The Adak Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met for its regular monthly meeting on May 12, 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 7:09 p.m. A quorum was present. The agenda was approved with the addition of a presentation by Jim Pastorick regarding unexploded ordnance (UXO) detection technologies added to II(b), Status of UXO Issues.

   1. Approval of the December 9, 1998, January 13, 1999 and March 10, 1999 meeting minutes.

      IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Arterburn AND SECONDED by Ms. Grisco that the minutes of the December 9, 1998 meeting be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

      IT WAS MOVED by Ms. Grisco AND SECONDED by Mr. Bourdokofsky that the minutes of the January 13, 1999 meeting be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

      IT WAS MOVED by Ms. Grisco AND SECONDED by Ms. Miller that the minutes of the March 10, 1999 meeting be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent. A correction to the spelling of a visitor's name, J.F. Comperchio, will be made.

   2. General Announcements

      There were no general announcements.

      1. Administrative Issues

         Ms. Grisco had requested at the March 1999 meeting that Mr. Murphy provide a list of all project for the current field season, however, it was not included in the packet. Mr. Murphy will provide the list to Ms. Graham for immediate distribution.

         IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Arterburn AND SECONDED by Mr. Nash that Bob Darrington be seated as a RAB member. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent after a roll call vote.

         Mr. Murphy said that he did not receive Bob Darrington's written comments by fax. Mr. Gates will provide a copy to Ms. Graham for distribution.

         Concerns, Issues, and Questions

         Mr. Gromoff said that Mr. Gates informed him at the Adak Reuse Corporation (ARC) meeting that the draft Record of Decision (ROD) was not available in the repository. Mr. Gates had to contact URS to obtain a copy. Mr. Gromoff asked why the draft ROD was not in the repository. Mr. Murphy did not know why, but said the draft ROD is not a public document. Mr. Gates said that he requested a copy of the ROD in February and had received an email from Mr. Murphy advising that two copies of the ROD were in the repository. Mr. Murphy said he instructed the consultant to put copies in the repository and apologized for the confusion. Mr. Murphy suggested that Mr. Gates or other interested parties call him or the consultant if they have difficulty obtaining repository documents. Mr. Gates has the most recent version of the draft ROD. Mr. Stoll added that the ROD is not a public comment/review document, but rather a memorialization document. Mr. Murphy said the ROD is reviewed by the principals to the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA).

         Mr. Gromoff asked about the status of the ROD. Mr. Cora said that Operating Unit A (OUA) ROD is in a draft final state. That means EPA and ADEC have provided their comments, and the Navy has done several revisions. Everything in the OUA ROD is intended to be consistent with the proposed plan and the feasibility study, except that everything regarding UXO has been removed and placed into the OUB ROD because the agencies were not prepared to make decisions regarding UXO. A lot of information was unavailable at the time of the proposed plan. There is not a draft OUB ROD yet. Mr. Cora said that the principals would like to sign the OUA ROD as soon as possible. Remedial action cannot begin until the OUA ROD is signed. Mr. Murphy said the responsiveness summary describes the community's input. The responsiveness summary was distributed at previous meetings.

         Mr. Cora said that the concerns of the community and the RAB keep influencing what happens with the draft OUA ROD. The Navy has made the draft ROD available for review; that usually does not happen on a Superfund site. Mr. Cora said that typically public review of the draft ROD is prevented so that outside influences do not manipulate the agency's decisions. Mr. Oates added that public comment did influence the decision regarding dredging of South Sweeper Creek.

2. PROJECT UPDATES AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
   1. Review of the OUA ROD.

      Mr. Cora said the principals intended to have the OUA ROD signed by the end of May, but that is unlikely. The Navy just received comments from EPA and ADEC last week and will need time to respond. The latest comments are more editorial than substantive and the selection of remedies is not being changed. Many of the comments deal with the rationale for selecting a remedy or the text that supports the decision. EPA prefers to have RODs relatively uniform across the country. There are some substantive issues, for example, timelines of institutional controls and specific numbers for cleanup levels. Mr. Cora believes that the Navy is not objecting, but the document must be written in a way that satisfies all the signatories. The Navy, the head of ADEC, and the regional administrator or deputy regional administrator of EPA sign the ROD.

      Mr. Gromoff asked for a written summary of the ROD's key areas regarding institutional controls, pump and treat, and the long-term monitoring system. Mr. Gromoff asked when Adak would no longer be a Superfund site. Mr. Cora answered that Adak will no longer be a Superfund site when it is delisted from the National Priorities List (NPL).

      Mr. Bourdokofsky said he felt there were still some unanswered questions regarding gas cylinders, and the RAB is failing in its purpose of trying to find where the items went and address the subject in the ROD. Mr. Murphy said it is addressed in the ROD, but not in as much detail as before. Field investigations were done on the military reservation where there was concern about chemical munitions contamination. The information was provided in previous deliverables. The basis for determining that there was no further action needed regarding chemical contamination was summarized in the ROD. No offshore investigations were done. Mr. Cora said that no areas were located on Adak that were chemical weapon disposal areas. Mr. Bourdokofsky pointed out that the potential is in the ammunition dump that is 12 miles offshore. Ms. Goldstein said that the reference in the "The Firecracker Boys" was a typographical error. Mr. Bourdokofsky said he was not referring to "The Firecracker Boys" story. Mr. Murphy said there is a chart that shows a potential chemical weapons disposal area. No physical investigation was done. However, extensive archival research was done and no documentation was found that suggested that site was used for that purpose. Lengthy discussions have been had about where the Navy's charter begins and ends. It is not the Navy's obligation to investigate the area 12 miles north of Andrew Bay. That area is a FUDS issue that is managed by the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Miller pointed out that the Corps of Engineers has not accepted responsibility and that none of the agencies have accepted responsibility for that dumpsite. Mr. Stoll said that it is strictly out of the area of authority and there is no way to address it. Mr. Murphy said the issue is not being written off in the ROD. The Navy is not addressing the FUDS obligations on Adak or in the offshore areas. Mr. Cora said there is no evidence regarding chemical dumps on Adak that have12 or 14 cylinders of gas. Mr. Cora said he wasn't sure who would address the potential dump 12 miles offshore. Mr. Murphy said that the Adak ROD is not the vehicle to pursue the potential offshore dump.

      Mr. Arterburn asked if Robert's Landfill was an OUA or OUB issue. Mr. Murphy said it was in the OUA. Mr. Oates said that Robert's Landfill is permitted through the State of Alaska solid waste program and will be closed in accordance with that permit. Mr. Gromoff said it is known there is UXO buried in there and asked how Robert's would be classified. Mr. Oates said it's a Class II. Mr. Oates added that most landfills contain material that are not supposed to be in there. The question is whether it is more hazardous to remove hazardous items from landfills or leave them alone. The conventional wisdom is that excavating landfills is an inherently dangerous activity for a number of reasons such as disease vectors, trapped gases, as well as the overall expense. In addition, the excavated material would be have to be put in another landfill. Ms. Miller asked if it would make sense to put Robert's Landfill into OUB. Mr. Oates said he wasn't sure what would be done differently even if Robert's Landfill was put in OUB. Ms. Miller felt that the UXO in Robert's Landfill is an unresolved issue and has been the RAB's concern for a long time. Mr. Oates again asked what could be done differently in terms of Robert's Landfill. Mr. Nash said he felt Robert's Landfill probably belongs under the OUB, however, there is nothing else that can be done anyway. Mr. Gromoff disagreed with the classification. The classification means that the landfill can be used for some purpose in the future once the institutional controls are removed. There should be more restrictions and more signage. Under Class II, no signs have to be posted. That makes Robert's Landfill accessible. Robert's Landfill should be permanently sealed and not accessible to anyone. Mr. Oates said he hadn't thought of Robert's Landfill in the context described by Mr. Gromoff.

      Ms. Miller asked if the comments to the ROD were public information. Mr. Oates said everything is placed in the administrative record repository.

      Mr. Gates said the ROD comments show a negotiation process. This memorialization process is helping people come to grips with institutional controls and land uses. The ROD and the inter-agency correspondence are very important to read. Mr. Gates recommended that the RAB review the documents. Mr. Gromoff asked that the comments be added to the written summary. Ms. Graham added that all comments have been distributed to the RAB with the packets. Mr. Cora said that new information can cause a site to be re-opened. Once the ROD is signed, it's a final document and triggers certain legal conditions. In addition, once the ROD is signed, the public can sue for non-compliance. Right now, no one can challenge anything that's being done legally.

      Mr. Oates said the standard protocol is to issue press releases at the time of signature.

   2. Status of UXO Issues.

      Mr. Murphy reported that investigations are proceeding. Foster Wheeler is continuing to complete the 1999 fieldwork. They have investigated some of the low-lying areas that are free of snow and accessible. The work will continue through October and maybe early November depending on weather conditions.

      Work on the OUB is continuing. Scoping documents and work plans have been submitted to both agencies for review. Both agencies have made comments. The expectation is that in the near future there will be a dispute because of lack of consensus regarding the Navy's approach to conducting investigations for the RI/FS on OUB. Several meetings occurred to discuss how best to modify the 1999 fieldwork to provide useable data that the agencies and the Navy could use to help them in addressing UXO concerns. The agencies and the Navy are still a long ways from agreeing about the best approach for UXO investigation and remediation in OUB. However, the planned 1999 fieldwork is largely intact, and the Navy is pursuing completion of that work.

      Mr. Murphy said that everything being investigated this field season is on the military reservation. There are a number of combat ranges, impact ranges and ordnance storage areas that are not shown on the map. All of those are intended for some level of investigation during the 1999 field season. The approach is to perform generally less than 1% investigation over the composite range areas. Some ranges will be investigated at a greater level of detail, some less. Mr. Gromoff asked if the Rommel stakes and the barbwire will be cleared. Mr. Murphy explained that the surface area is cleared before the subsurface geophysical investigation is done. Line transects are being walked by people with instrumentation. If a Rommel stake or barbwire is encountered, it has to be removed or acknowledged as something that is not a UXO anomaly. Those items are not UXO items, but they have to be cleared to allow the investigation. Mr. Cora added that just the three-foot wide swath is cleared. Mr. Murphy said material is not removed unless it's UXO-related.

      Ms. Miller inquired about EPA's challenge of the Navy's 1% sample and asked about what was happening. Mr. Cora said that that was what the dispute resolution is for, and that he was in the process of getting the letter signed. Dispute resolution is an arduous process. This dispute concerns a major national issue that is not limited to Adak. EPA is unwilling to accept the Navy's proposal at this time. There are fundamental disagreements on how standards are interpreted. Discussion between people on the dispute team continues. Ms. Miller asked what the RAB's role was in the pending dispute resolution. Mr. Cora said the dispute resolution process is strictly defined in the FFA that calls for only three parties to be part of the dispute. ADEC feels strongly that the RAB and the stakeholders, including Fish and Wildlife, have some input into the process. Mr. Cora said that a lot of people would argue that the dispute resolution should include only signatories of the FFA. Ms. Miller made a formal request that the RAB be involved in resolving the issue whether it comes to formal dispute or not because it's an issue that's been important to the RAB from the beginning. Mr. Oates said ADEC has some very strong feelings about finding some mechanism for having the RAB and the future users' input. It is not known if that involvement means membership on the dispute resolution committee or attendance at a workshop.

      Mr. Oates said that the sampling level is tied into the future reuses of parts of Adak. Mr. Oates added that he did not have a clear picture of the land use priorities and constraints. A method for setting priorities and constraints needs to be developed and provided to the Navy. Absent that, certain DoD rules may or may not apply depending on land uses and priorities. That can dramatically change how much the Navy would need to investigate and clear.

      Mr. Cora said that Robert's Landfill is considered more of a landfill than a UXO threat. That does not mean that if UXO is found on the surface that action would not be taken. Mr. Oates will take the issue to the solid waste division and ask them to evaluate the classification. Mr. Gromoff asked if the earthquake danger was considered in the closure plan. Mr. Oates said that ADEC wanted to see the Rommel stakes cleared, preferably as part of the UXO investigation. If the Navy does not clear the Rommel stakes, then they would be classified as abandoned solid waste. ADEC will continue to press that issue.

      Mr. Gromoff asked if the plan impacted the non-military reservation land. Mr. Martin said the issue was under dispute. Mr. Cora said that the EPA would most likely raise that dispute. Items that land or migrate offsite can be considered part of the Superfund site.

      Mr. Pastorick of Geophex UXO, Ltd. gave a presentation on UXO detection. Mr. Pastorick was a Navy EOD technician until 1989. Since then, he has worked as a project manager on UXO cleanups. Mr. Pastorick is consultant to ADEC. Mr. Oates said ADEC felt a strong need for external expertise. Mr. Pastorick evaluated the sampling plan and assisted in developing ADEC's comments on the work plans.

      Mr. Pastorick said he had removed a lot of ordnance from municipal landfills, but has never worked on a project strictly because of the ordnance. The landfills were remediated because of pollution and contamination. The UXO in the landfill became a safety issue for the people who were excavating the landfill. For instance, at Fort Ord seven informal landfills were consolidated into one properly capped landfill. All seven landfills had UXO. None of the landfills were excavated or remediated simply because they contained UXO. The fact that there is UXO in a landfill is not sufficient reason to excavate it. UXO in landfills is not generally shock sensitive.

      General rules for UXO detection are to select the appropriate tools. Considerations when selecting "tools" are the type of UXO being looked for, its size, what it's made of, the depth that things are likely to be found, the clearance depth requirement, the land use requirements, type of terrain and vegetation. Most UXO on Adak is probably made of ferrous metal.

      Some of the tools available are magnetometer, active electromagnetics (EM), ground penetrating radar (GPR), and towed and airborne systems. Seismic is not really used because it doesn't make sense to shake the ground when looking for UXO. Electro optics are being used a lot for mines near the surface.

      The magnetometer is the current standard. For the past 10 years, probably 95% of all the geophysical work done has been done with magnetometers. There is a wide range of quality for the magnetometers themselves. Magnetometers work very well and are non-intrusive. They do not emit electromagnetic radiation into the ground like radar or active EM, which is an important safety consideration. Mag and flag is a typical use of the magnetometer. Data can also be recorded and then processed and manipulated. Data collection and processing can be more efficient than mag and flag because non-UXO is separated.

      Active EM can also be used in different ways including mag and flag or data recording, manipulation and processing. There are several kinds of EM including time domain, frequency domain and variable waveforms. Broad band waveform has the advantage of discriminating non-UXO material. Active EM is frequently used in conjunction with magnetometers.

      Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is not being used a lot for UXO. A few years ago it was believed that radar would provide images of items in the ground. One drawback is that it needs dry conditions. One positive attribute is that it can identify void spaces such as tanks and pipes. The Corps of Engineers does not like GPR because it emits a lot of electromagnetic radiation directly into the ground. The antenna on a ground-based GPR is actually in contact with the ground. If the ordnance is electrically initiated, GPR could cause problems. It also does not provide a photo of the ground.

      Towed systems have a lot of advantages. Two successful towed systems are the Navy Research Labs MTADS system and the Surface Towed Ordnance Locating System (STOLS). The two systems use different sensors, usually in an array, towed behind a vehicle so investigation is a lot faster. The terrain and vegetation limit the use of towed systems. Driving a vehicle over land where there is potential UXO can be a safety concern because UXO can be found in areas that have already been driven over.

      Airborne systems have the potential to be very useful. They are now used for finding large UXO such as bombs, artillery, dumpsites, and target areas. Some airborne systems use magnetometers, frequency domain electromagnetics (FDEM), synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and the broad band variable wave form. SAR is made by Sandia Laboratory and has not been overly successful in the field. An experimental three-dimensional SAR is available where a 360° flight is made around the area that constantly takes radar images and generates a large amount of data that requires powerful computers to process. After the information is processed, sometimes mines and UXO can be viewed. The experimental flight was fairly successful.

      Mag and flag is still appropriate in many cases, but it is no longer state of the art. There are more choices now.

      The Jefferson Proving Ground IV (JPG IV) test was just completed which discriminates objects in the ground using geophysics. Ten different companies demonstrated their technologies and some were very successful in discriminating UXO from non-UXO items. This was a demonstration test and was set up with biases that always exist in a demonstration. The location of all objects was known, but it was not known what the objects were. It was strictly a discrimination test.

      In conclusion, towed systems work well, although they have limitations. Multi-sensor systems work well. Airborne systems are useful to narrow large areas to smaller sites to look at in detail with smaller instruments. Additional information can be found at www.ace.osd.mil/ens/esb, and at the Joint UXO Coordination Office (JUXOCO) at www.denix.osd.mil/denix/public/news/uxocoe/uxocoe.html. JUXOCO is an excellent resource clearinghouse for research information.

   3. Discussions with TAPP Contractor Dr. Scudato.

      Mr. Stoll reported DoD approved the TAPP contract. Unfortunately, that approval was just received last week. It was very difficult dealing with the Washington, D.C. TAPP office. Mr. Stoll said he was exceedingly aggressive in working with the TAPP office, including several personal visits to the TAPP office in Washington, D.C. The impediment was that the scope of work was not specific enough. The TAPP office was informed that the scope was appropriate for this forum and of the time constraints. Despite all efforts, approval took a long time. The contracting officers are aggressively working to get a contract in place. The contracting procedure usually takes two to three weeks in order to satisfy federal acquisition regulations. The expectation is that Dr. Scudato will be contracted. Ms. Miller asked if there was some uncertainty about retaining Dr. Scudato. Mr. Stoll said that under federal acquisition regulations there is some requirement for competition. There may not be any competition. Mr. Stoll is taking steps to insure that Dr. Scudato is selected, but the final decision rests with the contracting officers. Mr. Murphy vouched for Mr. Stoll's efforts to expedite the contracting procedure and the selection of Dr. Scudato.

      Ms. Miller said she appreciated Mr. Stoll's efforts, however, what was happening was not communicated clearly to the RAB. Ms. Miller felt it was very frustrating to be rushed to complete the proposal, and then grant approval was delayed. Mr. Stoll said he experienced the same frustration because he received the same non-answers from the TAPP grant office.

      Mr. Stoll said that the RAB may want to consider Dr. Scudato's availability for the next meeting. Ms. Miller said that the opportunity was missed to have input on this year's fieldwork. One of the priorities was to look at the Sweeper Creek issue, and now that opportunity is lost. Mr. Stoll said the Navy was extremely empathetic to that, and that was one of the things that were frequently communicated to Washington, D.C.

      Mr. Gromoff asked if Dr. Scudato's resume was available. Ms. Miller said it was attached to the TAPP grant.

   4. 1999 Field Season Overview.

      Mr. Murphy will bring a summary of current fieldwork as well as completed fieldwork to the next meeting.

   5. BECT and BTAG Meeting Briefings.

      The BECT meeting is May 13, 1999. Mr. Arterburn expressed concerned about attendance. Mr. Martin said that Mr. Lekanof had always attended or had a replacement attend. Ms. Miller will attend the next meeting.

   6. Davis Lake and Lake Leone Update (tentative)

      Mr. Murphy did not bring the Davis Lake and Lake Leone presentation.

3. Public Comments.

   Mr. Martin heard that a rogue Chinese ship was brought into Adak by the Coast Guard. Mr. Martin also heard that the ammonia is being disposed of by piping it overboard into Sweeper Cove. He did not know if that was an approved method, and whether it would adversely affect the mussel-monitoring program. Mr. Stoll said that he imagined that discharge was in violation of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Krukoff said the first he had heard of the rogue ship was on the national news, but did not know about ammonia discharge. Mr. Stoll said that the Navy would never approve that kind of a discharge. The rogue vessel is under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Mr. Cora asked Mr. Martin to get substantiation of the rumor. Mr. Burnham said there was a special team on Adak taking care of the leak. Ms. Miller asked if the quantity being leaked is known. Mr. Cora will call the OSC. Mr. Gromoff expressed concern that other hazardous materials might be on board. Mr. Burnham said that it was after the crew was transported to Anchorage that the leak was discovered. Mr. Burnham will check on the procedures. Mr. Stoll pointed out that the vessel is a Chinese pirate ship that most probably does not conform to any rules.

   Mr. Gates reported that the ARC met today and adopted a resolution urging the RAB to help ARC take action on the ROD finalization process with regard to three areas: (1) better monitoring of Sweeper Cove, (2) better or some monitoring of Finger Bay and (3) better disposition of the landfills. ARC requested that the agencies adopt better remedies and procedures with regard to those three topics. The resolution submitted to the RAB was passed by the ARC board by a vote of 6 to 1.

   Mr. Gates also said the ATSDR had issued a report that is being withheld. ARC has asked the Navy for the report but it still has not been received. Mr. Gates requested the RAB's help to gain a copy of the ATSDR report. Mr. Stoll said the ATSDR provided a preliminary report and asked for a response regarding the technical aspects. ATSDR specifically requested that the draft be used for internal use only and not be released to the public. Mr. Gates said that before the ROD is finalize, he would like access to the safety discussions regarding Adak.

   Mr. Gates stated that he had asked to attend the UXO meeting, but was requested not to. Mr. Gates said that withholding the ATSDR draft report and exclusion from the UXO meeting showed a pattern of excluding the public from the decision making process. It is important that the public at least listen to the arguments, especially since the people on Adak will have to live with these decisions forever.

   Mr. Gates said the ROD is a very interesting document. He stated that on page 618 there is a material misstatement. Mr. Gates suggests that everybody review the ROD for mistakes.

   Mr. Gates asked when the next BTAG meeting is scheduled. Mr. Murphy said it had not been scheduled, but they typically occur in March.

   Mr. Gates asked if the UXO technology is part of the formal dispute process. Mr. Cora said it was.

   Mr. Gromoff asked if the RAB would like to consider ARC's resolution as part of the minutes. Ms. Grisco agreed. Mr. Nash pointed out that the ARC resolution says the draft ROD does not meet their needs. Mr. Nash felt that because the RAB had not read that document, it should not make that statement. Mr. Gromoff said he was taking the resolution as an advisory and attaching it to the minutes only. Mr. Arterburn said he can only assume that the ROD's contents are based on what has already been presented to the RAB. Mr. Arterburn said his recollection of RAB discussions was that there was not enough sampling in Finger Bay and Sweeper Cove. Mr. Gromoff agreed.

   Mr. Gates introduced Mr. Sanders of California who is ARC's consultant for the airport planning study. Mr. Sanders said brochures are available from Mr. Gates. There are four parts to the airport master plan. The first part is an air traffic study to look at what types of aviation activity might use the airport in the future. About 10 possibilities have been identified. The second part is to prepare a long-range 20-year master plan on what might be needed to handle the demand identified. The third part is an airport layout plan which is provided to the FAA so that when improvement funds are applied for they would already be on file. The fourth part is the environmental assessment to change from a Navy airport to a public FAA standard airport.

4. Set Date and Tenative Topics for Next Meeting

   Ms. Miller suggested that if the contracting procedure is complete that Dr. Scudato attend the next meeting, and also that the RAB meet with him beforehand.

   Ms. Grisco would like to have a short report on airport planning. Mr. Gromoff said a grant was received for airport planning. Mr. Gromoff will arrange for an ARC representative to give a briefing.

   Mr. Nash asked what effect Adak's application to become a second class city has. Mr. Martin said there was no effect. The review process will take 9 to 12 months. The land transfer should be considered in this year's congressional session. It is hoped that the president would sign the bill in January 2000. Mr. Gromoff will give a briefing to the RAB on how these timetables fit into the remediation process.

   Mr. Gromoff asked for a briefing on the status of asbestos removal and disposal.

   Ms. Miller asked that the 1999 field season overview and Davis Lake and Lake Leone be discussed. In addition, Ms. Miller requested an update on Sweeper Creek. Mr. Murphy said that currently they are dewatering Sweeper Creek. When that is done, sediments will be removed and stockpiled. The next phase would be remedial action at the power plant. Finally, the sediments would be treated. Ms. Miller requested more information about the project. Mr. Gromoff also asked for a more detailed report. Mr. Murphy said the design document in the repository is a source of more information. Sample results may be available by the next meeting.

   Mr. Gromoff said that the large quantity of snow this winter will cause a lot of runoff. Runoff from Robert's Landfill has always been a concern, and Mr. Gromoff felt that the sump would be inadequate to handle the overflow. Mr. Burnham said there is one area that has a drainage problem caused by heavy snow and degradation of the drainage ditches. The ditches are being corrected now and they are looking at preventing the problem in the future. Plans will be submitted to ADEC in the next week. Mr. Murphy will provide a report on the issue.

   Mr. Murphy said the changing nature of the Adak community was discussed last time and whether it made sense to continue holding the meetings in the same way by tying in Adak by phone. Mr. Murphy asked that the meeting process be on the next agenda. Mr. Gromoff said that the RAB has always supported having meetings on Adak, but that the Navy did not have funding available. Mr. Murphy said it may make sense to have the meeting on Adak and have the Anchorage members on the speakerphone. Mr. Gromoff said he hoped the Navy's travel budget would allow that. Mr. Murphy said he was not suggesting the Navy has a travel budget to support that, but that the meeting process should be looked at. Mr. Arterburn said that there should be a plan in place to transition the RAB to Adak. Mr. Stoll said that there is a directive that the Navy cannot fund RAB travel to Adak.

5. Meeting Adjourned.

   The next meeting was scheduled for June 9, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 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