1. The meeting was held at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) offices in Anchorage, Alaska, with telephone connections to Adak and Poulsbo, Washington. The following were in attendance:

Name	Affiliation	Location
Cathy Villa	Community Co-Chair	Anchorage, AK
Violet Pearl	Community Co-Chair	Adak, AK
Mark Wicklein	Navy Co-Chair	Anchorage, AK
Jason Weigle	ADEC	Anchorage, AK
John Halverson	ADEC	Anchorage, AK
Chris Riggio	A/PIA	Anchorage, AK
Vince Tutiakoff, Sr.	Adak Mayor	Adak, AK
Mike Mitchell	RAB Community Member	Anchorage, AK
Mary Grisco	RAB Community Member	Anchorage, AK
Mike Durfee	RAB Community Member	Adak, AK
Agafon Krufoff Jr.	RAB Community Member	Adak, AK
Chuck Luck	RAB Community Member	Adak, AK
Jim Brown	Navy	Poulsbo, WA
Mark Murphy	Navy	Port Orchard, WA
JoAnn Grady	Grady & Associates	Anchorage, AK
Mary Lou Sullivan	URS	Poulsbo, WA
Bill Rohrer	URS	Anchorage, AK



2. Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Cathy Villa called the meeting to order at approximately 7 p.m. (Anchorage time). The agenda was approved as presented. The November 5, 2003 meeting minutes were approved.

3. Post-Transfer Status – Delayed discussion until later time

At the beginning of the meeting, there was no TAC representative available to discuss post-transfer status. Cathy Villa suggested that this topic be moved to the end of the agenda, hoping that a TAC representative on Adak could speak to the topic at that time. Chuck Luck made phone calls to Agafon Krukoff and Vince Tutiakoff, inviting them to participate in the Adak RAB meeting that was taking place.

4. 2004 Field Season Update

Cathy Villa introduced Mark Wicklein as the new Navy Co-Chair. Mark then presented the majority of the 2004 field season update.



1. General 2004 field update

   Mark Wicklein discussed the field efforts associated with three free product sites. The sites mentioned were: Tanker Shed, South Runway and the Navy Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) area. Beginning August 1, Tetra Tech Foster Wheeler (TTFW) will mobilize to Adak. Employees from Adak-based Zac’s Enterprises will perform the free product recovery on a weekly basis. One week out of every month, for a period of twelve months, a TTFW employee will be on Adak overseeing the petroleum recovery efforts.

   In early summer, ECC will commence their field activities related to unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance. (Mark Murphy provided more detail on this effort later in the RAB meeting). This task will involve approximately 50 people for 3 months.

   Beginning in September, ICRC will again conduct the annual round of required groundwater and landfill monitoring and institutional controls (IC) site inspections on Adak. This will involve two people for approximately one month.

   The proposed Bering Hill petroleum contaminated soil (PCS) removal listed on the Agenda was not funded. Nor was there funding available this year for some other PCS removal projects that were being considered. The delay in planned work is a result of a lack of land sales, which in turn affected the available pool of BRAC funding.

2. OU B-1 2004 Ordnance Cleanup Update

   Adak OU B-1 2004 Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) cleanup was discussed in a Power Point presentation prepared by Mark Murphy. Mark briefly reviewed the OU B-1 status. Most sites in Parcels 1A and 1B were cleared in 2002, in support of the upcoming property transfer. The few sites remaining to be cleared in OU B-1 are: Lake Jean 01, Lake Jean 02A, Mount Moffett 10E (including 10A, B, C and E), and Mount Moffett 11. The Mount Moffett sites are above the elevation of the old Nurse’s Creek dam, in roadless areas. Other areas to be cleared are in Parcel 4 (the restricted Navy retained land). Work in these areas should not impact the downtown area, as the exclusion zones will be established around the remote sites.

   The approach to cleaning up the OU B-1 sites involves conducting a subsurface geophysical survey to locate probable target areas. The geophysical anomalies (i.e. the areas where metal is detected by the instruments used) will then be excavated, and addressed appropriately.

   Mike Murray, ECC’s Site Superintendent, has visited Adak over the past month, performing some planning tasks related to the planned work. He will likely make one more visit prior to the arrival of the field crews. The schedule of UXO work involves advance field crews arriving on Adak on June 24, followed by more field crews arriving June 27. The initial group will set up the survey grids and validate the methods and instruments to be used. Field work should then commence on July 5. A maximum of 50 people will be involved with this work over the twelve weeks of summer it is scheduled to occur. Work should be complete by September 24, with all OU B-1 sites not cleaned up in 2002 finished. The crews will be staying in Sandy Cove housing units, with appropriate arrangements made through the Aleut Housing Authority.

   One other topic that Mark Murphy covered was the change in UXO response providers. This response, to suspected UXO items discovered on Adak, was previously supplied by Explosives Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 11 Detachment (EOD MU 11), based out of Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington. Future response will be provided by the Army’s 716th Ordnance Company, Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit (716th EOD Unit), based out of Fort Richardson, Alaska. This is consistent with how other suspect UXO encounters are handled in the state of Alaska, and will likely lead to a more timely response, given the physical proximity of the unit. The 716th EOD Unit is tentatively scheduled to make a trip to Adak June 17-20, to brief the island residents on appropriate means to initiate responses and to answer questions the community members may have. One additional change Mark highlighted was the change in the response telephone number, to “911,” rather than the previous 1-866 number that rang at a phone at EFANW, in Poulsbo, Washington. After receiving an emergency call, local law enforcement personnel on Adak would gather the appropriate information, then convey this information to the 716th to initiate a response.

   After the presentation, Cathy Villa inquired whether or not Adak had developed any ordinances regarding the transportation of ordnance items on island (related to an incident in August 2003). Agafon Krukoff replied that no city ordinances had been developed, due to recent changes in the city council and the mayor. Agafon commented that it would be best to have enforceable ordinances that make sense to both the city and the military.

3. Petroleum Sites Status

   Mark Wicklein gave a brief update on the status of the petroleum sites on Adak. He commended ADEC on their diligence in “getting up to speed” on relevant issues, and appreciated the time Jason Weigle had spent reading documents and attending meetings. Mark said that the Navy and ADEC had been working through regulatory and policy issues involved with the 14 free product sites. A few milestones have recently been reached in the discussions between ADEC and the Navy in the spring of 2004, among them:
   
   

   • ADEC and the Navy agree on the 10 free product sites that pose no risk (via soil) to human health or the environment.
   • ADEC and the Navy agree on soil and groundwater remedies involved with the no risk sites.
   • ADEC and the Navy agree on the free product recovery endpoints, with 7 out of 10 sites having no risk. ADEC has requested additional information on 3 of the sites.

   A proposed plan will be developed for the sites that may have potential risks associated with them. This should be completed by the Summer of 04. For 4 of the free product sites, Focused Feasibility Studies (including site characterization and risk assessments) will be performed by the Fall of 04. Mark expects that, in the fall of 2004, work plans will be developed for fiscal year 2005 (FY05). He anticipates that ADEC and the Navy will reach agreement on the approach to take with the 4 sites calculated as having associated risk, by Summer 04. He also believes that the Navy and ADEC will be able to produce a decision document for the no risk sites by Winter of 04.

   At this point, Agafon asked if Kevin Oates (the EPA representative) was on the phone. The answer was no. Cathy Villa expressed frustration with the concept of ADEC and the Navy reaching agreements without community involvement. She said that introducing a proposed plan without community involvement was unsatisfactory. She inquired where members of the community were okay with the ADEC and Navy approach. [About 7:40 PM Anchorage time, Violet Pearl commented that Vice Tutiakoff was now present at the Adak-based RAB meeting]. Agafon Krukoff said he was confused, and felt like the community was not involved.

   At this point, John Halverson (manager of ADEC’s Contaminated Sites program) explained that, under the relevant Alaska state regulations [18 AAC 75], the proposed plan is a document that the Navy prepares, with ADEC’s concurrence. This document is then presented for public comment. The proposed plan is the official document for the public to provide comments on. ADEC’s role in developing the proposed plan is to ensure that the plan meets regulatory requirements and is technically adequate.

   Mark Wicklein then continued that the Navy anticipates having a draft proposed plan for the no risk sites prepared, ready for the public to comment on, by summer 2004. The final proposed plan will then be prepared after the public input is reviewed and addressed appropriately. Mark said an advertisement will be placed in the Anchorage newspaper, notifying the public of the availability of the proposed plan for comment. Adak RAB members will be notified via e-mail, or with a separate discussion, if necessary. The public review period will last for 30 days. Bill Rohrer also commented that the proposed plan will be available for review at the information repositories at Anchorage and on Adak.

4. Post-Transfer Discussion

   At this point, Agafon introduced the new mayor of Adak, Vince Tutiakoff. Vince Tutiakoff briefly summarized the transfer process. He stated that the Aleut Corporation (TAC) had accepted the transfer. The transfer process involved transferring properties to the City of Adak and Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC); with the City receiving the majority of the transferred property/assets. Vince stated that he was now involved with the City of Adak, and was hopeful that Adak would have a new start and be successful. He commented that, in his opinion, Adak was as clean or cleaner than most communities in the Aleutians.

5. Partial Delisting Project

   At this point, Jim Brown began his presentation on the delisting process. He stated that EPA initiates delisting, so it would be Kevin Oates responsibility to actually perform the functions to formally delist Adak. Cathy Villa then asked Jim to share with the RAB what details he knew about the process itself.

   Jim Brown stated that the majority of the cleanups for Operable Unit (OU) A and OU B were complete. Cleanup of groundwater at OU A is not complete. There remain a few sites in OU B-1, as Mark Murphy had discussed earlier, that need to be cleaned up (related to UXO) during the summer 2004 field season. Jim stated that EPA is able to delete sites from the National Priority List (NPL) if the sites present no further threat to human health or the environment. Partial delisting involves delisting a portion of a larger site, or specific media from a site. The example Jim gave was delisting OU A sites in the downtown exchange area, but not the groundwater in that area. Once EPA believes that a given site has met relevant cleanup criteria, EPA may request either a full or a partial delisting. EPA must consider which sites are eligible, that all required response activities have been completed, and that all necessary cleanup/closure documents have been finalized. The Navy is responsible for preparing the draft delisting document, and providing it to EPA. A “Notice of Intent to Delete/Partially Delete” is placed in the Federal Register and a notice of availability in the local area newspapers. Then, the public has 30 days to review the subject document. The repositories on Adak and in Anchorage will both contain the document, in order for people to review it. Once all comments are received, at the end of the 30-day period, the Navy will prepare a responsiveness summary.

   Once a site is deleted from the NPL, it may still be put back on the list, if a significant release occurs at the site. The deletion does not preclude additional cleanup at the site. It also has no effect on on-going CERCLA-related activities. For example, operations and maintenance (O & M) activities on systems may continue, groundwater and landfill monitoring will continue, and IC inspections will still take place, etc. Currently, there is a list of approximately 200 sites on Adak that may be eligible for this process. Primarily, the sites are located within OU’s A and B1, coinciding with the transferred property. These sites are covered under EPA’s Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA), while the petroleum sites are not (they are under Alaska state regulations, as mentioned previously).

   Jim Brown expects the delisting process to commence in late summer. In order to begin writing the draft delisting document, the After Action reports from the UXO 2004 field season will have to be completed. In the meantime, EPA, ADEC and the Navy can work on the list of sites that they think are eligible for inclusion in the formal delisting process. If the draft delisting document is begun in the fall of 2004, delisting could be complete by year’s end. The list of candidate sites from OU A has been sent out for agency review. The list of OU B-1 sites was sent out recently. Jim Brown expressed his view that it would be an opportunity to take credit for work done, and it might help in fostering the productive reuse of property on Adak, which would be good for TAC (by eliminating the possible stigma associated with NPL sites).

6. Marine Monitoring

   At the end of Jim’s presentation on delisting, Agafon Krukoff asked about the status of the marine monitoring effort. Jim said that, as per the record of decision (ROD) for OU A, 5 years of monitoring has been completed. The data is being compiled, and about one month ago Jim sent both EPA and ADEC a draft technical memo that discusses the results. He said that he wanted to give the agencies time to review and comment on the memo. Jim also said that he thought this topic would be a good one for the next scheduled RAB meeting.

   Agafon wanted to know about the 5-year cycle of collection and review. Could it be adjusted? Agafon said that it was his understanding that the 2003 data was higher than the levels in 2000. Jim stated that, per the ROD, the Navy was required to come up with recommendations for long-term monitoring after looking at 5 years worth of data. Agafon commented that there’s what is required vs. what is common sense. Cathy Villa wanted to know when the opportunity for community involvement occurred. Could the data be made available? Agafon also expressed a desire to read the technical memo.

   Jim Brown responded that the data took longer than expected to obtain, due to the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) needing to contract with an outside lab to finish the analysis of some of their fish tissue. Therefore, the tech memo had only been recently completed, in the spring of 2004. Jim said he expected recommendations related to the frequency of fish monitoring to be made in the fall of 2004. Mike Mitchell inquired whether or not the delisting, if it proceeded, would effect future marine monitoring. Jim Brown said no, he expected that some level of marine monitoring would continue in the future, regardless of Adak’s status relative to delisting.

5. RAB Questions and Answers
• Drinking Water

  After the general discussion of field-related activities and the status of Adak post- transfer, Agafon had a question about Adak’s drinking water system. He wanted to know if the lead and copper levels in the water were harmful. Mary Lou Sullivan stated the Navy performed two recent studies, which focused on Adak’s water, examining what produced the greatest contribution of metals into the water, and what treatments were available to treat the water. Studies seemed to indicate that one contributor was the lead-copper solder used in the housing faucets, and that the level of lead and copper in the water was related to the contact time with the piping (that is, water that sits overnight has higher levels than water that is collected after flushing the lines). She also said that this issue was covered by EPA’s Lead & Copper Rule (not CERCLA), and that it was this rule that required collecting samples in residential settings with higher potential exposure (vs. industrial settings with conceivably less water consumption occurring). Mary Lou stated that EPA literature recommends flushing the lines for 30 seconds (or until the water temperature feels cooler) to reduce the lead levels below the Action Level. John Halverson agreed that it was possible, by flushing the water lines a few minutes, to reach safe drinking water levels. He also stated that the Lead and Copper rule covers public drinking water systems.

  Agafon wanted to know if the Navy intended to perform any more sampling of the drinking water. Mary Lou said that, to her knowledge, the Navy did not intend to collect any more samples, and that TAC, as the new water system owners, may decide to do so. Vince Tutiakoff volunteered that the current water system operators collected samples every 3 months, to send to ADEC. Cathy Villa asked if the results go to the community members. Vince stated this was the first round of sampling he was aware of, and the results had not been received yet. Violet Pearl wanted to know if these studies could be made available to people on Adak. Cathy Villa suggested that some- one from the Adak community (involved with collecting the water samples) could address that. Mary Lou stated that previous studies are available on the AdakUpdate.com website, as well as in the information repositories on Adak and in Anchorage. Bill Rohrer reminded the RAB members that a fact sheet had been generated on the topic of lead and copper in water and the faucet replacement study, and was on AdakUpdate.com. [refer to the sites below:
  http://www.adakupdate.com/pdfs/docs/faucetfinalreport_reformat.pdf http://www.adakupdate.com/pdfs/news/PbCu.pdf]

  Jason Weigle then said that an engineer from the Village Safe Water Program was working on a project for Adak. This project was a feasibility study, conducted to assess the expected longevity of the drinking water system, the associated O & M costs, and the money required to replace items. He said the study is due to begin in September, and that Bristol has the contract to perform the study. The Bristol contact is Jim Vogel, and his phone number is (206) 618-0753. The Village Safe Water Program engineer is Marie Steele, and her phone number is (907) 269-7604.

• Debris Adjacent to Metals Landfill

  The next topic that was raised as a concern by Adak RAB members was debris adjacent to Metals landfill. (At the beginning of the RAB meeting, Agafon had expressed his concern, and he was reminded that this topic was on the agenda for later in the meeting). Cathy Villa stated that community members had concerns about the debris below the landfill. Violet Pearl said that this was the 3rd time that this topic had been an agenda item, and she would appreciate some closure to ensure that it was not a continuing agenda item. Agafon stated that it was his opinion that Metals was an uncompleted landfill. Vince asked if there was landfill monitoring at Metals and at Palisades landfills. Mark Wicklein stated that the metal debris was not considered part of Metals landfill, and the debris was not associated or part of a chemical release site. Mark stated that Palisades landfill had gone through closure, and there were no chemical releases at that site currently. The Navy stated that they had no current plans to remove any metal debris. Vince Tutiakoff suggested that samples be collected from fluid running out of creeks created in the landfill cover. Cathy Villa believed that Metals landfill itself was not a hazard. Agafon thought that the metal debris was a hazard created by the Navy. Chris Riggio stated that A/PIA had recently crafted a tribal policy for restoration of sites, including cleanup of hazardous debris. He said that it has frequently been the stance of Department of Defense entities that cleaning up building debris was outside the scope of their work, and that no funding was available to do so. As an example, he cited Atka, where there was Marsten matting 20 yards away from a school, partially buried, but presenting a potential physical safety hazard.

  John Halverson inquired whether debris was eroding out of the landfill. Mark Wicklein stated that he believes the debris is an old buttress, made out of drums that were filled with sand or concrete. Metals landfill itself was capped at a different location. Mark said at Palisades landfill, the debris is outside the footprint of the landfill, and is not adding any chemical contaminants to the ground. It is on steep slopes, and would be difficult and dangerous to clean up. Jason Weigle stated that last year, when he was still with the Solid Waste section of ADEC, he visited the site with Mark Murphy, Sami Goldman, Steve Hines and Jim Brown. He believed that the debris was not connected to the landfill. He took pictures at that time. He then said, if major erosion has happened subsequent to that time, other actions may be considered. At Palisades landfill, he agreed that removing debris from the steep ravine would be more hazardous to the environment than leaving it in place. He stated that if the landfill conditions had indeed changed, he might have to modify his position.

  Cathy Villa stated that the position expressed by the Navy and ADEC was not acceptable, and wondered how the rest of the RAB felt about the topic. Vince stated that he thought that the Navy’s responsibility did not stop with covering the landfill with dirt. He wondered if the community should go to another agency. He said that he felt it was an environmental issue, that debris was getting into the Bering Sea. He noted again the creeks in Metals landfill and caves that appeared to be getting bigger with time. He stated that, on the water side, he has seen metal dropping into the ocean. John Halverson requested that the concerned RAB members send digital photos to ADEC for them to evaluate. Cathy Villa said that she has seen significant erosion. Vince stated that Palisades has a cavern, with drainage from neighboring hills. Agafon wanted it to be duly noted in the minutes who is concerned and what concerns were expressed.

6. Next RAB Meeting

   The subject of agenda items for the next RAB meeting was raised. Cathy indicated that the RAB should schedule the next meeting, and she initially proposed June 2. Mark Murphy stated that the UXO teams would not even be in the field until July 5, depending on the snow level on Mt. Moffett. Jim Brown stated that he was awaiting comments back from the agencies on his marine monitoring tech memo. After about six weeks from present, he could look at the comments received and be prepared to discuss the proposed long-term monitoring program. Cathy Villa then proposed June 23, to set the agenda for a September RAB meeting.

   Mark Wicklein said that late June may coincide with release of the proposed plan for the no risk sites, community comment period. Cathy Villa then proposed July 14th as a date to have the pre-RAB agenda setting telecon and a “mini-RAB” session to provide an update on marine monitoring and the elements of the proposed plan for no risk sites. This seemed to be agreeable to the majority of RAB attendees.

   The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. (Anchorage time).

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