The meeting was held in the Adak Bob Reeves High School Council Room. The Anchorage meeting was tied in by telephone from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Offices. In attendance were the following:

1. Opening Remarks:

Cathy Villa and Richard Stoll called the meeting to order. There were no opening remarks.

2. Meeting Minutes:

   The meeting minutes of March 21, 2001, should reflect that Doug Vessel was in attendance, the minutes inadvertently listed him as Jack Vessel. The meeting minutes from March 21, 2001, as amended, and April 25, 2001, were unanimously approved.

3. RAB Administrative Business:

   Agafon Krukoff nominated Vince Tutiakoff and Tim Roy, Adak Community members to the RAB, seconded by Keith Martin. A quorum was established. Chris Gates motioned for unanimous consent, without objection, that Mr. Tutiakoff and Mr. Roy becomes RAB members. Mr. Tutiakoff will represent the future landowner, The Aleut Corporation, and Mr. Roy will participate as a member of the member of the Adak community. A discussion was held regarding the RAB Co-Chair position. Possibilities were discussed of a RAB Co-Chair in Anchorage and a RAB Co-Chair in Adak to assist with coordination efforts. The discussion was tabled for the next RAB meeting regarding the whether there will be one community co-chair or two community co-chairs.

   Chris Gates noted that a lot of material was distributed during the day, and he suggested that a discussion regarding the material be held. Mr. Gates said that comments from A/PIA, ADEC, and EPA were distributed, and recommended a discussion regarding the comments. Kevin Oates and Elim Yoon stated that the material, courtesy copies of their comments to the RAB, were fairly recent and suggested the discussion be held at a later date once the Navy had time to review them and respond to them. Ms. Yoon suggested that the next RAB meeting might be a more appropriate time to discuss the comments that were sent out within the last week.

4. Schedule and Budget:

   Mark Murphy stated that Bob Uhrich sent Cathy Villa an email stating that EFA, NW was able to secure funding to proceed with the planned fieldwork this season, with the exception of the abandonment of the Tank Farm A-1 and Traffic Circle pipelines. He passed out copies of the email to the RAB members. Mr. Murphy stated that the Adak projects compete with the other BRAC bases, and EFA, NW did a good job in defending the budget and cleanup of the island. As a result, the planned field season, as described at the January BECT meeting, will continue as planned with the exception of the Tank Farm A-1 and Traffic Circle Pipeline abandonment. Those projects will take place in the out years.

   Rather than go through the schedule, Mr. Murphy passed out copies of it for RAB members to review. Chris Gates said the schedule was insufficient, that it only showed environmental work. He said he expected all milestones needed for transfer, such as legislation from Washington. Richard Stoll stated that the schedule is intended to show the environmental work as a useful tool for RAB members to know what they will be receiving, and when fieldwork is anticipated to begin. He stated that legislative schedules are beyond the scope of the Navy's responsibility. Mr. Gates said that his expectation from Bob Uhrich at the January BECT was that every task would be shown, not just environmental. He cited page 2, paragraph 2 of the BECT minutes. Mr. Stoll stated that the schedule that will be provided would be the environmental schedule, up through the Finding of Suitability of Transfer; those are the tasks that the Navy can schedule. A legislative schedule is beyond the Navy's scheduling control.

   Mr. Gates asked when an appropriate time was for discussion of the petroleum focused feasibility study schedules. He said he was expecting copies of those reports, and he was sent work plan copies. Langston Walker stated that his understanding was that the documents requested by TAC for review were the work plans that were delivered to Mr. Gates office. Langston stated that the focused feasibility studies were placed in the repositories; however, there was a delay in getting them to the Adak repositories. Mr. Walker said that his understanding was that Mr. Gates wanted to comment on the work that was being done this field season, and the work plans were the appropriate document. It was further stated that documents related to the focused feasibility studies were available in the Adak and Anchorage information repositories.

5. Petroleum Update:

   Langston Walker emphasized what Mark Murphy said about the fieldwork is on track as it was previously discussed during the previous meetings. Product recovery is ongoing at the Power Plant 3, Arctic Acres, Tanker Shed, NMCB, and NORPAC Hill. The investigation for the Power Plant 3 and NMCB focused feasibility study will be performed during the June/July timeframe. Arctic Acres, NORPAC Hill and Tanker Shed will be done at the same time. Post-recovery monitoring is ongoing at SWMU 62. Additional work at SWMU 62 needs to be conducted to reach conclusions regarding that focused feasibility study. Mr. Walker stated he hopes to get that information completed with July, although there are challenges getting the laboratory samples out to meet laboratory method holding times. He said the product recovery at SWMU 62 began on 7 May and it is expected to continue through Mid-November. Mr. Walker stated that a few weeks ago the sentinel wells did not detect product at the Arctic Acres site, so there is a 4-month cycle that they are sampling those wells now. He said the product measurement at Arctic Acres is lower this year, and he said they are investigating what is going on with the Arctic Acres sites. Tim Roy identified a tank in the area that the Navy will investigate.

   Mr. Walker stated that there is ongoing work at the airport ditch to place a culvert in for drainage. There were some problems encountered, however they do plan to eliminate the seep this field season. Comments have been received regarding the seep at the transit road bridge, and those comments will result in a new design. He said that he worked with the State Department of Fish and Game to get concurrence with the approach. He anticipates getting that work completed in July.

   Mr. Walker said the building demolition is coming along well. He said they did encounter some asbestos and they're working through the EPA requirements on how they will handle the asbestos abatement. He said most of it is a category 1 asbestos abatement and it won't affect the cabin demolition. He said the category 1 roofs will be removed and carried to the Roberts Landfill for disposal, and the units will be burned. He said he would be coordinating those efforts with the ARC and getting support from the local fire department. Exclusion zones during the burning will be established for the possibility of ammunition within the units.

   Tim Roy commented that the CB Borrow Pit has been reopened to obtain fill material for various purposes (Robert's Landfill) and asked if the site would be regraded and vegetated at the completion of activities at the site. Langston Walker stated that the site would be regraded and revegetated.

   Chris Gates asked what happened to the delivery of the focused feasibility studies to the regulators that were due in February. He said that he had requested those documents ever since the January 9 BECT meeting. He wanted to be able to provide comments in the event there were problems with the community and give the regulators a heads up before it caused glitches in the schedule. Mr. Walker stated that the focused feasibility studies were placed in the repositories. Tim Roy said he was sidetracked at the repository, but his recollection was that the last document sent to the repository was the Adak Community Relations Plan.

   Mr. Gates asked whether there was a report available for the Rommel stake removal. Mr. Murphy said it's not yet available. Mr. Gates asked whether there were focused feasibility studies available for the GCI Compound. Mr. Walker stated that it was available, and there are several sites within that particular focused feasibility study. Mr. Walker stated he received comments from the State and he's awaiting comments from EPA. Mr. Walker stated that it's important to note regarding the focused feasibility study process that there is community input. The proposed plan and comment period will be provided, similar to the ongoing process for Operable Unit B. He said nothing would happen with the focused feasibility studies until there has been public input. That is, a 30-day comment period. Mr. Walker stated that he was reluctant to send out the focused feasibility studies until he had regulatory comments, because he considers them pretty rough without their input. He emphasized that no alternative will be chosen without community input. He said that the proposals would be presented to the RAB once it is appropriate to present them, and a recommended alternative by the Navy is developed.

   Mr. Gates said he's trying to understand what is going on. He said there is fieldwork going on this summer without community input. Mr. Walker suggested that he thinks of it in terms of a removal action, they are being performed for additional data for the South Runway 18-36 focused feasibility study. That removal action also includes seep elimination at the Airport Ditch and Transit Road Bridge. Langston said the work includes seep elimination at the Airport Ditch and the Transit Road Bridge. He said they are removing some soil at airport ditch and replacing it with clean soil, compacting it, and placing a culvert in the area for drainage to eliminate the seep. Chris asked if they were covering up the airport ditch. Mr. Walker said that was correct, that the ditch would be covered up from the end of the runway to the bank. He noted that part of the ditch was previously covered up in the past; it used to extend down to the road. Langston stated that clean soil and vegetation would be placed in the area.

   Richard Stoll suggested that other members be given a chance to ask questions. Keith Martin asked if any work had been done to the housing units 142 and 160. Mr. Walker stated that there was soil removed from Unit 160D last summer, and it was turned over to TSI at that time. Mr. Walker stated he was unaware of problems with Unit 142. Mr. Martin noted that the sidewalk was still torn up. Ron O'Toole noted that the sidewalk was torn up by TSI due to a sewage leak, not due to the Navy's cleanup efforts. Mr. Martin noted that holding off the investigation of the A1 line into future years would increase the cost substantially. He also noted that the fuel in the line might not be able to be reused, that it deteriorates over time, and that is what will really drive up the cost. Langston stated that they could take a sample, and have Mr. Martin look at the results to determine whether it is still useable. Mr. Martin said that off-spec petroleum would have to be disposed of off-island. Chris Gates asked if the water was contaminated with oil in the airport ditch, and how will the Navy dispose of the water if it is contaminated. Mr. Walker said that the petroleum will be bailed and skimmed from the water, and the water will be run through a filtration system. Once it is filtered through a system and it meets the criteria, it will be sent to the sewer system. The work will stop that if there is contamination. Mr. Gates asked if that would be the procedure all of the time, or whether it was for airport ditch only. Mr. Walker stated that testing would always be done, without fail.

   Agafon Krukoff asked when the Roberts Landfill closure would be completed. Mr. Walker stated that it is scheduled to be closed at the end of August. Tim Roy asked whether anything would be done with the thermal remediated soil that was stockpiled. Mr. Walker stated that the Sweeper Creek soils were used as a 12-inch cover over Roberts Landfill; it was suitable as landfill cover material. The South Runway 18-36 soil, once treated, will also be used for daily cover material on Roberts Landfill. Chris Gates asked for regular updates on petroleum issues.

6. Institutional Control Management Plan Status:

   Patty Kelly said that she met with elementary school children in the morning to discuss their ideas for a sign design and possible icon. She said that the elementary school children are focused on traditional Aleut cultural signs and their concepts will be implemented into a final sign design. Mr. Gates asked when the next version of the ICMP would be available. Ms. Kelly said it's scheduled to be released at the end of June, however, there is some delay in the sign design which may put it in mid-July. She expressed the importance of the involvement with the elementary school, that there is pride of ownership at an early age. Mr. Gates asked if everyone would be allowed to comment on the next document. Ms. Kelly said the draft final is typically for review to ensure comments were incorporated, however, if there are substantive issues, it's more important that they get resolved. She said in that regard, comments would be accepted and make sure the document is right and useful. Tim Roy asked if the responses to comments are ready. Ms. Kelly said they are prepared, and she would forward Mr. Roy's responses to him.

7. TAPP Grant Status:

   Cathy Villa stated that she had emailed Dr. Scrudato three times requesting that he join the meeting. She is not sure where he is, he has not responded to her emails. Agafon Krukoff said it was disconcerting that he has not responded. Mr. Krukoff stated that he doesn't ever recall getting any type of comments from Dr. Scrudato. Ms. Kelly stated she would talk to the contracting officer to see whether he can influence Dr. Scrudato to respond to Ms. Villa's emails.

8. Comment Responses to the Navy's OU B RI/FS:

   Mark Murphy stated that Chris Gates raised an issue at the last RAB meeting that The Aleut Corporation had concerns regarding the Navy's responses to their comments. He stated that Mr. Gates was supposed to provide written details, but as of the meeting time, the Navy had not received anything from The Aleut Corporation. Mr. Gates stated that the memorandum was in circulation. He said some of the deficiencies in the comment responses were judgment calls and The Aleut Corporation is weeding out those issues and focusing on real problem areas. Mr. Gates requested that it be added as an agenda item at the next RAB meeting.

9. Jesse Morgan:

   Cathy Villa asked for an update regarding the interview with Jesse Morgan and whether or not he had a chance to visit Adak. Doug Murray stated there was nothing new to report. There are plans to bring Mr. Morgan to Adak in July or August to identify where he did his operation. Chris Gates expressed his concern about the archive material being lost over time. Mr. Murray stated that one of the reasons the Navy commissioned the Army's archival search was to identify those specific details regarding the locations of the materials. Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy has a database that explains the exact resources; details are line item by line item with file copies that are relevant to the decisions made on Adak. Mr. Murphy stated that a copy of the database will be given to The Aleut Corporation in a compact disk form when the final remedies are selected. Mr. Murray emphasized that the compact disk is very user friendly.

10. Land Transfer Status from The Aleut Corporation:

    Chris Gates said that there is legislation put forth by Congressman Don Young this week to ratify the land transfer agreement. It is expected that Senator Murkowski will put forth his bill next week to ratify the land transfer agreement. There is no schedule for actions or hearings at this time. Mr. Gates noted that this is a huge step forward. He said that no one at TAC believes a land transfer will take place this summer, based on what they're hearing. He further stated that a partial transfer of the downtown area will not take place. Mr. Gates stated that he believes the transfer will take place next spring. Mr. Stoll stated that the Navy was not planning on a transfer of the property until next summer.

11. EPA Comments:

    Kevin Oates stated he was not at the informal RAB meeting and he understood there were questions regarding the courtesy copy of the comments included in the RAB packages. Mr. Oates said that once the comments are submitted, the Navy reviews them and incorporates them into the work plans. Chris Gates said his concern was that he didn't have the focused feasibility studies that the comments related to and he didn't understand the context of the comments. Mr. Gates stated that he did not have particular issues with the comments submitted. Mr. Gates noted that in the past he was surprised by all the standard operating procedures and the field changes for Operable Unit B. Mr. Gates inquired about avenues to be involved. Mr. Murphy stated that the standard operating procedures and the field changes are sent to the entire Operable Unit B project team, including The Aleut Corporation. Mr. Murphy stated that the RAB is kept informed during the meetings, and the information is also submitted to the repositories.

12. Discussion:

    Chris Gates requested an update regarding the diving that he understood that will be taking place at Lake Andrew and Finger Bay. Mr. Murphy stated that the diving plans are under review. Mr. Murphy clarified that the locations of the dives will be in Sweeper Cove and Finger Bay. Both locations will be dived surveyed, and none will take place in Lake Andrew or the bay. Mr. Murphy noted that previous dive surveys near the causeway indicated that there was an ordnance rich environment. Mr. Gates asked what the plans were to clean up the bay near Lake Andrew. Mr. Murphy stated that the long-term solution is yet to be determined. Mr. Oates stated that the harder issues, such as the causeway, are part of Operable Unit B-2, and they will be dealt with later in 2002. He said it has to be determined what is feasible to cleanup and what is not feasible. Mr. Stoll again noted that The Aleut Corporation part of the Operable Unit B project team.

    Keith Martin asked if the petroleum fieldwork that was ongoing had approved work plans. Langston Walker stated that no work is being performed where there has not been an agency stamp of approval. Mr. Walker stated that the seep eliminate work had been reviewed by the regulators. Mr. Martin said his concern was that the Navy performed work in 1997 and 1998 that the regulatory agencies did not approve. Mr. Oates noted that those work plans were part of Operable Unit B, and that the issues were more about national policy rather than approval of the work plans. He said that one thing that came out of the dispute was the project team came up with something that will work on Adak, and it will make it a better place to live. Mr. Oates also stated that most of the work performed by the Navy was able to be retained and ultimately used. Mr. Martin said he noticed that there was an Adak-specific requirement for OU B-1 that states 30 percent slopes are not accessible. He stated that a 30 percent slope was not that extreme and it was not uncommon for him to hike in that type of terrain. Mr. Murphy stated that the 30 percent slope was agreed to by consensus. It doesn't mean that someone has to be superman to climb it, it's relative to the areas that surround them as they are accessible. He said there was consideration for historical practices that went on in a particular area. He said it was possible that someone will access areas with greater than a 30-degree slope, but that this would be the exception rather than the rule. It was further stated that areas adjacent to these "inaccessible" areas were thoroughly investigated and that the data from these areas provides an indication of the likelihood of UXO contamination in the surrounding (inaccessible) areas. Generally, it was agreed by the project team that people are much more likely to walk in the areas where the slopes are less than 30 degrees.

    Tim Roy stated he was The Aleut Corporation representative on the OU B project team and he had not been receiving emails. Doug Murray stated that Tim Roy was still on the OU B project team distribution for The Aleut Corporation, as are Chris Gates and Vince Tutiakoff. This was verified during the meeting.

13. OU B-1 Proposed Plan Meeting Discussion:

    Mark Murphy stated that the OU B-1 Proposed Plan meeting on Adak went well and that the same presentation would be provided in Anchorage on May 31, 2001. Cathy Villa asked if the comment period for the OU B-1 proposed plan could be extended beyond the June 12, 2001 due date since some of the RAB members had just received their copies in the mail. Mr. Murphy stated that the document has been available on the adakupdate.com web site since May 14th and since the document is only 12 pages in length, no extension of the comment period was planned. Mr. Murphy stated that obtaining comments on the proposed plan was on the critical path to preparing and completing the OU B-1 ROD.

14. Next Meeting Date and Potential Agenda Items:

    Agafon Krukoff requested that there be a follow-up discussion regarding the co-chair(s) position(s). Chris Gates requested a discussion regarding the FOST and petroleum, and how a transfer may take place if the petroleum is not cleaned up. Other requested agenda items include a discussion regarding Dr. Scrudato, asbestos, lead-based paint, and the Institutional Control Management Plan. The next RAB meeting date was set for July 18, 2001. It was also requested that the RAB Agenda be placed on the website.

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