest 51.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901,000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $1,335.150 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $10,200.000 Notes: 1 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 mobilizationidemobilization cost may vary depending on the location of the unit at the time of the project. 5-2 18:000977. AK06.00.02.9B_A8W COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 1114/99 5-3 7 9:00(1977. AKO6.00. (#. 99_A903 Table 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 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Ca ital Costs Reference DC15 Item Descri tionQuantit y Unit Cost/Unit Factor t Cost = Stock ile Pad ui ment MobilizationMemobilization 1 lum sum $87,232 1.35 Dlot-at tockpile Pad Construction 1 $117.780 — Contell lum sum $179,160 1.35 Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lum sum $1,360.000 $241,870 Cont I lug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 $1,360,000 D. 2 each $670,000 1 wort Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I lum $1'330'000 Dcavation. sum $266,552 1 Haulm and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil $266,550 DCcavation I Ium sum $315,969 1.35 com liance soil sample le collection and analysis $$11,640 DCAVE 125 Sam le $69 1.35 ui ment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiat 3 $11,640 DCAVE 2 each $75,176 1 (Hot Air Vapor Extraction) Treatment' $150,350 18.200 cubic yard $112 1 btotal Direct Capital Costs $2.038.400 verhead and Profit (25%) $5,953.150 tal Direct Capital Casts (Rounded to Nearest S/.000) $1'488'290 direct Capital CostsVE Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost)$43.780 ineerin and Desi n (2%) al Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) $148.820 ntractor Re rtin Re uirements (1.5%) $37,210 nswction Oversi ht (2%) $111,620$148.820 tat Indirect Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest SL000) Subtotal Capital Costs 5490.000 Contingency Allowance (15%) $7.931.000 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) $1.189.650 $9,100,000 Notes: t 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. 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 7 9:00(1977. AKO6.00. (#. 99_A903 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 Item Description DC06 Landfarm Cell Construction Equipment Mobilization/Demot DC07 Construction of Landfarm Cell Contractor Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization Contractor Plug and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization DC04 Excavation. Hauling and Stock -piling of IMacted Soil DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis Contractor Landfarm treatment' DC09 Landfarm Cell Decommissioning DC05 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (1 sample1201 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs Overhead and Profit (25%) Total Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1,000) Indirect Capital Costs Landfarm Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) Engineering and Design (2%) Legal Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) Construction Oversight (2%) Total Indirect Capital Costs (rounded to nearest $1,000) Subtotal Capital Costs Contingency Allowance (15%) Total Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $100.000) tuantity 1 Unit lump sum Cost/Unit $114,242 Factor' 1.35 Cost` $154,230 1 lump sum $432,490 1.35 $583,860 1 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 1 lump sum $315,969 1.35 $426,560 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,640 16.800 cubic vard $73 1 $1.228,250 1 lump sum $201,634 1.35 $272,210 84 sample $69 1.35 $7,820 $5.651,120 $1,412,780 $7,064,000 $141,280 $35,320 $105,960 $141,280 $448,000 $7,512,000 $1.126,800 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 A603 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATE.XLS - 1114199 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. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC- 11/03/99-HP4 No. 4 EvaluationAlternative Criteria • by • by -r r • E7timated 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: 40 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 consumption rate is 4,000 gallons to 5,000 • 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 21,600 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 arotary-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. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T54.DOC- 11/03/99-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 Umlat 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 treatment times significantly. Key: HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. 19:000977. A K0G.00.02.98_A803 TS 4. DOC -11 /03,99- HPA petroleum fractions more difficult to degrade, and method is susceptible to site weather conditions. I* 0 A te ry_ ec01o� and environment, hrc. 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— ecoloev and en%ironmenL 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, C 0 s`l 0 ecology and enrvronment, 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; 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. 0 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98_A80.3 T55. DOC -1 I /03/99. IIP4 0 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. ":T ic-IL sa,, 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 6-1 � ecoloFv and environment. mc. 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. 7 9 • 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 ecolou and emvonment, Gia 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 • 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 A-1 DERIVED COST DC03 DERIVED COST DC04 DERIVED COST DC05 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis Derived Costs EARTHWORK EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION 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 B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 Contractor rolligon transport - demobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80,000 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4 laborers 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-1 OB (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 & 4 laborers 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 @ 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: 100% 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 $114,242 Assumptions: Equipment mobilized from Deadhorse to Umiat via air cargo planes. Allow 6 flights for mob/demob equipment Allow 3 flights to mobilize geosynthetic materials CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFARM CELL(S) reference description quantity unit unit cost cost Berm Construction Mobilization/demobilization 6 each $8,500 $51,000 016 408 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 DC09 $201,634 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 (6 -inch 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 1 00' x 500' For liner area, allow for an additional 10% 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 coil 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 oeosynthetics 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 $8,352 Contractor Air cargo plane 5 each $8.500 542,500 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel BackhoelLoader 6 days DCII $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 vard $150.00 5150 DC12 S150.00 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 $20,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 5 days $835 $4,176 Contractor Air cargo plane 6 each $8,500 551,000 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel BackhoelLoader 6 days DC13 575,176.00 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 $112.00 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 $59,500 Contractor Trucking 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 58,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel BackhoelLoader 6 days $250.00 $11500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 51,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 $4,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days $365.00 52,190 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 Umiat NPR -4 Well Nos.2 5 • Engineering 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-348 (BCCD) Dump Trude 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-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Geosynthetics 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 90,000 square it $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 it $0.15 $15,298 Protective soil layer (64nch gravel/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 Trude 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 51,728 DC16 $179,160 Assumptions: Stockpile dimensions are 275'x 275' (interior); allow 300' x 300' for geosynihetics (for seaming and berm 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 Umiat NPR -4 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. ]112199 A-7 EPLV TO ..TTENTION OF: Programs and Project Formerly Used Defense 0 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 0 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, 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 -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 WeMr. 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 ice: WWI Plugging 0 Subject: Re: Umiat plugging Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:34:38 -0900 From: Tom Maunder <tom_maunder@admin.state.ak.us> To: Greg_Noble@blm.gov Greg, Meant to send you a note of congratulations regarding the successful conclusion of the work up there. Working on old wells is a challenge to say the least. After I look at the document, I will give you a call. I had spoken with Lonny a couple of times with regard to the goings on while you were up there. I have not had any conversations with Jacobs/Corp in some time, I guess since about the time you relieved Bo up there. I felt at that time that the Corp was trying to play AOGCC versus the BLM, so I sent Lonny an email and dropped out of the day to day workings. We oil field experienced government types were all on the same page as to what needed to be done. Again, nice job. Hope to talk to you. Tom Greg_Noble@blm.gov wrote: > Tom, > Wanted to keep you posted on the plugging of Umiat Nos. 2 and 5. Here is a > log of activity. Jacobs indicated they were communicating with you so this > is probably not news. Give me a call if you'd like to discuss. > (See attached rile: Umiat.doc) .-C3 t -�> > Name: Umiat.doc > Umiat.doc Type: WINWORD pile (application/msword) > Encoding: base64 Tom Maunder <tom maunder0-admin.state. ak.us> 4 Sr. Petroleum Engineer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v Ac> A►�� ; t• cad` , o>FzM*q w 1 of 1 3114/02 9:35 AM • Umiat 42 Well Plugging • Friday 2/22/02 — Arrived on location. Cellar had been excavated to make room for BOPs. Wellhead had been cut off. Ice plug identified at 17 feet below ground level. A slight amount of gas was bubbling through the plug. Flange was welded on 11 3/a" casing. Tester Drilling Services rigged up on well. Double -gate ram and annular rippled up. Halliburton in place under weatherport. Circulation not adequate to handle the job (potential for well control procedures, the ability to circulate heated brine and heated fresh water). Order another 80 bbl tank. Leave well open since it had been open for years and we didn't want to upset the static condition of the well. Saturday 2/23/02 Rigging up. Here arrives @ 18:00. Sunday 2/24/02 — Spot tank. Continue rigging up. Monday 2/25/02 — Finish rigging up, review work plans, and develop a safe plan of action as per Jacobs Engineering. Tuesday 2/26/02 — R/U Halliburton to fill hole and begin filling hole with 9.6 ppg brine. Ice plug melted immediately. Continue to fill hole for 1 1/2 hours. Cellar began to fill as fluid level came to surface indicating communication between the 11 3/4 casing and 16 inch casing. A small amount of oil (approx. 5 gallons) circulated to cellar from well. Operations suspended @ 18:30. Leave well open for night. Wednesday 2/27/02 — Fluid level checked. Fluid level in annulus at 26 feet below ground level. Fluid level in 11 3/4 inch casing at 64 feet below ground level. The drop in fluid level allowed us to identify a collapse in the 11 /3/4 casing 20 feet below ground level. The largest opening in the collapse is approx 2.5 inches and will not allow 3.5 inch workstring. Order 1 inch and 2 inch PVC pipe Lower heavy piece of steel in wellbore on slickline and tag obstruction @ 272 feet. Suspend work for night and wait on pipe. Thursday 2/28/02 — RIH w/ 2 inch PVC to 275 feet. Break circulation and attempt to spot a 2 bbl viscous pill. Halliburton pumps lost prime with only two bbls placed. Flush Halliburton lines. Viscous pill set from 275 — 258 feet. Pick up pipe to 250 feet. Set 70 sack (11.75 bbl) balanced plug arctic Class G cement from 250 —150. TOH to 100 feet. Friday 3/1/02 — RIH and tag top of cement at 190 feet. Run 1 inch down annulus to 57 feet. Break circulation and circulate down to 90 feet with warm brine, melting ice. Unable to wash down below 90 feet. Getting returns of what appears to be either old cement or Grandstand shale. TOH w/ 1 inch and run down the other side of the annulus. Tag at 70 feet and begin to circulate. Circulate down to 90 feet. Unable to wash below 90 feet. Leave well circulating 70 degree F 9.1 pound brine overnight. Saturday 3/2/02 — RIH w/ 2 inch to 186 feet and with two 1 inch strings opposite each other down the annulus to 90 feet. Break circulation on both strings. Mix and pump 103 sacks (17.25 bbls) Arctic Class G down the 11 3/4 inch casing to set plug from 186 — 40 feet. Switch over to 1 inch strings and pump 24 sacks ( 4 bbls) Arctic Class G to set plug in annulus from 90 — 40 feet. Clean Halliburton lines and TOH with all three strings of pipe. Sunday 3/3/02 — RIH with 1 inch pipe down annulus. Tag cement at 37 feet. TOR RIH w/ 1 inch down 11 3/4 inch csg. Tag cement at 41.5 feet. Move rig to Umiat # 5 well. P&A-- 7 Umiat # 5 Well Plugging Sunday 3/3/02 — Cut off 8 5/8 inch and 5 1/2 inch casing to place flange on 5 1/2. Discover that casing is 5 1/16 inch I.D. and 5 and 9/16 inch O.D. Monday 3/4/02 — Nipple up BOP double gate. TIE w/ overshot on 3 1/2 inch workstring. Tag fish @ 278'. Did not latch on to fish. TOH w/ overshot. Try smaller overshot. TIH. Tag fish at same depth. Latch on to fish. TOH until top of fish is hung at surface. Suspend operations @ 19:30. Tuesday 3/5/02 —Release overshot. Find 3/4 inch sucker rod in tubing. Attempt to remove sucker rod. Rod was hard to pull initially. Pulled wet for 3 feet then pulled dry. On the 9th 10 foot sucker rod, rods will not come up. Will only go down. Rig up to TOH with both the sucker rod and 2 7/8 tubing. Pull two joints of rod w/ 1 twenty foot section of tubing. Suspend operations for the evening. Wednesday 3/6/02 — Continue TOH w/ fish laying down. Lengths of rod are 30'. Cut rods with band -saw after each 20 foot joint of tubing is broken. Length of fish is 766'. Thursday 3/7/02 - Take in hole with jetting head on 3 1/2 inch workstring. Begin displacing oil to surface on 18'' joint. Allow oil to go through risers to barrels. After two barrels switch to closed waste storage tank. Continue TIH. Tag bottom @ 1044'. Pick up two feet. Begin to mix brine in preparation for circulating the oil out of the hole. Suspend operations @ 20:00. Friday 3/8/02 — Finish mixing brine. Mixed 30 bbl 9.4 brine. Pump 24 bbls to displace hole volume to waste storage tank. Rig up to circulate hole. Circulate hole. Remove oil off the surface of the circulating tank with oil "diapers". Circulate until return fluid is clear and oil -free. Drop ball to shoot off washing head sub. Rig up Halliburton and pressure up to 1500 psi on the workstring to shoot off washing head sub. Start mixing cement @ 13:15. Pump .5 bbl fresh water spacer, 25 sacks (4.23 bbls) of 15.6 ppg Arctic cement, and .5 bbls fresh water spacer. Displace with 7 bbls 9.4 brine. Plug set from 1044 — 874. Begin TOH w/ workstring 14:30. TIH w/ EZ SV Bridge plug. Set @ 265 feet. TOH. RIH w/ 2" PVC to top of plug. Pick up 2 feet. Pump 25 sacks (4.23 bbls) of 15.6 ppg Arctic cement, and .5 bbls fresh water spacer. Displace with .5 bbls 9.4 brine. Plug set from 265 — 95 feet. Wash lines and suspend operations @ 22:30. Saturday 3/9/02 — TIH w/ perf gun. WOC until 12:00. Shoot 8 holes at 4 spf @ 90 feet. TOH and lay down gun. Fill hole w/ 9.3 brine and observe fluid level. Hole is taking fluid at the rate of about 1 foot/hr. TIH to 100'. TIH w/ 2" PVC to 100 feet. Pump 12 sks 15.6 Arctic Cement. Returns throughout job. Clear surface lines of cement and allow plug to balance. Returns indicate cement is displacing downhole to balance point. Plug set from 100 — 20 feet. No cement to surface. Pull out of hole. Observe fluid level. Fluid level dropping at the rate of 1.5 feet/hr. Suspend operations for night. Sunday 3/10/02 — RIH and tag plug @ 42 feet. R/D move off location. ✓ ALASKA OIL & GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7TH AVE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3539 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: r---- COMPANY: DATE: pt FAX NUMBER TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PHONE NUMBER RE: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: CVlt /'tn PHONE NO. (907) 279-1433 FAX NO. (907) 276-7542 fihfimRIT, *A41*Rfifififi�fifi4�fi�*fi1�fiAfififififififififi*414141*41414, 1 fififififi*fififi4,41A4 nfi*m*4kmmmmm�mmmmIT, mmIf, mmmmmmmIT, IT, mmmmmmmmm P, 01 TRANSACTION REPORT 0 FEB -13-02 WED 06,10 PM DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP FEB -13 06:09 PM 5633320 1'20" 3 SEND OK 132 EXPL&ON OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE 0 4, ALASKA, 1944--53 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 - P-13 Location: Lat 69°23'05" N., long 152°04'56" 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. Lithologic 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 argillaceous 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 S a n d s t o n e, 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, noncalcar- 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. *ST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 133 Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 195--200 Clay ironstone, light -brownish -gray, Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine= conchoidal fracture. ----- 200-215 Sandstone, light -gray, fine-grained, fri- 403-404 Recovered 7 in.: Microfossils absent. able; composed of subangular clear and Sandstone as above. 404-410 white quartz with rare dark rock very fine-grained, slightly silty, non - fragments. ----- 215-230 Sandstone, light -gray, fine- to very fine- to very silty, noncalcareous. grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcar- Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- eous, with some medium- to medium - small amount of clay shale and siltstone.- iltstone:420-425 dark -gray silty clay shale which in- Clay shale, slightly to very silty. - 425=430 creases with depth from a fourth to a shale. half of the rock. ____ 230-235 Sandstone, light -gray, fine- to very fine- small amount of sandstone and silt - grained, silty, argillaceous, noncal- stone in upper part and rare reddish - careous. ----- 235-290 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to very silty, with very small amount friable; composed of subangular clear of siltstone at 240-245 and 255-275 ft, and white quartz with some gray chert and very argillaceous light -gray ben- 460-465 Sandstone as above and clay shale, tonite at 280 ft. slightly silty in part. 290-300 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- 475-480 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with grained (rarely fine-grained), friable; small amount of sandstone. 480-485 composed of subangular clear and white sandstone. quartz with rare dark rock fragments. Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with 300-304 No sample. 1 304-306 Recovered 2 ft: Microfossils absent. slightly silty, friable, noncalcareous, 1 ft 8 in., sandstone, medium -light - light -yellowish -brown clay ironstone. gray, very fine-grained, very silty Clay shale, very slightly silty, with small and argillaceous, noncalcareous, mss - greenish -gray bentonite. sive; composed of subangular clear Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine-grained, and white quartz, gray chert and 505-610 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly dark rock fragments. Brown oil to very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. 610-615 stain on lower 1 ft. very argillaceous, micaceous, non - 4 in., drilling mud. 2 306-308 Recovered 2 ft: Microfossils absent. 630-640 Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argilla- Sandstone, dark -olive -gray, very fine- ceous, with some clay shale. 640-730 grained, very silty and argillaceous, part, slightly silty in lower part. noncalcareous; friable in part; brown Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argilla- oil stain. Beds of slightly calcareous amount of clay shale. sandy siltstone, 2-4 in. thick rare. 3 308-310 Recovered 2 ft: Microfossils absent. ous, with some dark fine to medium Sandstone as above. 4 310-312 Recovered 2 ft: Microfossils absent. 740-750 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- Sandstone as above. ----- 312-320 Sandstone as in cores above; light brown- and white quartz with gray chert, ish gray in upper part, medium light dark rock fragments, and pyrite. 750-765 gray in lower part. ----- 320-330 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly silty clay shale is pyritic. silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 330-335 Siltstone, light -olive -gray, sandy, argil- laceous, noncalcareous, with very small amount of sandstone and clay shale. ----- 335-360 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly silty, with clay ironstone at 345 ft. Top of Grandstand formation at 335 ft. ----- 360-365 Clay shale, dark -gray, with small amount of sandstone. ----- 365-375 Sandstone, light -gray, fine- to very fine- grained, friable, with very small amount of medium -dark- to dark -gray clay shale. 5 375-376 Recovered 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone, dark -olive -gray, very fine- grained, silty, noncalcareous, with brown oil stain. 6 376-377 Recovered 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 7 377-378 Recovered 4 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 8 378-379.5 Recovered 1 ft. Core not received in laboratory. ----- 379.5-390 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, slightly silty, noncalcareous, friable, with rare clay shale and very argillaceous light - gray bentonite in lower 5 ft. Core 9 10 Lithologic description—Continued Remarks 390-400 Sandstone with small amount of bentonite, siltstone, and clay shale. 400-403 Recovered 4 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine= grained, silty, argillaceous, micaceous, noncalcareous, massive. 403-404 Recovered 7 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 404-410 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to very fine-grained, slightly silty, non - calcareous. 410-415 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. 415-420 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, with very small amount of clay shale and siltstone.- iltstone:420-425 420-425 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. - 425=430 Sandstone, with small amount of clay shale. 430-455 Clay shade, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with very small amount of sandstone and silt - stone in upper part and rare reddish - brown sideritic argillaceous limestone at 440 ft. -" 455-460 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained, slightly silty, noncalcareous, friable; composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some gray chert and dark rock fragments. 460-465 Sandstone as above and clay shale, slightly silty in part. 465-475 Sandstone as above. 475-480 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with small amount of sandstone. 480-485 Clay- shale, very silty; and fine-grained sandstone. 485-490 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with some sandstone. 490-495 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, friable, noncalcareous, with small amount of clay shale and light -yellowish -brown clay ironstone. 495-500 Clay shale, very slightly silty, with small amount of sandstone and rare light - greenish -gray bentonite. 500-505 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine-grained, slightly silty, friable. 505-610 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. 610-615 Clay shale, and siltstone, medium -gray, very argillaceous, micaceous, non - calcareous. 615-630 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. 630-640 Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argilla- ceous, with some clay shale. 640-730 Clay shale, slightly to very silty in upper part, slightly silty in lower part. 730-735 Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argilla- ceous, noncalcareous, pyritic, with small amount of clay shale. 735-740 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcare- ous, with some dark fine to medium grains; some siltstone and clay shale also present. 740-750 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained, silty, argillaceous, calcareous, friable; composed of subangular clear and white quartz with gray chert, dark rock fragments, and pyrite. 750-765 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous; some silty clay shale is pyritic. 134 EXPLORON OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE No, ALASKA, 1944-53 Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 765-770 Clay shale as above, with some sand- 15.50 stone and rare siltstone. _ 770-786 Sandstone, light -gray, fine-grained, very 13.42 slightly silty, noncalcareous, friable; 311---------------------------- composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments 12.21 and rare pyrite. 11 786-789 Recovered 9 in.: Not sampled for micro - 12.41 fossils. 787---------------------------- Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- 118.0 grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous; composed of subangular grains of clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments. 789-835 Sandstone as above. ----- 12 835-837 Recovered 1 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and argilla- ceous, slightly calcareous; composed of subangular grains of clear and white quartz with some dark rock fragments. ___- 837-863 Sandstone as above, with rare clay shale in lower 10 ft. ----- 863-865 No sample. 865-870 Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, ----- micaceous, noncalcareous, with clay shale. 870-880 Clay shale, slightly to very silty, with ----- small amount of sandstone and very small amount of siltstone. ----- 880-885 Sandstone, light -gray, fine-grained, as above. 885-890 Sandstone and white bentonite. 890-910 Sandstone as above. ----- ___ 910-920 Sandstone with clay shale, medium -dark - gray, slightly to very silty. 920-960 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, grading ----- from fine to very fine grained with depth. Small amount of sandstone at base is medium gray and calcareous, with abundant dark rock fragments and mica. _ 960-965 Sandstone, very fine-grained, and clay shale. 965-970 Sandstone, fine-grained, very pyritic, with ----- very small amount of clay shale. ----- 970-1,005 Sandstone, fine-grained, grading to very fine grained with depth. _ _ _ _ _ 1,005-1 010 Clay shale and sandstone. 1, 010-1, 025 Sandstone, very fine-grained, with rare clay shale in lower part; sandstone at 1,025 ft is medium gray, very fine grained, argillaceous, and silty, with abundant gray chert and dark rock fragments. ----- 1, 025-1, 030 Sandstone, with clay shale and siltstone. ----- 1, 030-1, 035 Sandstone with very small amount of bentonite. ----- 1,035-1,045 Sandstone with very small amount of very silty clay shale, increasing to one-third of the rock with depth. 1, 045-1, 050 Clay shale, very silty, with very small amount of sandstone. 1, 050-1, 060 Sandstone, very fine-grained, with small amount of clay shale in lower half. ----- 1,060-1,075 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly tc very silty, noncalcareous. Top Topa- goruk formation at 1,060 ft. 1, 075-1, 077 No sample. COBE ANALYSES The table below shows the porosity and permeability )f core samples from Umiat test well 5. The effective .)orosity was determined by the Barnes method; air )ermeability was determined with a permeameter leseribed on page 127. Analyses of core samples from Umiat test well 5 Depth (feet) Effective porosity Air permeability (percent) I (mjludareys) 305---------------------------- 16.60 95.0 307---------------------------- 15.50 26.0 309---------------------------- 13.42 16.0 311---------------------------- 375---------------------------- 12.21 13.0 376---------------------------- 12.41 44.0 787---------------------------- 1 17.64 118.0 OIL AND GAS OIL AND GAS SHOWS The following shows were noted by the Arctic Con- tractors petroleum geologist and petroleum engineer. The only gas show was a slight odor in sandstone at 204-245 feet. Oil shows were good at 304-320 feet, in one of the main producing sandstones at 370-425 feet, in short intervals at 635-643 and 738-748 feet, and in the lower thick oil-bearing sandstone at 770-960 feet. Light oil stains were also noticed at 460-480 feet, 490-506 feet, and below the good show in the lower sandstone from 960-1,061 feet. FORMATION TESTS Several bailing, swabbing, and pumping tests were made on the well, one pumping test lasted 93 days. Test 1, 32-510 feet.—The hole was bailed dry every 2 hours for 12 hours, producing 4.3 barrels of oil at a steady rate of 30 gallons every 2 hours, or an estimated rate of 8.6 barrels per day. Temperature of the oil from 510 feet, taken after bringing the bailer rapidly to the surface after 2 hours on the bottom (510 ft), was 31'F. In the next 12 hours 38 gallons was bailed. The fluid level was at 460 feet after 12 hours, and the temperature of the oil from 460 to 510 feet was 28.5°F. The 36 -hour test indicated a rate of 7 barrels per day. Test 2, 32-615 feet.—Bailed to bottom (615 ft) every 2 hours for 6 hours, producing 4.3 barrels each 2 hours for the first 2 periods, and 6.5 barrels in the third. Fluid level after 12 hours was 316 feet. Test 3, 32-615 feet.—A pump was installed with the bottom of the mud anchor at 605 feet, bottom of the pump at 595 feet, and nine Y4 -inch perforations, covered by 3 layers of wire screen, from 597 to 598 feet. The OST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 pumping test began 4 days later, with a 24 -inch stroke. Fluid reached the surface in 7 minutes, and then the well pumped about 9 barrels per hour for 3 hours, thereafter dropping to about 3 barrels per hour. The well produced 27 barrels of oil. The fluid level before pumping began is estimated at 150 feet. Results of the 15 -day pumping test, which averaged about 70 barrels per day, pumping by heads; are given in the following table. Oil produced between 82 and 615 feet during 15 -day pumping test of Umiat test well 5 Date Hours pumped Oil (bbl) Date Hours pumped Oil (bbl) 1950 9.0 ,: 137.0 1960 --Con. _24.0 308.0 Aug. 18 ------------ 21 81 Aug. 26 ----------- 24 82 19------____-- 24 66 27------------ 24 79 20______------ 24 66 21 ------------ 24 70 21------____-- 24 70 29------------ 24 73 22------------ 24 72 30 ------------ 24 70 23 ------------ 24 76 31-___--______ 24 72 24------------ 15 60 Sept. 1 ------------ 24 67 25------------ 18 63 14 ------------ 23.0 196.0 Test 4, 82-837 feet.- Pater was found at 800 feet; 2-3 barrels was bailed from 800 feet every 1M hours for 6 hours. At 1'2 hours salinity was 3,616 grains per gallon, but it dropped to 1,133 grains per gallon after 4% hours. A sandstone at 825 feet .showed a light cut in CCl4. Test 5, 771-1,077 feet. -Tubing was run with a packer at 771 feet and 30 feet of perforated pipe below it. The hole was swabbed, dry, with no shows of oil or gas. The next day swabbing recovered 31 barrels of water and drilling fluid and half a barrel of oil. The fluid level above the packer dropped 30 feet. The following 24 hours of swabbing recovered 23 barrels of muddy water with 5,500 parts per million of chlorides and 2 barrels of Simpson crude oil, which was used as drilling fluid. Fluid above the packer dropped 7 inches per hour. Continued swabbing at a rate of 3 barrels per hour recovered 14 barrels of water (with 5,800 parts per million of chlorides) and 36 barrels of Simpson crude oil, with a fluid -level drop of 2 inches every 12 hours. The last day of the test recovered 10 barrels of water with 5,940 parts per million chlorides. Test 6, 32-1,077 feet. Seventy barrels of oil was baited in 14 hours, with the fluid level remaining at 375 feet. Test 7, 32 1,077 feet. -Thirty-three joints of 2'/2 -inch tubing, with one perforated joint on the bottom; -were landed at 1,018 feet. The swab stuck in the tubing, possibly frozen in, and the sand line broke. After recover- ing the line, 309 barrels of oil was swabbed in 15M hours. Continuous swabbing for 19 hours then recovered 275 barrels of oil, and the fluid level rose from 250 to 100 feet during that time. The well headed twice and flowed about 1 barrel each time. The oil averaged 135 about 4.7 percent water and 0.1 percent sediment by volume, though the quantity of water varied consider- ably. Continued swabbing for 24 hours recovered 407 barrels of oil. Test 8, 3,2-1,077 feet. -Beginning on June 20, 1951, a 93 -day pumping test was made with the bottom of the pump at 1,075 feet for the first 3 days, then at 1,055 feet. For the first 1'/2 weeks the well produced 300.-400 barrels of oil per day, with water content decreasing from 1.35 percent to 0.4 percent, with about 3,500 parts per million chlorides. The temperature of the flow line, in spite of the beater at the bottom of the tubing, was only 27°-280F. The pump stuck twice; and =one shutdown, at least, was caused by ice on the pump or rods. The following table gives the results of :the, 93- day test.. For the first 49 days the pump stroke was 46 inches; after that it was reduced to 36: inches. Strokes per minute were 16-18 for the first .6 days, ,24 per minute for the next 12 days, 18 through the 50th day, and 14 thereafter (except for 1 day, the 51st, of 17 strokes per minute). Temperatures ranged` from 28°-320F throughout; no wax or hydrogen sulfide was noticed. During the entire test the pump was too small to"handle the full producing capacity of the well. Results of 934ay pumping test during 1951, Umiat- test well 5 Date Hours pumped 011 (bbl) Date ' - _ souks .pumped- 011(bbl) . June 20 ------------ 9.0 ,: 137.0 Aug. 6 ------ -------... _24.0 308.0 21 21.0 306.0 7------------- 24.0 367.0 ------------ 22------------ -17.0 347.5 8 ------ -- .. 24.0. .. 2$3.0 23------------ 15.0_ - 217.0 8------------- 23.5 268.0 24------------ 8.-5 115.5 10 ------------- - - -8:0 - ' 1810 25 19.0 288.5 11_.---------- 24.0 185.0 ----------- 26__,___------ 1$.5 320.0 12 --- --------- 24.0 180.0 27.__-_------- 19.0 359.0 13_-x`=__-_---- _15-25. 121.5 28 18.0 363.5 14 ------------ 23.0 196.0 ------------ 21) 18.0 323.0 15 ------------ 24.0 183.0 ------------ 30------------ 24.0 440.0 16----_-_--_-- 24.0 189. b July 1------------- 23.0 448.0 17 ------------ 24.0 169.5 2------------- 22.0 402,5 18------------ - -24-0- 191.5 3------------- 24.0 437.0 19 ------------ 24.0 200.0 4------------- 20.0 355.5 20 ------------ 24.0 195.0 5_____________ 22.5 351-0 21 ------------ _ 24.0 19L0 6------------- 15.0 27LO 22 ------------ 24:0 193.5 7------------- 13.5 226.0 23 --- -------- 24.0 161:0 8------------- 13.5 251.0 24 ------------ 24.0 193 5 9 24.0 383.0 25------------ - - 24.4- 1915 10 24.0 379.0 26 ------------ 24.0 175.5 ------------ 11 23.0 346.0 27 ------------ 24.0 189.0 ------------ 12-_---------- 23.5 360.0 28----------- - - -2LD- .. _ 194.5 13 24.0 367.0 29 ------------ 24.0 185.0 ------------ 14 24.0 37C 5 30 ------------ 24.0 197.0 ------------ 15____________ 24.0 357.5 31 ------------ 24.0 197.0 16 24.0 368.0 Sept. 1 ------------ 24.0 195.0 ------------ 17 24.0 373.5 2 ------------ - _ 24.0 188.0 ------------ 18 24.0 401.5 3 ------------ 24.0 188.5 ----------- 19____________ 24.0 367.5 4 ------------ 24.0 189.0 20 24.0 365.0 5 ------------ 24.0 186.5 ------------ 21------------ 24.9 344.5 8------------ 17,0 .. .' 445.0 22 24.0 354.0 7------------ 17.5 148.0 ------------ 23----------- . 24.0 357.5 8 ------------ 24.0 - 19L.6 24------------ 24.0 364A 9 ----------- 240' IR0 25 240 373.5 ID :---- -- - 21-0. .19710 ------------ Z6------------ 24.0 359.0 11 ---------- 22.0 180.5 27 24.0 374.5 12----------- 20.5.167.0 ------------ 28------------ 24.0 364.0 13--------`-- 24.0 163:0 29 24.0 366.5 14 ----------- 17..0 139.5 ------------ 30 124.0 3440 15-----:--'-- 20.0 --1450 ------------ 31 24.0 373.0 16___________ 240 191-5 ------------ Aug.I 240 3730 17-_.-__----- 240. 18&0 ------------- 2------------- 24.0 361.5 18_-_----'_-- 15.5 120.5 324.024.0 356.0 19----------- , _ .21.9. 174.9 4 --------------- --------- 240 313.5 2D ----------- 21.0 2140 5------------- 24.0 34L 5 Total -------- 2,76 D 136 EXPLOVN OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE 10, ALASKA, 1944-53 LOGtISTICS Personnel and housing.—A drilling foreman and a petroleum engineer or geologist acted as supervisors. The drilling crew for the cable -tool rig included 2 drillers and 2 tool dressers; the rotary drilling was done by 2 drillers and 4 helpers. Temporary workers came from Umiat camp when necessary. An extra floorman, a welder for dressing bits, mechanic, bulldozer operator, cementer, and laborers were all used for short periods. The housing at the rig site besides the rig included the power and Heat -Pak boiler wanigan, and the cement - pump wanigan, which was also used at other Umiat wells. Vehicles and heavy equipment.—All vehicles were sup- plied from Umiat camp as they were needed. Cater- pillar tractors, cranes, weasels, and trucks were used. Several rigs were used in drilling this well -2 cable -tool rigs (1 spudder and 1 capable of drilling deeper) and 2 rotary rigs. The first rotary rig, and some of its as- sociated equipment, was destroyed by fire. Equip- ment used by Arctic Contractors included that de- stroyed as well as items used as replacements: 1--------- Keystone spudder, model 53. 1--------- Bucyrus -Erie cable -tool rig, model 29W. 1--------- Bucyrus -Armstrong cable tool rig. 2--------- Failing 1500 rotary rigs.' 2--------- Buda gasoline engines,' model HP -326. 2--------- Heat -Pak boilers,' model 624-5. 1--------- Westeo boiler -feed pump. 1--------- Gardner -Denver 4j4- by 6 -in. pump. 3----- --- Mud tanks,' 3'YAi-by 5 -by 4 -ft (half of a pon- toon), mounted on go -devil. 1--------- Gardner -Denver 5- by 8 -in. pump (with mud tanks), powered by Caterpillar D8800 diesel engine. 1--------- Gardner -Denver 4Yrby 10 -in. pump, powered by Caterpillar D8800 diesel engine. 1--------- Kato generator' with Wisconsin gasoline en- gine, model VE -4. 1--------- generator,'4 kw, powered with Waukesha gas- oline engine, model FCI,70. 1--------- Gardner -Denver 53a -by 10 -in. pump powered by Caterpillar D8800 diesel engine (in cement wanigan). i One destroyed by Are. Fuel, water, and lubricant consumption.—The con- sumption of gasoline (72 -octane) and diesel fuel was 3,439 gallons and 1,784 gallons, respectively. Slightly more than 42,873 gallons of water was used; as no record of it was kept for the first week of drilling, the figure given here does not represent the total consump- tion. Lubricating oil no. 9170 consumed was 62'4 gallons, and thread -lubricating grease, 150% pounds. DRILLING OPERATIONS DRi aMirG NOTES All the rigs used in drilling Umiat test well 5 were mounted on sleds made of pipe set on 12- by 12 -inch timbers on a pad of gravel. The well was spudded with a Keystone cable -tool rig, which was replaced by Bucyrus -Erie cable -tool rig because the Keystone rig was too light to reach the depth desired. This rig was replaced by a Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig which drilled to the total depth. About 7 months later a Failing rotary rig was moved over the well, and the hole was reamed to the bottom. Fire destroyed the rig, and a second Failing rig was installed to complete scraping the walls and testing the well. The following drilling operations were reported by Gordon Oosting, petroleum engineer. Notes from drill records DeptA (fu') Remarks 15 ------------ Drive belt broke and rig shut down 22 hr waiting for replacement. 23% ----------- Set 8yo-in. casing with welded shoe on bottom at 23% ft, and cemented with 12 sacks of Cal -Seal. Well stood cemented for 24 hr. 52----------- Drilled out shoe and continued drilling to 52 ft. Water -bearing sand and caving sedi- ments encountered just below casing shoe. Casing was broken free of Cal -Seal, a 9 -ft joint was added and casing driven to 32 ft. Water -bearing, caving interval thus sealed Off. 120----------- Two hours spent relating drive belt. Bit points were too sharp, which caused them to stick in ice or hard rock. Attempts to ream from 110 to 120 ft were unsuccessful until points were flattened. 152 ----------- Shut down about 2 days waiting for drive -belt lacing. 200---------- In drilling first 200 feet of hole, 15-25 gal of fresh water was put into hole each time it was bailed out. Small amounts of salt were added occasionally but without effect on drilling. Little or no ice formed in hole. 230----------- Shut down almost 2 days because drive -belt lacing wore out; day spent putting wire lacing on belt. Hole reamed from 30 to 210 ft; this was necessary probably because of ieb formation on sides of hole during shutdown. Ice may have been caused by freezing of melt water from near surface. Fifteen gal brine added at surface drained down to bottom leaving a salt coating on hole walls. 255----------- Used 75 lb salt with 53 gal (1 bbl) of water. 270----------- Spudding shaft broke while drilling. Tools and cable lost in hole but recovered with little difficulty. Rig taken down and moved off well site; hole filled with 12.5 bbl of crude oil from Umiat test well 4. A week later a Bucyrus -Erie cable -tool rig was moved into position, oil bailed out of hole, and drilling resumed, Depth (feet) 293----------- 1 304----------- 370----------- 510------------ 585----------- 615----------- 960----------- 980----------- 1,061---------- 1,075---------- TOWELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 Notes from drill records—Continued Notes from drill records—Continued Remarks Depth (feet) Remarks Five hours to repair engine. Hole bailed dry and drilled and cored from 304 to 316 ft with only oil seeping into hole as drilling fluid. Drilling slow and difficult without water in hole because oil would not hold sand in suspension; so 50 Ib salt and 50 gal water added at 316 ft. Reached top of an oil-bearing sandstone and bailed out salt water and mud in order to core. No fluid used except oil seeping into hole; and although cores were recovered, drilling was very slow. Salt water (50 lb of salt per barrel of water) again used for ream- ing from 375 to 379.5 ft and to drill ahead. Each time hole was bailed, every 5 feet or Iess, 1 bailer of mud was replaced by 1 bailer (17 gal) of salt water. Hole filled with 8 bbl of brine to a point above oil-bearing sandstone. Sides of hole scraped, all fluid bailed from hole, and Bailing test made (Test 1, p. 134). Fourteen hours spent repairing reel sheave. In drilling from 425 to 615 feet, 1 bailer of brine consisting of 35 lb of salt per barrel of water was added whenever hole was bailed. Three or four bailers of mud often had to be re- moved from hole at the same time, because shale being penetrated formed mud nat- urally. After a bailing test, operations shut down for a day while waiting for pumping equipment; and after it was installed, Bucyrus -Erie rig removed. After 15 -day pumping test, Bucyrus -Armstrong cable -tool rig- moved to well site. Brine of 35 lb of salt per barrel of water used between 615 and 960 ft. Total salt used to 960 ft was 2,000 ib. Hemp -center drilling line broke while coming out of hole, leaving cable tools and 75 ft of line in hole. Fish recovered with center spear. Hemp center of drilling line seemed to be rotten, although it had been in use only 2 weeks—replaced with steel -center line. After being shutdown a day, two 1,000 -ft, '/z -in: sand lines were put on and spliced with a 40 -ft splice. A 12 -hr delay caused by working on Umiat test'well 6. From 620 to 630 ft reamed to a diameter of 8 in., cleaned hole with salt water and scratchers on bailer. Total of 525 lb of salt used between 960 and 1,075 ft. Swabbing test made before well was shut in and rig removed. Seven months later, in April 1951, Failing rig moved over hole; its floor was 7 ft higher than cable -tool floor to which depths have been adjusted. Two days spent waiting for a flange from base camp at Barrow. After finding fluid level at 121 ft, 77 bbl of crude oil pumped in to get circula- tion. Attempt was unsuccessful and 40 bbl of fluid containing water and tundra moss 137 and 25 bbl of brine was pumped in before gaining circulation. Ice and tundra bridges reamed between surface and 51 ft. After losing circulation and regaining it with brine, ice was reamed between 51 and 155 ft, with brine and oil as returns. Brine replaced with 7 bbl of weathered crude. Hole reamed to 233 ft, and returns were fresh oil. After tools were pulled out of hole to repair clutch, generator wanigan caught fire from Heat -Pak; flames spread to oil -tank wanigan where crude oil caught fire. Flames then destroyed rig. (See pl. 8B.) Control gate was closed, and well itself was not damaged. A second Failing rig moved over hole with rig floor set 3 ft lower than that of first rotary rig, and 2'i weeks later hole was again reamed, ice being removed to 312 ft. About 22 hr spent waiting for heat -pack unit. After installation, reaming continued to 539 ft. Circulation lost at 386 ft and regained by pumping in 28 bbl of oil and 8 sacks of tundra moss; circulation lost again at 396 ft but regained after adding 10 bbl of Umiat crude oil. 1,077---------- While reaming from 396 to 1,075 ft and drilling to 1,077 ft, 22 bbl more of Umiat crude oil, 8 bbl of crude oil from Simpson Seeps core tests, and 3 bbl of diesel fuel were added. Hole reamed with 7% -in. bit from surface to 772 ft and again with 5y -in. bit from 772 ft to total depth, finding bridges at 825 and 956 ft. Twelve barrels of Simpson crude and 3 bbl of diesel fuel added during reaming. A 7%s -in. packer on tubing stuck at 30 ft, and hole was again reamed with 7% -in. bit to that depth before making swabbing test. After test, hole reamed with 7 jj-in. bit to 772 ft, and 26 bbl of crude oil and half sack of peat moss added. The 5yin. hole was reamed from 772 to 873 ft, and from 686 to 1,056 ft, with 7% -in. bits; during the reaming 38 bbl of crude oil was put into hole. A 9'/ - in. wall scraper reamed from 366 to 516 ft and from 726 to 746 ft, and 18 bbl of crude and 5 bbl of diesel fuel added. A 10'J4 -in. scraper reamed from 456 to 509 ft, and 7'/a - in. bit reamed from 886 to 1,057 ft; 3 bbl of crude oil added during reaming. A 9% - in. wall scraper reamed from 726 to 896 ft, with addition of 8 bbl of crude oil. Tools twisted off while reaming at 900 ft, but fish was recovered, and reaming with the 9Y2 - in. scraper continued to 906 ft, where tools twisted off again. After recovering fish again, reaming continued to 913 ft. Hole cleaned out with 7% -in. bit from 913 to 1,056 ft. After bailing, tubing run for swabbing test, pump installed, and a 93 -day pumping test made. Well cleaned out again, from 721 to 1,076 ft, using 192 bbl of Umiat crude oil to maintain circula- tion. Tight spots from 688 to 1,076 ft then 138 E%PLOR*N OF 11TAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE No ALASKA, 1944-53 Notes from drill records—Continued Depth (feet) Remarks rereamed with same bit, using 154 bbl of Umiat crude oil to retain circulation. After waiting 4 days for cement, 49 joints of 5i/ -in. 15-1b National seamless line pipe were run to 1,068 ft and cemented with 150 sacks of cement. Annulus between 8%- and 5% -in. casings cemented at surface with 20 sacks of Cal -Seal. Top of plug at 1,065 ft; hole filled to surface with Umiat crude oil and shut in. On top of 8% -in. surface casing is 8% -in. coupling with 8%- by 10 -in. nipple with a flange welded to it. The 5i/s- in. casing head is cemented to flange and projects above it, with screwed flange on top. A 2% -in. flanged tubing head is capped by swage nipple, coupling, and bushing. Casing head and fixtures extend about 3 ft above ground. DRILL AND CORE Brrs A total of 24 cable -tool drilling bits were used in drilling the hole —one 10Y4 -inch bit, 13 bits 8 inches in diameter, and the rest 6 inches across. To improve the condition of the hole, bits 5, 6, 10, 23, and 24 were used entirely for reaming. Bits 8 and 11 also did some reaming as well as drilling. One core bit 5% inches in diameter was used with a Baker No. 6 cable -tool core barrel to take 20 feet of core. Except for 2 feet of drilling, the rotary rig was used entirely for reaming and cleaning out the hole. Four Reed rock bits (2 SE -HM, and 2 SE -211M) were used, and one Hughes OSC-2 bit; all were 7% inches in diameter, except one of the SE -211M bits, which was 5% inches across. A 9% -inch Baker wall scraper and a 10i/ -inch Grant wall scraper were also used. At some depths one bit was: used for short alternate inter- vals of drilling and reaming; to avoid confusion on the graphic log (pl. 12), these bits are shown as having drilled only. DPLILLING FLUID The first 200 feet of hole was drilled with a small amount of fresh -water in the hole, to which only a little salt was added. Between 200 and 1,075 feet, brine was used, consuming 3,875 pounds of salt in a mixture that ranged from 35 to 50 pounds of salt for each 53 -gallon barrel .of water. Below 1,075 feet crude oil from Umiat or Simpson Seeps wells was used as a drilling fluid, as well as a Iittle (11 bbl) of diesel fuel. A total of 107 barrels of Simpson crude oil and 550 barrels of Umiat crude oil was used. UMIAT TEST WELL 6 Location: Lat 69022'44" N., long 152005'40" W. Elevation: Ground level, 334 feet; rig floor, 337 feet. Spudded: August 14, 1950. Completed: December 12, 1950; pumped estimated 80 barrels of oil per day; junked and abandoned. Total depth: 825 feet. This well, the third drilled with cable tools, is about 3,500 feet southwest of, and structurally lower than Umiat test well 2. Its purpose was to extend or define the limits of production on the south flank of the anticline. Below alluvium, the Seabee (about 31 to 220 feet), Ninuluk (220-350 ft), Chandler (Millik tongue) (350-630 ft), and Grandstand (630-825 ft) formations were penetrated; oil shows were noted in several sandstone beds below 245 feet. They were inadequately tested, because water appeared at a depth of 825 feet and could not be completely shut off, causing ice to form in the tubing during production tests; however, a possible recovery of about 80 barrels of oil was indicated. An unsuccessful fishing attempt and a badly caving hole prevented further testing and drilling; so the hole was filled with mud and capped. The condition of the hole precluded deepening it to test the lower sandstone bed of the Grandstand forma- tion, although plans originally called for possible deepening if it was warranted by production from that sandstone in Umiat test well 5. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS Lithologic description (Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core ' Depth (feet) I Remarks 0-3 Surface pipe to ground. ___-_I 3-100 No sample; Marvin A. Heany, well geologist, states the hole penetrated gravel for the first 31 ft, and clay, silt and shale between 31 and 100 ft. Top of Seabee formation is at 31 ft. ----- 100-120 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; very silty and slightly calcareous in part. 120-140 Clay shale, with a small amount of bluish - white bentonite with abundant minute biotite flakes, and very small amount of medium -gray argillaceous noncalcareous siltstone. ----- 140-160 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of siltstone. ----- 160-170 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. ----- 170-175 Clay shale with some medium -gray, very argillaceous siltstone. ----- 175-210 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. ----- 210-220 Clay shale; calcareous in part; very cal- careous medium -gra y siltstone. ----- 220-240 Clay shale, with rare sil tstone and bentonite. Top of Ninuluk formation at 220 ft. ----- -- 240-260 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, slightly silty and argillaceous, friable, slightly calcareous in part; com- posed of subangular clear and white quartz with dark rock fragments and rare carbonized plant flakes. - ----- 260-270 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with very small amount of sandstone and siltstone in upper part and rare black carbonaceous shale in lower part. VIIIi Lt_ V(_ 1 VL VL' YV 1 11 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS s.ut ui 2j / - 1. Type of Request. Aaanaon -M Suspentl _ Operation shutdown _ Re-enter susoencled well _ Alter casing _ ReDair wfilt Plugging Time extenwii — Stimulate cnange aPprNpr] program .� Pull tubing `, Vari me , Perforate — Other _ 2. Name of Operator S. Type of Well. 6. Datum elevation (DF or KB) BIM Development Exploratory SratigraDhic feet 3. Address 7. Unit or Property name 6881 Abbot Loop Road 99507 .__ Service _ Umiat 4. Location of well at surface 8. Well numb At 144) 01 productive interval g. Permit numper 1004213 .. At Gffec tive Depth 10. API number 50--287-10005-00 At total depth 11. FieldlPool uamiat 12. Present well condition summary 1 Total depth: measured 1068 feet Plugs (measured) true venical feet Effective depth measured feet Junk (measured) true vertical feet Casing Length Size Cemented Measured depth True vertical depth Structural 32 8.625 Conductor Surface 1068 5.5 intermediate Production. Liner Perforation depth: measured E true vertical Tubing (size. grade. anci measured depth) Alaska 0o& Gas C%0s1*cv.,Or 4nChO �y Packers and SSSV (type and measured depth) 13. Attachments Description summary of proposal _ Detailed operations program X BOP sketch , 14. Estimated date for commencing operation 15. Status of well classification as: 2-20-02 Oil — Gas _ Suspended X 16 If proposal was verbally approved Name of approver Date approved Service 17.: hereby cell ai the for oing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. rues OF IcrN41^4-ck5 Signed Title %�/ pu / tiJAGt�,(L Date 4--3&–'-02 2-16 /02, Conditio of approval: Notify Commission so representative may witness Approval No _ Plug integrity _ BOP Test Location clearance _ Womntcai integrity Test _ Subsequent form required 10 p T3LM S�Qt�r©c'�ecs��kOb�©t�S��fc � tbt��c-�x.�-STSt3©VC,�.w��.SSwGZvCCJr I Orijin8l Signed By i Approved b order of the Commission PP y . her, COmmisSipner Date r Form 10-403 Rev 06115!88 C-)" RI IC31 INIAL SUBMITIIN TRIPLICATE • Drilltech D40K Jacobs Engineering Umiat P & A Drill Rig Specifications Maximum depth 2000'w/4 1/2" pipe Draw works/ Pullback 40,0004 Pipe Size 41/2" external flush 3 1/8" external flush Maximum overpull 40,000 # With pullers 140,000# Largest Component 38,000# Carrier w/ integral compressor and powerpack Total Weight 53,000# Dimensions 8' x 12'6" x 38' 1 '/2 trips on a C130 1" load carrier/power pack 2nd load mast/rotary head • Jacobs Engineering Umiat P & A Work Plan (Revised) Tester Drilling Services, Inc. (TDSI) proposes utilizing three each third tier subcontractors for this project. Statewide Blasting and Perforating will shear each casing utilizing C4 with electric caps. Haliburton will aid in the cleaning, plugging and cementing of each well, and DSR/Swaco will furnish the BOP system with technician. TDSI proposes mobilizing all equipment and materials to Umiat by trucking to Deadhorse and hercing to Umiat. Seven herc trips will be needed to mobilize from Deadhorse. Personnel will be flown to Deadhorse on Alaska Airlines and chartered on Smythe Air to Umiat. Additionally TDSI is permitted to move between Nuiqsut and Umiat on the Colville River. Our plan is to Make an initial trip into Umiat with a Chieftan tracked carrier and establish a route for any heavy hauling we may need to do when a herc is unavailable. TDSI's equipment will be mobilized first, with Swaco and Haliburtons equipment arriving in Umiat at the end of the second day or early on the third day of flying. Four TDSI people will be mobilized to Umiat two days before the heres begin flying. These people will unload and begin assembly of equipment, transport and erect a fifty foot by twenty-four feet Weatherport tent over well number two, erect light towers, organize fueling and water hauling activities, and erect an unlined snowberm around each well. Two people will stay in Deadhorse to assist with the herc loading, etc. Our intention is to enclose both our drilling operations and the grouting operations. The drill deck will be covered with a twelve by fifteen Weatherport while the eight by twenty grout skid will be enclosed in a fifty feet by twenty-four feet Weatherport along with mixing and water tanks. We intend to maintain two lite plants onsite, heat in the fifty feet by twenty-four feet enclosure will be furnished by a Tioga free air double burner furnace. Once the ancillary equipment and the capital equipment is mobilized and protected, TDSI will proceed with the recovery of the concrete containing the word "Killroy was here", and the well heads. TDSI will be mobilizing a seventy-five barrel and one hundred barrel skid mounted water tanks to the project. In addition to being used to initially store cleaning water our intention is to containerize some, if not all fluids remaining in well number five and the brine water used to clean the casing. Additional fluids will be stored and transported in DOT approved waste drums. As there is a requirement to "clean" the casing before cementing, we propose to begin jetting with a jetting head in front of a Baker Valve. In well number two the clean brine (9.41b salt brine) could possibly fall through the shoe and remain in the well. In well number two this brine will be circulated until the well is clean. It is our intention to leave this "salt brine" between the cement plugs in each well. One strings of drill pipe will be utilized to clean, drill or set tools in wells two and five. 2- 7/8" tubular pipe will be used in well number two and five. A 7", 5000 -PSI BOP, will be furnished by DSR/Swaco, of Anchorage, along with a certified technician.(See Attachment) Although TDSI will be mobilizing its own 4 X 5 mud pumps, we will also have Haliburtons 10,000 psi grout pumps available to jet any "tar which may have separated and settled in well number five. TDSI and Haliburton will perforate the casings working together. Haliburton will furnish 2 each perforating guns with pressure firing heads for each. As specified in Haliburton's work plan, a 16' x 4-5/8" gun will be used for the 11-3/4" casing and a 22' 3-3/8" gun will be used for the 5-1/2" casing. As this is a fluid pressure gun, the perforating will be done working through TDSI's 2-7/8" 3500 PSI tubular pipe. 3500 # injection house for connection between the pumps and drill string will be furnished by Haliburton. Attached is Haliburton's proposal which is primarily based on Jacob's amendment number two. There are a couple of possibilities, which our proposal and work plan does not account for. Our proposal assume that well #2 may have ice rings, and other residue which can be jetted from the hole to a depth of 100' below the casing shoe with a brine mixture of about 9.3 to 9.4 ppg. We assume that any solid obstruction or collapse will necessitate a discussion and change in SOW, i.e. drilling with mud through 100' if collapsed hole underneath the casing shoe. We assume that well #5 has a cement plug in the bottom with crude oil setting on top of the plug. We recognize that the crude has probably broken down to some degree and the bottom of the well could consist of a tar like hydrocarbon. Our proposal does not include drilling any cement plug out of the bottom of well #5. Statewide Blasting and Perforating will mobilize two men, about 10 lbs. of C-4 explosive, blasting caps and accessories to the site to shear each well at 40'. After plugging is complete, TDSI proposes drilling a series of 5" to 6" holes around the structural casing at each well. These holes will be drilled to within 2'-3' of the 40 BGL depth. Statewide will set a shaped charge around the ID of the 11-3/4 and 5-1/2" casing on a bed of sand, backfill with water and shear the casing. One hour prior to shooting, TDSI will place 140 — 150' water in each relief hole. Our plan is that the thawed ground and energy from the shot will allow us to pull the conductor and grout up in basically one piece. The 40' casings will be left on the pad for disposal by others. At completion of plugging, Haliburton's equipment will be skidded to the airstrip and herced* out as soon as possible. We anticipate Haliburton personnel will be onsite no more than 7 days, weather permitting. At completion of conductor/casing extraction, Statewide's 2 people will be demobilized via Smythe to Deadhorse. Any leftover C-4 will be demobed via herc in a small powder mag. Any leftover caps will be demobed with the Statewide personnel. While at Umiat, the C-4 will be stored in a powder mag well, according to regulations. Disposal liquids will be stored onsite, until transported to Deadhorse by Catco. TDSI will be prepared to transport a total weight of 50,000 lbs.. of total weight on the Rolligon or about 80 barrels. TDSI plans to mobilize approximately 20 DOT approved waste drums for smaller liquid needs; and storage of small quantities of solids, until they are transported to BP's G & I facilities by others. We have been informed by Catco that a tractor -trailer Rolligon will be available to transport liquids to the Meltwater pad in late February or March. At the Meltwater pad, the liquids will have to be transferred to a Peak Oilfield Vac truck. According to Kim Dixon, with BP, only solids can be delivered to the G & I facility. Liquids should go to Phillips disposal well at Kuparuk. As of this date, we have left message with Phillips disposal people, but have no feedback. This has resulted in our $2.00 +/- "guess" at the cost to dispose of liquids with Phillips. This cost includes cost to clean and dispose of their rinseate. Demobilization of Tester's equipment will begin as soon as the 40' conductors are extracted. Demobilization will consist of 1) Cleaning the site 2) Containerizing any solid waste 3) Moving TDSI equipment to the airstrip and breaking down to load out. 4) Demobilization excess personnel through Deadhorse 5) Complete all reports and file as necessary • We anticipate awaiting period of 7-10 days before a herc will be available to demobe us. Attached you will find Halliburton's work plan for perforating and cementing, and Swaco's BOP Specifications. TDSI's approach to P&A each well are similar: 1) Determine if the well is under pressure. Hot tap, if necessary. 2) Bleed Pressure and cut each casing at a comfortable working level. 3) Weld on Starting head with flange, attach BOP and run a functional test. 4) Plump up return system and storage tanks 5) Set up drill and begin washing with a 6" or 3.5" jetting head in front of a baker valve. Washing fluid will consist of a brine mixture mixed to about 9.4 # per gallon. H2S scavenger will be added to the mixture as well. Both the Brine and scavenger will be furnished by Haliburton, (Baroid). 6) Washing will continue until progress is stopped by an obstruction or we have washed to 100' below the casing shoe. 7) Plug and cement each well according to the conditions in each well after the owner, Haliburton and TDSI all agree on the exact procedures to be used. 8) Leave Brine mixture between plugs, install pipe to 90' depth and perforate casing with fluid perforator furnished by Haliburton. 9) Run pipe in, close BOP and squeeze a minimum 25 bags into annular space between 11" and 16" casing. 10) Bleed pressure, wash to 180'.and set plug and pump initial cement. Wait 12 — 14 hours and tag initial cement and pump cement to 40' level. 11) Demobilize all equipment and tents from the immediate pad area. 12) Drill a series of 6" holes around each structural casing to about 38"BGL. 13) Set shaped C4 charges at the 40" level. Backfill with warm water. 14) Pour hot water down the 6" holes and wait 3 to 4 hours. 15) Shoot casings off and extract casings with backhoes and drill with extractor 16) Remove Liquid waste from Umiat via Rolligon tractor/trailer and haul to Meltwater. 17) Transfer liquids to Peak Vac truck and transport to Phillips facility at Kuparuk 17) Demobilization will begin immediately after casing extraction. Equipment Will be Herced to Deadhorse and trucked to Anchorage. ot IAI I:WIU BIASSING &PERFORATING SERVICE C, a (Buck} Kuhn, Jr. H10 Explosives Dealer, Contractor, Consultant Licensed - Bonded - Insured TESTER DRILLING SERVICE 2221 Cinnabar Loop .Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Phone: (907) 349-7214 Fax.: (907) 349-37117 ATTN: Pete Tester P. Q Box 770032 Eagle River, AK 99577 907-688-2478 January 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Work Schedule for explosives use on the Umiat P & A Project. Dear Sir: The following work schedule for the blasting and explosives portion of the Umiat P & A Project is as follows: 1. The 5 1/2 inch O. D. casing will be cut at the desired depth (from the top of the ground) with an oil well casing cutter shaped charge by our blasting and perforating crew. 2. The 11.3/4 and 16 inch O. D. casings will be cut at the desired depth (from the top of the ground) with a custom made container loaded with a sufficient amount of C-4 explosive (RDX) to sever both casing strings and the cement between them at the same time. 3. Both casings are to be cut under water. i.e.: the casings are to be filled to the top with water just before cutting. 4. In the event the casings and cement attached to them cannot be pulled easily after being cut, we can run a string of dynamite, with sticks spaced the proper distance apart and taped to a length of detonating cord for the full length or any specific section of the inner casing (above where it has been cut) and shoot it to shatter or loosen the cement in between the casing strings so the inside one can possibly be pulled first and/or make both casings pull easier at the same time. r - "4;1r -a_ (Page 2) Another way to loosen the casing to make it easier to pull is to load holes drilled on the outside of the casing/cement column with dynamite taped to detonating cord and blast the casing string on one side or both sides simultaneously to shatter cement on the outside of the casing and free it from the permafrost. 5. The purpose of using explosives on this project is to assist the drilling crew in cutting and pulling the casings out of the ground, using the latest explosives and up to date blasting tecboiques by our blasting crew. In the event other blasting or casing cutting may be necessary to get the casings out of the ground, I will discuss each situation as it occurs, with Pete Tester or his representative, and when a decision or an appropriate plan of action has been agreed upon, we will proceed in doing what ever it takes to get the job done, both safely and efficiently. 6. The explosives to be transported from our place of businessat23632 Creek Road, Cbugiak, AK 99567 to the job site at Umiat are as follows: 1. 260 lbs. of Unimax and/or Power Primer dynamite. Class LID. 2. 50 lbs. of C-4 (RDX) explosive. Class LID. 3. 1 each 500 ft. roll of 100 Gr. PETN Detonating cord. Class 1.41). 4. 12 each Electric blasting caps. Class 1.41). 5. 2 each 4 7/16 inch O.D. casing cutter shaped charges. Class 1.4S. 6. 2 each casing cutter detonators. Class IAS. All explosives are to be stored in properly locked storage magazines at the job site except when being used, and lock keys kept in possession of the blasting crew. All Federal and State laws concerning the handling, use and storage of explosives will be strictly adhered to. Upon completion of the Umiat P & A project, the unused explosives are to be returned to our place of business at 23632 Creek Road, Chugiak, AK 99567. If any additional information is necessary, please call me at (907) 699-2478. Thank you very much. Sincerely, C.C. . C. C. (Buck) Kuhn r. Owner 721 west First Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 -fel: 907.274.5501 - Fax: 907.274-5535 SWACO, A Division of M-1 January 24`11, 2002 Tester Drilling Services, Inc. 2221 Cinnabar Loop Anchorage, AK 99507 Attn: Pete Tester Dear Pete, The following is a list of the equipment we are proposing for you to rent for your Umiat P&A: r 1 each - Shaffer 7 1/16" 5000# Doublegate Blowout Preventer, equipped w/ 3 %z" pipe rams and blind rams ➢ 1 each — Shaffer 7 3/16" 5000# Annular Blowout Preventcr y 1 each Unitized 5 station Koomey Accumulator complete w/ electric remote panel and equipped w/ nitrogen back-up system, and BOP hoses ➢ 1 each — 7" 5000# Flange x 121/4" tubing adapter starting head I each — 7" 5000# Flange x 5 1/z" tubing adapter starting head i 1 (one) Swaco Field Technician for ri$-up, function test, standby and rig down. I think you will find the equipment proposed will far exceed your needs. Due to availability, this is what we have to offer. If I can offer any further equipment or information, please feel free to call me at ##274-5501. Sincerely, Alan Arima Inside Sales, Swaco • January 24, 2002 Pete Tester Tester Drilling Anchorage, Alaska RE: Umiat wells Abandonment Program Dear Mr. Tester; • 6900 Arctic Blvd Anchorage, A6 99518 (907)275-2637 FAX (907) 275-2650 cric.dompcling(d?halliburion.com Thank you for the opportunity to submit this cementing recommendation for the proposed abandonment program slated for the wells in Umiat. I have enclosed a slurry design, estimate of equipment requirements, as well as a cost estimate; based on the information provided. In order to complete this without going into all the permutations, I made some assumptions. The slurry design and pumping procedures are based on standard oilfield cementing practices. The equipment charge, included in the attached recommendation, is based on a rental per day of all related Halliburton equipment; rather then by the hour, and assumes one cement job per day. Given the total equipment needs and the means of transportation; Herc or Rologon, these charges are, we believe, reasonable. The time required assembling equipment, weather conditions always being a factor, duration of time between wells, possible moving equipment from one well to the other, all played a factor in our pricing scenario. For safety concerns we would like to discuss personnel on location time and days, before committing to the use of a single crew for this operation. Halliburton Energy Services look forward to further discussion regarding procedures in order to support your abandonment efforts properly. Should you have any questions regarding the information enclosed please call Larry Wilger or me at 344-2929. Sincerely, Eric Dompeling Technical Advisor — Pumping Services Enclosure: Slurry Recommendation, Cost Estimate, Equipment Info • • UMIAT WELL 5 ABANDONMENT OBJECTIVES Well History: Umiat test well # 5 having been described in the Jacobs Engineering Statement of Work as an open hole test well drilled in 1950 to a total depth of 1,077 feet. This well has a structural casing of 8 5/8" diameter placed and cemented at 32 feet and a surface casing placed and cemented at 1068 feet. On the 8 5/8' structural casing the original cement job consisted of 12 sacks of cal -seal, wait on cement 24 hours. Subsequent drilling showed the casing was not cemented in place as it fell two feet, an additional 9 feet of casing was driven into the well until the sands stop running. No additional information on subsequent cement jobs. The 5 '/Z" 15# surface casing was set at a total depth. of 1068 feet, that was cemented with 150 sacks of Premium Cement. Annulus of the 8 5/8" and 5 '/z" cemented at surface with 20 sack of Cal -seal.. The well was tested for 93 days at a rate of 400 bbl per day. Cutting samples and cores (12) were taken from surface to TD. Bale and swab tests were run to determine if there was oil or gas present, prior to cementing the well. A total of 8 well production tests were completed the final OPEN HOLE test was produced for 93 days at the capacity of the pump with no decline. Well disposition October 4, 1951: Well pumped down and was pulled of Production tubing, reamed from 721 feet to 1076 feet, using crude oil to circulate well, then reamed tight spots form 688 to 1076 feet again, using 154 bbls of Umiat crude to retain circulation. 49 joints of 51/2" 15 # casing was run and cemented with 150 sacks of cement. Annulus cemented at surface. Plug tagged at 1065 feet, well filled with crude oil and shut in. A 10" flange welded to casing head, 5'/2" casing head cemented to flange, a 2'/s" flanged tubing head is capped by a swage nipple, coupling and bushing. ORIGINAL RKB of well 5 was 1 foot based on the Cable tool rig derrick floor' Cable tool rig capability allowed the well to be drilled (cut) with a small quantity of Water and Oil, typical volumes were I bbl of water and 1 ppg avg salt, density ranged from 8.6 to 8.9 ppg fluid weight, but crude oil was also used to drill and ream hole. Base of Permafrost @ —920 feet. Based on normal temperature gradient for the North Slope, the final temperature at 1068 feet should fall in the range of 32 °F to 35 V. Reports of Crude temperature at 27-28 °F, from the pumping well indicate that these temperatures are relatively accurate. UMIAT WELL 5 ABANDONMENT OBJECTIVES Based on the current condition and the regulatory requirements, the well is proposed to be permanently abandoned by the requirements of the Specification 20 AAC 25.112 Displacement method Original hole size appears to have been a 7 7/8" hole as indicated by the Hughes tool and reed rock bit size 7 7/8" bits. Based on the volume of cement150 sacks of normal 1.15 yield per cubic foot of material should have filled the annulus 995 feet in height. As the well was tested, baled and pumped prior to casing the hole, no indication of perforations in the casing are evident. This should allow the well to be cemented in two cement plugs; One at TD and one at the surface as this would meet state requirements for effectively isolating the well bore and fluids. (C) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from the well's plugged -back total depth 100 feet. if all hydrocarbon -bearing, abnormally geo-pressured, and freshwater strata below are isolated; however, the commission will approve plugging from the top of fill or the top of junk instead of from the plugged -back total depth, if the commission determines that the objectives of this subsection will be met, (e) Cement used for plugging within zones of permafrost must be designed to set before freezing and have a low heat of hydration. • • UMIAT 5 Plug to Abandon Design Parameters: 1. Cement volume fill to, a. 1068' to 968 b. 140' to 40' 2. Depth of Zone to abandon 1068' to Surface. I Cement compressive strength: 500 psi minimum @ 32°F in 24 hrs. 4. Static temperatures: 15°F surface, 32°F @ 1000'TVD 5. Thickening time: 4:00 hrs @ 40°F tail 6. Free water: 0 cc @ 0 deg @ 40°F tail 7. Permafrost condition cement to have low heat of hydration — tested as described in API RP -1 OB for Permafrost cement. 8. Fracture gradient of 12 ppg equivalent Mud Weight is used for the basis of Design. Estimated Job Time, per cement plug: 4 - 6 hrs Amount of Equipment on Location: Mixing Skid, Pumping Skid, Air Compressor, Bulk Cement "Herc" tanks Amount of Cleanup Fluid Required: 20 bbls Wash uu /Clean un tank of at least 30 bbl will be required to clean equipment during the cementing operation. Cement rinseate can be pumped to the well if regulations and condition allow. The only time this will not occur is on the final surface plug to be mixed. UMIAT WELL 5 ABANDONMENT Procedure: 1. MU drilling Equipment, 2. Rig up to run work string. 3. Run in to 1068', or top of obstruction, Circulating Brine until well cleans up and clean brine back to surface. Stop circulation and check for flow. If no now Pull out of Hole, if flow weight up fluid to kill well. 4. Mix and pump cement: 15 Ft3 Permafrost cement according to attached specifications. Displace cement to balance point, pull up and circulate excess out of well or Pull out of Hole. 5. Wait on cement 12 hours and run in with Bull nose, tag cement and verify depth. 6. Pull out of Hole. 7. Note and report depth of tag cement to AOGCC. 8. Rig up Bridge plug and run to setting depth of 180 feet, set bridge plug with 40,000# over pull. Pull out of Hole. 9. Rig up Perforating Equipment, run in to 90 feet, Pressure up to 3,000 psi to activate firing head, bleed pressure and wait for guns to fire. Pull out of hole and lay down perforating equipment. 10. Run in to 5 feet above top of Bridge Plug, Open ended. 11. Mix and pump cement: 18 Ft3 Permafrost cement according to attached specifications, pull up tubing to 40 feet, close in back side and mix and pump (down - squeeze), 14 Ft3 cement into perforations, displace with brine. Pull out of hole. 12. Wait on cement 12 hours and run in with Bull nose, tag cement and verify depth. Pull out of Hole 13. Note and report depth of tag cement to AOGCC. 14. Cut casing at 40 feet and pull surface casing. 15. Pull Structural casing at 32 feet and retrieve. 16. Turn well over to Jacobs engineering for final disposition. This is a generic cementing recommendation, based on information obtained from Jacobs Engineering. regarding the abandonment requirements of the "UMIAT wells". This cement design is specific to the well conditions given. This cost estimate is representative of charges for this set of abandonment's. Any additional time, personnel or materials will be charged at the included rates. AALLIBUR N EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS Model HT 400 Pumping Skid Without measuring tanks DIMENSIONS: Length.......................................................................................................... 20 ft 10 in Width.............................................................................................................. 5 ft 3 in Height............................................................................................................ 8 ft 10 in WEIGHTS: Total.............................................................................................................. 18,000lbs Measuring Tanks DIMENSIONS: Length.......................................................................................................... 10 ft 3 in Width.............................................................................................................. 4 ft 5 in Height............................................................................................................ 7 ft 9 in WEIGHTS: Total.............................................................................................................. 4, 0001 bs. Mixing Skid DIMENSIONS: Length.......................................................................................................... 14 ft, 8in Width.............................................................................................................. 4 ft, 5in Height........................................................................................................... 10 ft. WEIGHTS: Total............................................................................................................ 10,000lbs. Air Compressor DIMENSIONS: Length.......................................................................................................... 8 ft. Width.............................................................................................................6 ft. Height........................................................................................................... 6 ft. WEIGHTS: Total............................................................................................................ 3500 Lbs "Herc-able" Bulk Tanks DIMENSIONS: Capacity......................................................................................................... 510 Ft3 Length.......................................................................................................... 22 ft. Width............................................................................................................ 9 ft. Height........................................................................................................... 9 ft. WEIGHTS: Total...(Empty)............................................................................................... 2500 Lbs Mea: Ta BULK TANKS 25' Mixing Skid 1_ 22 ft. 0.1 30' �1 U UMIAT TEST WELL NO. 5 CRETACEOUS Ninuluk Formation: 0'11-601? Chandler Formation, Killik tongue: 6011-335' Grandstand Formation: 335'-1060' C� �el 0 i Form 8-588 (evrflIM) UNITED STATES ----- -- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- - ---- ---' -T -------- ---------- --- GEOLOGICAL SURVEY -----' "-``" """ CONSERVATION DIVISION 1 1 INDIVIDUAL WELL RECORD Mer. Alakkkkkahaft Date ------ --- Ref. No. ------------ N. P. R. #4 A1.aslce► Land office ___-___ _-_--- _ — State —--___-- Serial No.----- Lessee-----Field _-------I_A ______------ Operator U I S . Navy -- _ _-----_ District West coast Region -------------- - Well No. ---13aiit-Test Wel- 5------------------ *Subdivision ----------------------------------------- * Location _. � 23 1 [f l%- . -Long. 152-04'56" W `---------------------------------------------------------- Drilling approved — , 19--_ Well elevation 335 D` y. feet T.D. 1 Drilling commenced __ —J _.y_5___, 19 5a Total depth feet Drilling ceased ___ _oat. 4 ---_, 19 51- Initial production — AEI ' d Completed for production ___z —, 191-- Gravity A. P. I. • Abandonment approved Geologic Formations Surface Lowest tested WELL STATUS 19--_ Initial R. P. Productive Horizons Name Depths Grandetemd 335-1060 Coni b ail s YEAR JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. 8EPT. OCT. Nov. DEc. 195 Drg. Arg « SW « Suep S%W :SuBP !I'm 1951 ---------------- S}}''wg ----------- Suety ----------- Susp ---------- Drg ----------- D g ----------- . ----------- J)rg « --------- Drg 4 ----------- Drg . ----------- S ----------- ---------- --------- * Ung�{gd RF.It[nIt s Q _______III___A_ � __obft — ---- --- ----------- ------------------ ----_ __-------__ -- M. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 18-38057-4 0 Umiat # 5 Well Plugging Sunday 3/3/02 — Cut off 8 5/8 inch and 5 1/2 inch casing to place flange on 5 %2. Discover that casing is 5 1/16 inch I.D. and 5 and 9/16 inch O.D. Monday 3/4/02 — Nipple up BOP double gate. TIH w/ overshot on 3 1/2 inch workstring. Tag fish @ 278'. Did not latch on to fish. TOH w/ overshot. Try smaller overshot. TIH. Tag fish at same depth. Latch on to fish. TOH until top of fish is hung at surface. Suspend operations @ 19:30. Tuesday 3/5/02 — Release overshot. Find 3/4 inch sucker rod in tubing. Attempt to remove sucker rod. Rod was hard to pull initially. Pulled wet for 3 feet then pulled dry. On the 9"' 10 foot sucker rod, rods will not come up. Will only go down. Rig up to TOH with both the sucker rod and 2 7/8 tubing. Pull two joints of rod w/ 1 twenty foot section of tubing. Suspend operations for the evening. Wednesday 3/6/02 — Continue TOH w/ fish laying down. Lengths of rod are 30'. Cut rods with band -saw after each 20 foot joint of tubing is broken. Length of fish is 766'. Thursday 3/7/02 - Take in hole with jetting head on 3 %2 inch workstring. Begin displacing oil to surface on 18th joint. Allow oil to go through risers to barrels. After two barrels switch to closed waste storage tank. Continue TIH. Tag bottom @ 1044'. Pick up two feet. Begin to mix brine in preparation for circulating the oil out of the hole. Suspend operations @ 20:00. Friday 3/8/02 — Finish mixing brine. Mixed 30 bbl 9.4 brine. Pump 24 bbls to displace hole volume to waste storage tank. Rig up to circulate hole. Circulate hole. Remove oil off the surface of the circulating tank with oil "diapers". Circulate until return fluid is clear and oil -free. Drop ball to shoot off washing head sub. Rig up Halliburton and pressure up to 1500 psi on the workstring to shoot off washing head sub. Start mixing cement @ 13:15. Pump .5 bbl fresh water spacer, 25 sacks (4.23 bbls) of 15.6 ppg Arctic cement, and .5 bbls fresh water spacer. Displace with 7 bbls 9.4 brine. Plug set from 1044 — 874. Begin TOH w/ workstring 14:30. TIH w/ EZ SV Bridge plug. Set @ 265 feet. TOH. RIH w/ 2" PVC to top of plug. Pick up 2 feet. Pump 25 sacks (4.23 bbls) of 15.6 ppg Arctic cement, and .5 bbls fresh water spacer. Displace with .5 bbls 9.4 brine. Plug set from 265 — 95 feet. Wash lines and suspend operations @ 22:30. Saturday 3/9/02 — TIH w/ perf gun. WOC until 12:00. Shoot 8 holes at 4 spf @ 90 feet. TOH and lay down gun. Fill hole w/ 9.3 brine and observe fluid level. Hole is taking fluid at the rate of about 1 foot/hr. TIH to 100'. TIH w/ 2" PVC to 100 feet. Pump 12 sks 15.6 Arctic Cement. Returns throughout job. Clear surface lines of cement and allow plug to balance. Returns indicate cement is displacing downhole to balance point. Plug set from 100 — 20 feet. No cement to surface. Pull out of hole. Observe fluid level. Fluid level dropping at the rate of 1.5 feet/hr. Suspend operations for night. Sunday 3/10/02 — RIH and tag plug @ 42 feet. R/D move off location. Well Pluggings — 2002 Agency: Army Corps of Engineers Contractor: Jacobs Engineering Wells: Umiat #2 ARMA Remediation: Umiat #2 & #5 well pad and cellar material Umiat #2 This well was drilled in 1947 by the U.S. Navy. Erosion caused by the Colville River led the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to take action in 2002 by plugging this well and excavating the soils around this well. The well was plugged using a truck -mounted drilling rig that encountered collapsed casing at 20' which prevented running the planned 3 %2" drill string. Instead, 2" and 1" HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pipe were run to an obstruction at 272' and a 22' viscous pill was placed on top to act as a base for a 200' surface cement plug. The cement cellar was excavated and a plate was welded onto the 11 3/4" casing at 28' below ground level. Umiat #5 This well was drilled in 1951 by the U.S. Navy. Erosion caused by the Colville River led the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to take action in 2002 by plugging this well and excavating the soils around this well. The well was plugged using a truck -mounted drilling rig that encountered collapsed casing at 20' which prevented running the planned 3 %" drill string. Instead, 2" and 1" HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pipe were run to an obstruction at 272' and a 22' viscous pill was placed on top to act as a base for a 200' surface cement plug. The cement cellar was excavated and a plate was welded onto the 11 3/4" casing at 28' below ground level. INTERMEDIATE PLUG #2 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 95' TO 265' BRIDGE PLUG AT 265'`— 7-7/8" HOLE 5-1/2" CASING APPROX. TOC 400' NPR4 W5 4102 PLATE DETAIL STEEL PLATE WELDED ON CUT-OFF CASING ppg NaCl BOTTOM PLUG #1 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 885' TO 1055' SHOE 1068' III ;---.L" —1055' PBTD ® 15.6 ppg PERMAFROST CEMENT UMIAT WELL 5 - ACTUAL P&A CEMENT - ORIGINAL COMPLETION UMIAT, ALASKA PRWWTMWN; R FU XUAL DATE S. Koch Umiat Web 5 May 20, 02 MUD AND/OR FORMATION FLUID IATDUTTM FIMMM: WEIGHT UNKNOWN OAYM . Actual P&A F-8 II & BP FU LOGTX t Umiat / 05M31801 / 2002 Phase 2 F-22 8-5/8" TO 5-1/2" CASING 8-5/8" CASING CUT ANNULAR CEMENT TO 32' AND CAPPED AT APPROX. 26' TO 2T 10-3/4" OPEN HOLE TO (SEE PLATE DETAIL) GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL 8-5/8" CASING SHOE 32' 26' BEDROCK TOC AT 40' SURFACE PLUG #3 10 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg PERFORATED SPF AT 90' 40' TO 90' 122' CALCULATED BOC ANNULUS SQUEEZE 15 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg INTERMEDIATE PLUG #2 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 95' TO 265' BRIDGE PLUG AT 265'`— 7-7/8" HOLE 5-1/2" CASING APPROX. TOC 400' NPR4 W5 4102 PLATE DETAIL STEEL PLATE WELDED ON CUT-OFF CASING ppg NaCl BOTTOM PLUG #1 25 SACKS AT 15.6 ppg 885' TO 1055' SHOE 1068' III ;---.L" —1055' PBTD ® 15.6 ppg PERMAFROST CEMENT UMIAT WELL 5 - ACTUAL P&A CEMENT - ORIGINAL COMPLETION UMIAT, ALASKA PRWWTMWN; R FU XUAL DATE S. Koch Umiat Web 5 May 20, 02 MUD AND/OR FORMATION FLUID IATDUTTM FIMMM: WEIGHT UNKNOWN OAYM . Actual P&A F-8 II & BP FU LOGTX t Umiat / 05M31801 / 2002 Phase 2 F-22 EXPLANATION • OIL WELL GAS WELL OIL AND GAS WELL -¢ OIL SHOW -ABANDONED - GAS SHOW -ABANDONED 0 - ----- - --- ---� - -- — BARROW AREA BARROW AREA O C F J 1 �'• TULAGEAK 1 4 -(}- ARCON BARROW I R C S.BAF YD SEI �- S. BARROW i P WALAKPA SIMPSON I (KO BAY S. BARROW 2 M + + WALAKPA 2 E. SIMPSON •2c J. W. DALTON I+ s S. BARROW 4 E. SI e ,UCL CLIFF I SIMPSON I _ '• - FOi2AN I S. BARROW 5 KUYANAK) W. T. 'DREW e PEARD I - -POINT 1 CAPE RACKETY I S. BARROW 6 _ TI-SIMPSON I ' r TOPAGORUK I s- P 4 ��r ", f S. BARROW 7 c - KUGRUP 1 E. TOP &0 17t TESHEPUK � ,_ I,ATI OR T c u +—• - T fl { PIKPUK I`� . l_.. I S. BARROW 8 r~—+---- S.MEADE 1 ^� &HARRISON d .i u N. KALIKPIK 1- S. BARROW 9 S BARROW10 W. FISH GREEK I •,' _ �; »•. TUNALIK I - t N:INIGOK ICR . I H wEEK I S. BARROW t 1 CO . S. BARROW 12 + r- _.._�+-�.► ® �� T"o" i V.. t1v INIGOK I ITKtLLIK 11" �C + - R S. BARROW i3 -KAOLAK I __ _ +- 7 - . "•�� - 4- + R E ' S. BARROW !4 �� V I P7��,-_ --- - OUMA!.IK I �i dustry) #1 .OUMALIKaKOWKTAK L, +i) * S. BARROW 15 S. BARROW 16 �{'^ HILL 1 S. BARROW 17 i -SENTINEL .._ QUARE . S. BARROW 18 t T _ ti 5 LAKE,1"�- -_ ROW (9 V GUBIK �. �, S BAR TITALUK I E f - OW 20 _. �'3 UMIAT -?- S BARROW 'T , S ABEE i -� ?�� !-2>•,?� AREA GUBIK AVAK I 1_1_4 4WUNA I V NIFEeLADE� • UM{AT 47AREA ��. GRANDSTAND I -�- UMIAT I Twr�nsY rae �eNe INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA INPR EST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944 - 53.1974 _81- BI ALASKA �•E.0 6y. EN _DPF � TETRA TECH REPORT NO.8200 1, LISBURNE I 0 25 50 Mi. M 0 - 25 50 T5 Km. QRO�o oF® i -� SUSPENDED GAS WELL I ¢ OIL AND GAS SHOW 0 ABANDONED • DRY AND ABANDONED ¢ SUSPENDED OIL WELL i i I 0 - ----- - --- ---� - -- — BARROW AREA BARROW AREA O C F J 1 �'• TULAGEAK 1 4 -(}- ARCON BARROW I R C S.BAF YD SEI �- S. BARROW i P WALAKPA SIMPSON I (KO BAY S. BARROW 2 M + + WALAKPA 2 E. SIMPSON •2c J. W. DALTON I+ s S. BARROW 4 E. SI e ,UCL CLIFF I SIMPSON I _ '• - FOi2AN I S. BARROW 5 KUYANAK) W. T. 'DREW e PEARD I - -POINT 1 CAPE RACKETY I S. BARROW 6 _ TI-SIMPSON I ' r TOPAGORUK I s- P 4 ��r ", f S. BARROW 7 c - KUGRUP 1 E. TOP &0 17t TESHEPUK � ,_ I,ATI OR T c u +—• - T fl { PIKPUK I`� . l_.. I S. BARROW 8 r~—+---- S.MEADE 1 ^� &HARRISON d .i u N. KALIKPIK 1- S. BARROW 9 S BARROW10 W. FISH GREEK I •,' _ �; »•. TUNALIK I - t N:INIGOK ICR . I H wEEK I S. BARROW t 1 CO . S. BARROW 12 + r- _.._�+-�.► ® �� T"o" i V.. t1v INIGOK I ITKtLLIK 11" �C + - R S. BARROW i3 -KAOLAK I __ _ +- 7 - . "•�� - 4- + R E ' S. BARROW !4 �� V I P7��,-_ --- - OUMA!.IK I �i dustry) #1 .OUMALIKaKOWKTAK L, +i) * S. BARROW 15 S. BARROW 16 �{'^ HILL 1 S. BARROW 17 i -SENTINEL .._ QUARE . S. BARROW 18 t T _ ti 5 LAKE,1"�- -_ ROW (9 V GUBIK �. �, S BAR TITALUK I E f - OW 20 _. �'3 UMIAT -?- S BARROW 'T , S ABEE i -� ?�� !-2>•,?� AREA GUBIK AVAK I 1_1_4 4WUNA I V NIFEeLADE� • UM{AT 47AREA ��. GRANDSTAND I -�- UMIAT I Twr�nsY rae �eNe INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA INPR EST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944 - 53.1974 _81- BI ALASKA �•E.0 6y. EN _DPF � TETRA TECH REPORT NO.8200 1, LISBURNE I 0 25 50 Mi. M 0 - 25 50 T5 Km. QRO�o oF® i -� UMIAT 2 ¢ UMIAT 3 0 UMIAT 4 • UMIAT 5 ¢ UMIAT 6 -t UMIAT 7 E UMIAT 8 0 UMIAT 9 UMIAT 10 J0 * UMIAT II FIGURE 2 n(t o "Old" Navy ;cells (1944-53) ti r i i Well game Avak - 1 fOd-Oo�� i South Barrow -1 /OV -d South Barrow -2 Sduth•Barrow-3 IUD -o& i South Barrow -4 100'661(- � l Fish Creek -1 !00 4b Grandstand -1 /.DO -3 i , Gubik-1 /06-0,91 Gubik-2 %DO -aa Kaolak-1 /UU -day j Knifeblade-1 1070-491 j Knifeblade-2 160 - XD Kni.f eblade-2A ;:5 ADO 0 9ft; L blade 5 Meade -1 Oumalik-1 100-1141 j East Oumalik-1 Simpson -1 /OV -110 Squlare Lake -1 j Titaluk-1 job -/DO Topagoruk-1 100 -16)13 I _ Eadt Topagoruk-1 i Umiat-1 IDO -aOg Umiat-2 /ob-'Q►0 j Umiat-3 10U - on l l Umiat-4 Umiat-5 /00-9/3 Umiat-6 /00 -6114/ii j Umiat-7 1v6 -91 Umiat-8 /00 -0-/ Umiat-9 Umiat-10 Umiat-11 /DU'af"1 Wolf Creek -1 Wolf Creek -2 lvp lI`tf i i rA I Wolf Creek -3 "Intermediate" Wells at Barrow (1955-1974) I South Barrow -5 16(5'ba'fS South Barrow -6 South Barrow -7 J66-030 ,South Barrow -8 /0O!--03/ South Barrow -9 /00-63a South Barrow -10 1cv-033 South Barrow -11 JCD -634( South Barrow -12 �5/