The Adak Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met for its regular monthly meeting on June 9, 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. Gromoff called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. A quorum was present. The agenda was approved, although Mr. Gromoff requested that critical issues be discussed out of order because he was leaving for the airport at 8:30.

   1. Approval of the May 12, 1999 meeting minutes.

      IT WAS MOVED by Ms. Grisco AND SECONDED by Mr. Ehrhart that the minutes of the May 12, 1999 meeting be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

   2. General Announcements

      There were no general announcements.

      1. Administrative Issues

         Mr. Stoll suggested that the frequency of meetings over the summer and integration of the Adak community members should be discussed during the meeting. Mr. Gromoff stated that he and key individuals from the regulatory agencies would attend an Adak tour scheduled for next week. There will be a UXO (unexploded ordnance) presentation and a public hearing on Tuesday. At that time, Mr. Gromoff will try to recruit additional RAB members from the Adak community.

         Concerns, Issues, and Questions

         Mr. Murphy described the status of various projects.

         • SWMU 17 (Solid Waste Management Unit), the waste oil and retention pond, activities were essentially done with the exception of remediation.
         • South Sweeper Creek, Area B (the upstream area) is complete. The contaminated sediments have been removed and clean fill has been placed.
         • Area A (downstream) is outstanding. The work will resume shortly.

         Dr. Scudato asked for suggestions as to which documents to review regarding the monitoring program. Various suggestions were made. Mr. Oates offered to assist Mr. Scudato in identifying the relevant documents at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) offices.

         Ms. Miller asked when the record of decision (ROD) would be signed. Mr. Cora said they are still waiting for a red line/strike out version. The ROD is expected to be signed in early July. Mr. Murphy said he expected the next version would require only minimal changes. Ms. Miller asked that the red line/strike out version be put in the repository and that Dr. Scudato review it. Dr. Scudato said he went to the repository and the draft ROD was not listed. Ms. Goldstein agreed to send Dr. Scudato a set of documents identified during the meeting. Ms. Miller said for the record that,

         "There were a number of issues that I think I raised in my comments on the proposed plan that haven't been dealt with. One of the largest ones, however, is the lack of characterization of Finger Bay. I just want to say on the record that I feel that this is a large area that has been totally ignored, and I'm quite concerned about it.

         Mr. Stoll said Ms. Miller's comments were duly noted. Ms. Miller replied, "it's been duly noted for years now, and nothing's been done about it."

2. PROJECT UPDATES AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
   1. Dr. Scudato - Introduction.

      Ms. Miller introduced Dr. Scudato from the State University of New York, the researcher hired for the TAPP (Technical Assistance P_?__ P__?__ grant.. His areas of expertise are a whole range of issues relating to the characterization and cleanup of contaminated sites, including Superfund sites; environmental issues related to contaminated sediments; and, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) research focused on the behavior and transport of PCBs both in aquatic environments and the atmosphere. He is affiliated with the Superfund Basic Research Program. A group of RAB members met informally with Dr. Scudato at 5:30 before the meeting.

   2. Clarification of Record Of Decision.

      Mr. Murphy called the attention of the RAB to the May 27, 1999 letter included in the RAB packet which clarified a typographical error in the ROD. The hazard index of 23 pointed out by Mr. Gates at the last meeting was actually 2.3. The decimal point was inadvertently omitted in the document. The Navy apologized for the typographical error and stands by the analysis done in the ROD describing the ecological concerns in Sweeper Cove based on sediment contamination.

   3. Airport Planning.

      Mr. Sanders from Aries Consulting, LTD, the Adak Reuse Corporation airport consultant, gave a briefing on the status of the airport master plan. Copies of the newsletter are available in Mr. Gates' office.

   4. Status of Asbestos Removal and Disposal.

      Mr. Stoll introduced Mr. Walker as the lead person on island in charge of executing the asbestos removal work. ADEC has approved expansion of landfill to include an asbestos disposal cell. Other demolition materials will also be disposed in the landfill.

      Mr. Ehrhart asked if lead paint was an issue. The discussion centered on whether residual lead-based paint on Roberts Housing demolition material is a problem. The Navy maintained that lead based paint in Robert's Housing is minimal and does not exceed the concentrations allowed in landfills. Mr. Walker said the lead volume has not been a problem. Mr. Ehrhart said that there have been some eye-opening problems from young children ingesting lead. Mr. Gromoff said that at other sites in the Lower 48 higher lead levels were found well after demolition. Mr. Stoll said he had a hard time imaging that lead would be an issue at Old Roberts Housing and there are no plans to sample for lead at the demolition sites.. Mr. Walker said the area would be re-graded after the buildings are demolished. The siding on the buildings was asbestos and aluminum. There was no lead-based paint used as siding material. There is no potential lead exposure. The demolition is being performed with the appropriate high level of quality assurance and personal protection.

      The work will probably be complete in November 1999. No lead survey will be performed; however, a comprehensive asbestos survey was completed. Mr. Stoll said HUD (housing and urban development) regulations trigger the need for lead surveys where children age six and under would be living in the area. The houses that are being lived in now were built after 1973 when lead-based paint was no longer in use.

      Mr. Gromoff remarked that there is a liability issue. The Navy has been asked to prepare an asbestos management plan for facilities that will be reused. There is no funding this year for all the asbestos work requested. Mr. Gromoff asked for a list of asbestos removal sites where work is currently being done, and also a list of future work sites that may have high concentrations of asbestos and lead-based paint. The Navy responded that they can provide a copy of the asbestos survey, and describe the scope of work being executed this year. The work being performed this year is an extraordinary effort that would not be undertaken anywhere else and is, in fact prohibited by regulation. Funds cannot usually be spent to remove asbestos-containing materials that are in compliance with existing regulations. Special authority and money was received to do this work. No long-term program is planned because the current conditions are compliant with regulations. All the friable, accessible, damaged, asbestos-containing material was abated and the Navy is still removing the asbestos. This step that would not ordinarily be taken. Mr. Gromoff said that he is concerned that although the sites were abated, by the time of transfer the properties may have deteriorated due to the extreme conditions in the Aleutians. There is no guarantee that the asbestos abatement would still be sufficient in five years.

   5. 1999 Field Season Overview and Davis Lake and Lake Leone Update Presentation.

      Mr. Murphy gave an overview of the work performed at Davis Lake and Lake Leone. The presentation was not current because this presentation had been postponed on the agenda many times. The remediation done at SWMU 4, the South Davis Landfill adjacent to Andrew Lake, consisted of metal debris removal which included cables, barrels, Marston matting, scrap metal, and heavy equipment bodies. The landfill was from WWII, and did not comply with any landfill regulations. The landfill was at most 6' thick. Grade was re-established with fill material from a nearby borrow site. Drainage has been dramatically improved. Some riprap was placed at the lake's edge. The primary objective was to place cover and re-establish the grade. The site was revegetated.

      At Lake Leone, also known as SWMU 27, a lot of partially filled drums and debris was removed after the pond was dewatered. Sampling of the material left in the drums showed that it wasn't hazardous, but one sediment sample had a higher than allowable concentration of PCBs. The contaminated sediments were removed. The biggest problem was a nitrogen cylinder that was found. Most of the debris was from the WWII era. The barrels were taken to Roberts Landfill. The material in the barrels was probably calcium carbide that had been expended. It was screened for a broad range of volatiles, semi-volatiles and hazardous chemicals. Nothing exceeding any risk criteria was found. Clean fill was put over the bottom of the pond.

      Mr. Scudato asked how much material was removed and if consideration was given for removing all of the material that was in either of the two landfills to a centralized facility. Mr. Murphy said the debris and a small amount of contaminated sediments were removed. At the other landfill, the objective was to put clean cover and re-establish good drainage because the subsurface sampling didn't identify contamination that would pose any significant risk. There was a slightly elevated hazard index based on the ecological exposure that was removed by placing a two-foot cover and preventing access. Neither site will be monitored. Mr. Cora said the cover was placed pursuant to state regulation. There was no hazard or risk associated with the underlying material. There probably would not have been action except for the exposed metal and debris. Mr. Scudato asked if there was a permeability requirement for the cover. Mr. Murphy said there was no permeability requirement for the cover on that landfill.

   6. BRAC Environmental Cleanup Team (BECT) and Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Meeting Briefings.

      Ms. Miller had no report because the scheduled meeting was cancelled.

   7. Runoff at Roberts Landfill.

      Mr. Murphy said there was some ponding from the snowmelt. The drainage area has been drained, and berming has been re-established. It's a recurrent problem in the spring, but once berms and drainage are improved it can be managed. The operations are back to normal at Roberts.

3. Public Comments.

   Mr. Gates re-emphasized that all the gestures of including the community are coming at the 11th hour, and leave no ability for anyone to influence the ROD. Mr. Gates said that ROD should not be signed until the community can give feedback and suggest changes. The process should be slowed down. Mr. Gromoff requested in writing that ADEC intervene to slow the process down. The community wants to influence the decisions and not just have the ROD imposed upon them.

4. Adak RAB Meeting Location.

   Mr. Gromoff said that when he visits Adak he would ask community members to join the RAB. Mr. Stoll asked if RAB meetings were held on Adak how would the Anchorage members would be included. Mr. Gromoff said the Anchorage RAB members possessed critical institutional knowledge and that it was important to maintain that knowledge base. Mr. Gromoff asked what the Navy's budgetary options were for travel to Adak. Mr. Murphy said that if having meetings in Adak as opposed to Anchorage would better facilitate community participation, the Navy could arrange funding to send himself and Mr. Stoll to Adak. The Navy has no budget to send Anchorage RAB members to Adak. Mr. Stoll agreed.

   Mr. Murphy questioned the need for continued monthly meetings. The Operable Unit (OU)-A ROD is about to be signed. The outstanding issues relate to UXO and OU-B. There may be other BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) cleanup issues outside the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process. If there are no developments related to the UXO issues, there doesn't seem to be a productive purpose to have a RAB meeting.

   Mr. Gromoff said he felt monthly meetings are still needed. Mr. Gromoff stated that he has been very disappointed with the reports of remediation, scopes of work and the final close outs of projects provided by the Navy. Mr. Gromoff said there has been no specific, detailed input on what the contractors are finding and what happened. The RAB has to just assume that the work is being done satisfactorily. Mr. Gromoff said he felt the RAB has a fiduciary responsibility to know exactly how the remediation work is being carried out.

   Ms. Miller said she is very concerned that the ROD process is being rushed. There are some very serious outstanding issues that the RAB has consistently raised that are not being addressed. For example, the draft ROD is still not in the repository. The librarian said the repository has not been updated since January. Mr. Murphy responded that he specifically directed URS to place copies in the information repository. Mr. Murphy said there might be some confusion at the repository. Ms. Goldstein said that the library does not put records in the repository, URS does. She confirmed that the draft ROD was put in the repository. Maintenance of the repository is difficult because the library will not do it. Ms. Miller said the draft ROD was not on list of documents. She asked the librarian to look for it, and it was not there. The librarian will not let individuals look for documents. Ms. Miller said she felt major concerns had not been addressed and now the ROD is about to be signed. Dr. Scudato was just brought on board for technical assistance, which should have happened months ago. The TAPP grant was done in January with the hope that the RAB would have some influence on the ROD. Ms. Miller said she was upset about the situation.

   Mr. Bourdokofsky said he is in a state of confusion and that the RAB jumps from subject to subject and that there is a lot of information missing. Mr. Bourdokofsky questioned why the base was secure for so long. Finger Bay wasn't discussed much even though submarines went there and there could be waste there or someplace else. Mr. Bourdokofsky said he did not know what he has accomplished over three years with the RAB.

   Ms. Grisco said she appreciated why the Navy did not want monthly meetings, but that she shares Ms. Miller's concerns and Mr. Bourdokofsky's confusion. Now that there is technical assistance available and a window of opportunity over the next few months, it is important to meet regularly. There is also a growing community on Adak, and there is an ongoing discussion of whether the community wants to be more involved when, in fact, the institutional memory and ability is in Anchorage. The Anchorage RAB members are in the best position to take advantage of the technical assistance.

   Mr. Ehrhart said the Anchorage RAB members have more than a vested interest in the issues and have more than adequately represented all the interests of Alaska in Adak. The Adak community members should be included through the telephonic connection; however, the process would be sold short if the Anchorage meeting location were abandoned. As far as frequency of meetings, Mr. Ehrhart said as a taxpayer he sympathizes with the Navy's position, but as long as there are activities on island and a genuine interest from the RAB to be directly involved, meeting once a month would not be unreasonable.

   Mr. Lekanof felt that meeting once a month is often enough, and that the meetings should be held in Adak because those people will have to live with the decisions made. Meetings on Adak should be done, even if only the Navy can go there. The Anchorage members could attend by telephone. Perhaps every other meeting could be located on Adak.

   Mr. Stoll said there are many issues and it is difficult to fully discuss at a 1-1/2 hour RAB meeting what the Navy spends weeks working on in between. Mr. Stoll said it is a difficult job for RAB members to keep up on reading and issues. Mr. Stoll said the RAB has had an impact. For example, the work on Sweeper Creek and SWMU 17 are a direct result of the RAB's input. If the meetings are moved to Adak, new people who become involved will not know very much about the process. Mr. Stoll said the frequency of meetings is probably related to the complexity and number of issues. At future meetings, it may be helpful to take one or two issues and do a review from inception to completion so the RAB understands the reasons for the decisions.

   Mr. Murphy said the Navy's intention was not to arrive at a decision tonight regarding the frequency and venue of meetings. The Adak community members' opinions should be considered before a decision is made. Mr. Murphy disagreed that a review of previous decisions and remedies would be helpful because the RAB may feel no better about the outcome than it does now. A review of the process may inappropriately raise expectations that the remedy selection will be changed.

   Mr. Bourdokofsky said his state of confusion comes from not knowing exactly what has happened. He would like to see a road map of what was done and how the decisions were made. He is uneasy about the ROD being signed.

   Mr. Martin said he did not think the location of the meeting mattered as long as telephone contact is available. Mr. Martin felt that the real issue is that the ROD is about to be signed and the consultant was just brought on board. Mr. Martin asked what the RAB's role would be once the ROD is signed. Mr. Stoll responded that RAB's role is essentially finished on those issues. However, OU-B and non-CERCLA issues remain for RAB consideration. Mr. Murphy said the RAB could continue to review reports, monitor results, and can voice an opinion of whether the remedies are protective.

   Ms. Miller said she felt a personal obligation to make sure the remedies are good, and that the long-term monitoring plan is effective. Ms. Miller said she would be maintaining scrutiny for a long time, and that the RAB's job is not anywhere near complete. Mr. Murphy said he didn't mean to imply there was nothing for the RAB to do; however, future meetings should continue to be productive. If items from the ROD continue to be on the agenda and discussed, it might imply that the Navy was revisiting decisions already made.

   Mr. Gromoff said he thought the RAB members were feeling rushed by the ROD. The RAB doesn't have a comfort level with the ROD. The reason for the RAB's uneasiness may be poor communication. Mr. Gromoff said that having the Navy follow the same procedures in the Lower 48 does not satisfy him because Alaska is different. There is a wildlife refuge to deal with, and that whatever happens to Adak affects all the Aleutian Islands. The people in the Aleutians depend very heavily on subsistence. RABs in the Lower 48 expect to be involved for a long time because of the long-term monitoring. Mr. Gromoff stated that it is the RAB's fiduciary responsibility to insure that its institutional knowledge is transferred to the Adak community. Mr. Gromoff felt that the Anchorage RAB should be kept intact. The Adak community is a transitional community. Once Adak gains second class city status, then island residents should take over responsibility. The earliest that second class city status will happen is in March 2000. The RAB has tried hard to keep up with the information, but a lot of times information regarding remediation has not been complete. Mr. Gromoff said he felt very strongly that the RAB should visit Adak and suggested that perhaps the National Guard could provide transportation. The RAB keeps bringing up the same issues because it is not comfortable with the decisions and remediation. Mr. Gromoff said he is adamantly opposed to institutional controls and wants a plan to phase them out completely.

   Mr. Murphy said he has no problem briefing the RAB on past projects, but briefings should not raise expectations that decisions will be reopened. No one will be completely happy with the decisions made, but decisions must be made and monitored.

   Mr. Oates acknowledged previous comments about confusion, the length of the process, the Adak community's learning curve, and the request for retrospective reviews of decisions and work carried out. Mr. Oates said that in the OU-A ROD there is a one-page road map that lists all the sites, and states how the decisions were made. As part of the transition of informing the community, it might be helpful to look at that one-page summary at a RAB meeting. Perhaps that should be discussed as part of the basic education of the Adak community. For example, explanations can be given why some sites were investigated only once and no action was taken, why others were cleaned up and closed, while others were cleaned to a certain level and placed on long-term monitoring. That would have educational benefits for those on Adak and better inform the RAB. Mr. Oates agreed with Mr. Murphy that reviewing 93 CERCLA sites and over 500 petroleum sites for the purpose of questioning decisions is inappropriate. A lot of the cleanups were completed very well. There would be a benefit of having the RAB go out and review sites. Mr. Oates felt that would help the RAB's comfort level. There are sites that do need additional work, such as the metals landfill, but that does not necessarily mean the wrong decision was made. It simply means additional work is necessary. The RAB does have a role and should have input on these sorts of things. There is a point where a decision must be made if for no other reason than the Navy's funding program. If money is spent on remedial action with is no decision document, the contractors are proceeding at risk and in some cases, the Navy command may not fund the project. The Navy's command is more flexible than the Air Force. Currently, if there is no decision document for an Air Force site in Alaska, the Pacific Air Command will not provide funding.

   Mr. Cora said that the ROD process is designed to come to closure. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed two years ago. To say that the decisions should be re-evaluated brings up the question of how that would be done. For example, would the data just be reviewed or would another RI/FS be needed? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is very satisfied with the decisions, which were made with the input of the RAB and the community. A new OU has been created (OU-B) and Sweeper Creek is being dredged. An enhanced monitoring plan will be performed even though there are very low levels of PCBs in the sediments. Everyone will be not completely happy with the decisions. The process is designed so sites can be cleaned up as quickly as possible without rushing. Conversely, other people may be frustrated that it has taken three years to do the cleanup. The Navy has done the cleanup work very aggressively without a decision document. The Navy has made a risky decision to spend over $2 million without a signed agreement. The EPA believes there is nothing else that could be done in Sweeper Creek. Perhaps if the data was reviewed again, the decision may not be to dredge. EPA wants to proceed with signing the ROD because enough data has been generated to warrant it. Not every data gap can be addressed. The Adak community must be addressed. The RAB is 800 miles away. It could be challenged legally under Superfund that the RAB meetings are held too far away from the community that exists on the site. EPA could easily request that the meetings be held on Adak. However, the RAB is a Department of Defense (DoD) function and Mr. Cora said he was not suggesting that the Anchorage meetings be discontinued. But if the community says it wants the meetings held on Adak, he felt there was no choice. Mr. Cora said the Navy has done practically everything in the proposed plan that people commented on. The only issue was really the characterization of Sweeper Cove. If there are problems with a remedy, it will be re-evaluated. For example, if the cap is not sufficient at metals landfill, it will be fixed.

   Mr. Ehrhart asked what the value is of investing in the TAPP grant at this late stage. Mr. Cora said he felt it was in determining how monitoring would be done, the trigger points, the indicator species, and the frequency so that the RAB would have comfort in knowing that samples represent the area. Mr. Cora said he didn't feel there was value in using the TAPP grant to review Sweeper Creek. The monitoring of Adak will be a significant part of the remedy because there are unanswered questions. There are elevated levels of contamination in biota, but no hot spot was found in the sediments. Perhaps that can be confirmed through monitoring.

   Mr. Oates said he agreed with Mr. Cora. The best use of Dr. Scudato's expertise is review of the monitoring plan. For instance, are PCBs in the biota of Adak similar to other parts of the country, particularly for subsistence species? Even if the TAPP was in place six months ago, the only other action for Sweeper Creek was to dredge it or cap it. In both cases, the biota we're attempting to protect would be eliminated. It is thought that the terrestrial sources have been eliminated. Monitoring will show if the biota is able to purge and stabilize at lower levels of contamination. If that does not happen, the Navy is fully aware that the remedy may be revisited. Mr. Oates said he felt that even with earlier technical assistance that the decision would not be different.

   Mr. Gromoff said that there would be feedback provided to the RAB arising from the tour of Adak. Mr. Gromoff said that he feels the RAB needs to go to Adak. Mr. Gromoff will contact the National Guard to inquire about transportation for the RAB to Adak.

   Mr. Murphy requested that after the tour of Adak and community input, some specific proposal be made for venue and frequency of RAB meetings. Mr. Gromoff said that it had already been decided that monthly meetings continue. Mr. Murphy asked how that could be determined before considering the community's viewpoint. Mr. Gromoff said that until the municipality is in place, the community is still transitional. People cannot remain on island unless ARC sponsors them. The issue will be discussed with the community. Mr. Gromoff recommended that the RAB meetings continue in Anchorage until the second class city status is in place. Mr. Martin added that Adak is still a Navy facility and there is no private land in existence yet.

   Ms. Miller suggested that August would be a good time to have a core group of RAB members and Dr. Scudato to travel to Adak. Mr. Murphy said the construction projects would be done in July.

5. Public Comments.

   A member of the public asked about the status of conflict regarding the UXO issues. Mr. Cora said that in the next day or so EPA would send out a package to initiate a formal dispute. The dispute is that the Navy prepared a work plan that did not meet EPA's expectations in that it did not follow EPA's guidance and it did not address the comments. The work plan was never approved but the Navy is proceeding with the work anyway. A second issue is that if land transfer is to occur, the UXO must be cleared. The Navy's statistical evaluation is not sufficient to prove or disprove the existence of UXO. The dispute will go through the EPA, ADEC and the Navy, and then to the regional administrator of EPA, the Navy's commanding officer, and Jennifer Roberts and Michelle Brown of ADEC. After that it goes to the administrator of EPA. At the first level, pursuant to the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA), decisions are supposed to be made within 21 days. Decision time frames can be extended.

   Mr. Michael Adams spoke about his five years of cleanup work on all the Aleutian Islands right after WWII. He stated that one of his jobs was cleanup on Attu where they loaded freight, including heavy machinery, equipment, oil drums and ammunition on to 10,000 ton ships. Mr. Adams suggested that the Aleutian Islands stay the way they are and that they be used as a bombing range. He also said that cleanup is a waste of time and money because it's unbearable to live out there. Mr. Adams also worked on Adak. He stated that there was no control on the disposal of items. Mr. Adams worked for the Army transport service. Mr. Lekanof said he was worried about the contamination of the food chain and natural resources. Mr. Adams said Elmendorf is one of the most contaminated sites in the nation, while Adak is not that big and is too far away. Mr. Adams felt that cleanup is a waste of time.

6. Set Date and Tenative Topics for Next Meeting

   Mr. Gromoff asked that the following topics be discussed at the next meeting:

   • Review each of the sites and discuss closure.
   • Presentation on the procedure and time frame to reopen the ROD if the remedies are not protective or if something new is discovered.

   Mr. Cora said that in general if a site is delisted from the NPL, it could be relisted immediately.

   • Review of all the SWMUs, i.e., what was closed, what was accepted, etc.

   r. Gromoff will present a report of the public meeting on Adak.

   Mr. Lekanof requested a report of the UXO removal.

7. Meeting Adjourned.

   The next meeting was scheduled for July 14, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The following meeting was tentatively scheduled for August 18, 1999 so that Dr. Scudato can attend, and to arrange a potential RAB trip to Adak. Ms. Miller suggested that Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) health assessment visit be coordinated with the August meeting and Dr. Scudato. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:26 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