The Adak Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met for its regular monthly meeting on January 13, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The RAB met at the Holiday Inn, located at 239 West Fourth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska.

Administrative Note: The summary of discussions during RAB meetings is not intended as a transcript of the meeting. A recording of the RAB meeting is obtained at every meeting and in the event that a more complete transcript of a discussion is needed for a specific issue, this recording can be accessed. While participants at RAB meetings are strongly encouraged to review the meeting minutes prior to finalization of the minutes, it is recognized that there is the possibility that participants in the discussions have not reviewed the minutes to confirm that they accurately reflect the content of the discussion.

1. Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting Purpose

   Mr. Stoll called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. A quorum was not present.

   1. Approval of the December 9, 1998 meeting minutes.

      Approval of the December 9, 1998 meeting minutes was deferred because a quorum was not present.

   2. General Announcements

      There were no general announcements.

      1. Administrative Issues

         Mr. Cora announced that letters were sent regarding UXO stating EPA and ADEC's positions.

         Ms. Miller stated the National RAB Caucus would take place on January 30-31, 1999 in San Francisco. The Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force will meet in San Francisco on February 2-3, 1999.

      2. Concerns, Issues, and Questions

         TMr. Martin inquired about the Davis Lake and Lake Leone discussion that was deferred from the December 9, 1998 meeting. Mr. Murphy said his presentation had been deferred for several meetings and he did not have it with him. Mr. Martin requested that Davis Lake and Lake Leone be added to the next meeting's agenda.

         Mr. Stoll said that several people had inquired about a book entitled The Firecracker Boys by Professor Dan O'Neill that stated that 2 million tons of chemicals were disposed of 12 miles off of Adak. The Navy contacted Professor O'Neill about that statement. Professor O'Neill said that was a typographical error. The statement should have said Attu, and he provided some of his supporting reference materials. A handout was available for review by the RAB. Mr. Murphy said no one knows if anything was ever dumped there. The Attu dump is the Army's responsibility.

2. PROJECT UPDATES AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
   1. TAPP Grant Projected Timeline and Approval Process.

      Mr. Stoll stated that a TAPP grant is used to obtain a contractor to give the RAB technical assistance and advice. The contractor is solicited and paid by the Navy. Mr. Stoll estimated the process would take about six weeks. Legally, the Navy solicits, pays and tasks the contractor but Mr. Stoll envisions that the RAB will assist the Navy in tasking. Mr. Stoll will gather other scope of work examples for review by the RAB.

      Mr. Ehrhart asked what the difference between a TAPP and TAG grant is. Mr. Cora said that TAG is an EPA grant. TAG requires that the group be independently formed. The RAB felt that because they were already organized, it did not fit into the TAG grant criteria. TAPP is a DoD grant for RAB assistance.

      Ms. Miller followed the application procedures found in the Federal Register, read all the available public documents provided, and reviewed information on various web sites. The Center for Public Environmental Oversight's web site has a list of technical consultants that have performed either TAPP grants for RABs or have done TAG grants for Superfund sites. Ms. Miller compiled a list of four to five appropriate technical consultants, and requested input on her choices. Ms. Miller also reviewed the National Institute for Environmental Health Science Superfund basic research program that has a number of academic institutions across the country. Dr. Ron Scrudato of the State University of New York has done a lot of work related to PCB remediation and related topics. Ms. Miller requested that the RAB form a small working group to complete the application. Full RAB approval is required before submitting the application to the Navy.

      Ms. Ehrhart asked how the RAB could choose a consultant if the Navy solicits contractors. Ms. Miller said the RAB recommends providers, and the Navy can choose among them or go to other contractors. Ms. Miller spoke with an Alameda RAB member, Jo Lynn Lee. The Alameda RAB was the first to receive a TAPP grant. The Alameda process took only two weeks.

      Mr. Cora asked if the RAB still wanted Anne Robinson to provide assistance. Ms. Miller said she felt Ms. Robinson offered valuable expertise and wanted that assistance to continue. However, Ms. Miller felt that additional technical assistance was needed regarding UXO, long range monitoring needs, etc.

      Mr. Ehrhart and Mr. Mitchell volunteered to work with Ms. Miller is completing the draft application. Mr. Murphy added that the draft remedial design for Sweeper Creek would be ready February 10, 1999. Mr. Stoll will send the TAPP application to headquarters. Cindy Turlington reviews the application. Mr. Stoll emphasized that the application must follow the Federal Register guidelines. The RAB will work together to have the application complete before the next RAB meeting. Mr. Murphy pointed out that the application should be on the critical path. Mr. Stoll requested that the members provide fax numbers so that he can distribute the scope of work for their review.

   2. ARC Concerns.

      RC concerns were deferred to another meeting because no ARC members were present.

   3. BECT Meeting Briefing.

      Mr. Lekanof was ill and Ms. Olrun provided the report from meeting minutes. The October 1998 meeting minutes were not approved because ADEC was not present. Action items included monitoring well sampling. Maps will be provided to the RAB. The Navy will write a letter to EPA stating its reasons for not conducting minefield investigations at Shagak Bay, Lake Andrew and SA94 area. EPA and the USFW are to evaluate Sweeper Creek to determine if a bulk PCB cleanup level can be used to confirm if remediation is complete.

      The Navy is unable to build a joint use landfill due to liability issues. However, the Navy would provide assistance to TAC to find funds to build a landfill. The Navy addressed where hazardous waste was disposed by interviewing people who worked on Adak. The RAB is preparing a TAPP grant.

      The Navy will provide the RAB with maps of downtown Adak that show monitoring, recovery and investigation wells. Mr. Murphy said the map is posted on the wall. That map will be forwarded to Mr. Gromoff and any others who request a copy. The map shows the existing status of the monitoring wells.

      EPA talked with Mr. Lekanof about UXO and OE issues as they relate to transfer. EPA will require characterization and clearance if Adak is to be transferred. If Navy retained ownership of Adak without any residents, then EPA would have more flexibility of characterization and clearance of UXO.

      Mr. Lekanof requested that all UXO be cleaned up and EPA supported that. If EPA doesn't have the funds, then areas should be restricted to the public. The Navy is funding some of the landmine cleanup. Senator Stevens provided the Navy with $15 million to cleanup asbestos in some of the buildings. Additional funding may be available for other cleanup.

      Mr. Stoll said the meeting was not very effective because ADEC was not able to attend. Ms. Miller requested copies of the minutes. Ms. Goldstein said the last meeting minutes could not be approved and distributed because ADEC had not yet named someone to replace Ms. Goff. Mr. Oates is now the ADEC project manager and will approve future minutes in a timely manner.

   4. SOW for UXO Investigations, Sweeper Creek and Cove.

      Mr. Murphy said that the Navy would have a remedial design ready for review on February 10, 1999. Meetings will occur with the agencies to discuss the best possible disposal action for contaminated sediments and soils resulting from the Sweeper Creek and SWMU17 cleanup actions.

      The next BTAG meeting will occur February 18, 1999. The proposal drafted by Jim Estes' USGS Biological Resources group will be discussed. That proposal has already been distributed to BTAG members by email and another copy will be mailed with a cover letter. The meeting will occur at Fish and Wildlife's Tudor Road building in Room 152.

      Mr. Murphy said archival information identified a number of potential range areas and potential minefield locations on the military reservation and on the south half of the island. The plan is to perform an UXO investigation during the 1999 field season using Foster Wheeler. The summary approach is described in the Adak Reuse Option Summary Report which is available in the repository.

      A field investigation will be performed on all the ranges where archival information suggests there might be UXO contamination on the military reservation, including combat ranges, artillery ranges, gun emplacement and proposed minefield locations. Some work was started in the 1998 field season. The objective is to complete as much fieldwork as possible during the 1999 field season within the budget limitations. The work will consist of a UXO geophysical investigation followed by intrusive investigation. Option 1 is being pursued.

      Ms. Miller asked if magnetometer technology is being employed. Mr. Murphy said ferrous metal detection locates the depth and position of a particular anomaly. Mr. Murphy said the sample size is less than one percent of the entire acreage in question. In some areas it's .25 and other areas it's higher, but it's always less than one percent. The basis for that is a site stats/grid stats model developed by the Army Corps of Engineers and OE CERTS risk or exposure evaluation model that has been used on other ranges.

      Mr. Cora said that EPA wrote a letter to the Navy stating that it expects the Navy to publish schedules to do the investigation and cleanup of ordnance pursuant to the FFA. If that does not occur, EPA will take on a more adversarial role. Under FFA, the EPA can use enforcement mechanisms to make the Navy conduct the work in a manner consistent with EPA's program.

      EFA NW has been providing the information EPA needs, but there's a much larger issue nationally. DoD, EPA and individual states are not agreeing on the best mechanism to cleanup ordnance at military bases. EPA feels that CERCLA applies. EPA will require that the cleanup be done under the CERCLA program. For example, under current DoD procedures for sample size, they can look at less than one percent of the land area and make a conclusion regarding risk. EPA does not feel that is sufficient and that there should be a 95% certainty that the land is clear of ordnance.

      Mr. Martin asked what EPA's position is on the range areas that extend beyond the military reservation. Mr. Cora said wherever the contamination is, is where the Superfund site would exist, even on the south side of the island. Mr. Murphy asked if the Navy's proposal was limited to the military reservation, if EPA could be expected to comment that the south half of the island is an area of concern and must be addressed as part of the CERCLA investigation. Mr. Cora said that was possible, and proof must be made that the south half of the island does not pose an unacceptable risk. Mr. Stoll said that his interpretation of CERCLA is that where contamination migrates off site, then the liable party is responsible for investigating and remediating the contamination. EPA views the potential for ordnance both inside and outside the boundaries as an issue that is the same as contamination migrating off site.

      Mr. Oates said it must be determined if this issue will expand the physical boundaries of CERCLA and whether the 1999 scope of work would include areas outside the military reservation. Mr. Murphy said that policy, budget and schedule would limit conducting work outside in the military reservation in 1999. Even if all agreed that the scope of work should be expanded, it could not be accomplished in 1999 because there is no budget for it.

      Ms. Miller asked if EPA looks beyond the issue of statistical adequacy in the sample design, and whether EPA can evaluate the detection technologies and the proposed remediation technologies. Mr. Cora said EPA has limited resources in trained UXO specialists, but does have contracting resources. Comarco is doing the quality assurance and quality control at a Navy site in Hawaii. Comarco evaluates what the previous contractor has done in surveying and clearing. EPA uses Comarco for oversight to verify the Navy results. Comarco employs former military UXO experts.

      Mr. Murphy mentioned that people have been on Adak for about 50 years at various population levels. There is certainly case to be made that that history can be used as a calibrated model that describes the nature of the risk to be exposed to UXO. Mr. Martin said that history was under the military and there is now a completely different civilian community. Mr. Cora said this is a new area for EPA and he did not feel a calibrated model exists to properly evaluate UXO risk. Ms. Miller said she wants to insure that not only are the safety hazards are assessed, but also the toxicological hazards. Mr. Murphy said that no environmental sampling for the 1999 field season is in place. If a disposal site is located, the Navy will address the issue. Ms. Miller felt the DoD is failing badly at other military reservations regarding this issue, particularly in Massachusetts.

   5. SOW and Plan for asbestos demolition disposal and Landfill capacity issues.

      Mr. Stoll said the scope of work has not been completed. Navy engineers are working with Sandra Molar of ARC to determine how best to spend the $15 million that Senator Stevens has allocated for demolition and asbestos work on Adak. The priority list has not been finalized, but it includes the Robert's Housing area and other buildings, some of which are in the outback.

      The Navy feels there is adequate capacity in the landfill to handle the demolition and asbestos materials. The state is currently working on an application to approve the same.

   6. CERFA and Land Transfer under Superfund Interview Requirements.

      Mr. Stoll said there were questions about how many interviews were done and if they were adequate. Ms. Goldstein compiled a list of interviews, which is available as a handout.

3. Public Comments.

   Captain Glenzer, U.S. Navy retired and Johnny Jenkins, U.S. Navy chief petty officer retired, spoke regarding their experiences on Adak during WWII.

4. Set Date and Tenative Topics for Next Meeting

   Mr. Stoll asked the RAB to consider meeting less often due to declining attendance and less activity during the winter. Ms. Miller asked what opportunity the RAB would have to comment on the Sweeper Cove remedial design if no meeting was held in February. Mr. Murphy will send a copy of the design to anyone who requests it. Comments are due within 30 days.

   Ms. Miller is also concerned about the TAPP grant application. The grant application requires a certification of majority RAB member concurrence. Mr. Murphy offered assistance in distribution and getting feedback on the grant application. Connie Lewis, the URS community relations coordinator, can assist the RAB. Ms. Goldstein suggested a conference call could be arranged to get RAB concurrence of the grant application.

   Comments to the Sweeper Creek remedial plan will be discussed at the next RAB meeting. Other topics will include Davis Lake, Lake Leone, UXO status and update, BTAG and BECT meeting. Mr. Ehrhart requested information on project costs. Mr. Cora said approximately $40 million per year is being spent. Mr. Stoll said the annual BRAC cleanup plan should be available in the repository very soon.

5. Meeting Adjourned.

   The next meeting was scheduled for March 10, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:21 p.m.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION | ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING | BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE | ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION | UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE ISSUES | CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM CLEANUP | GLOSSARY OF TERMS | ADAK MAPS | INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS | WEBSITE MAP | | WHAT'S NEW? | NEWSLETTERS & FACT SHEETS | TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS | RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES | WHERE TO GET MORE INFORMATION | INFORMATION REPOSITORY | LINKS OF INTEREST | HOME