Petroleum Issues:
Chris Gates said that it was his understanding that Power Plant 3; NMCB, and Tanker Shed were to be investigated this summer. Langston Walker said that Power Plant 3 and NMCB sampling began earlier in the month. Soil sampling is anticipated in late July/August timeframe. Additional work will include Arctic Acres, NORPAC Hill and Tanker Shed. The work will be scheduled as Bristol has the personnel available to perform the sampling. Mr. Walker anticipated that the field work would conclude in early September. Mr. Walker also stated that additional data would be gathered at SWMU 62 to feed into the focused feasibility study (FFS) process. That data collection is anticipated to be completed around August.
Mr. Gates asked if the Airport Ditch seep work was completed. Mr. Walker stated that the South Runway 18/36 and Airport Ditch work was awarded. The contractor will return and finish working on the culverts at the Airport Ditch within the next 10 days. Mr. Gates asked if there were any changes to the preliminary program that was presented to them in May/June. Mr. Walker stated that the projects are tracking as scheduled. He noted that funding was an issue earlier in the season; however, the petroleum projects are right where they were projected to be based on the field schedule. Chris Gates asked if there was free product recovery being performed at Arctic Acres, Tanker Shed, and NORPAC Hill. Mr. Walker said small amounts have been recovered. There were some mechanical problems with some of the recovery systems: however, they have been optimized and are back online. Mr. Walker noted that Tanker Shed is tracking to reach its endpoints this year.
The plan at Power Plant 3 is to take it off-line and shut down the lift station around the end of September. Mr. Walker noted that Power Plant 3 is not tracking to meet the endpoints this year with the particular system being used. Additional ways to handle the fuel recovery will be analyzed. Mr. Gates asked about Yakatat, and if this site was meeting its goals. Mr. Walker stated that Yakatat has met its endpoint for free product recovery: however, additional work will be discussed in the focused feasibility study.
Mr. Walker stated that as a follow-up to the last RAB, the housing units (160D and 142A) were inspected and it was agreed to by the Aleut Enterprise Corporation that they could be occupied. Both units had occupants who left the fuel turned on which subsequently had leaked. Repairs and soil removal was conducted last year.
Mr. Gates asked if the petroleum site cleanups were not complete, would EPA still issue a covenant deferral. Kevin Oates explained that the petroleum sites do not enter into the picture with a CERCLA 120(h) covenant deferral. Petroleum is not an impediment to transfer. Elim Yoon stated that there are two separate issues, the Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) and Petroleum Cleanup. One is a transfer agreement, not necessarily pertaining to petroleum cleanups. Petroleum cleanups will still continue under the applicable Alaska State laws. Kevin Oates emphasized that it does not mean the Navy walks away, the Navy as the lead agency, requires concurrence on the cleanup by the State of Alaska. The EPA's involvement is that the sites started out as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites that were integrated into CERCLA sites. He said that the State and The Navy have signed the State Adak Environmental Restoration Agreement (SAERA), and that EPA remains in the picture because of closure requirements under RCRA. He said it will be a similar situation as that at Elmendorf.
Mr. Oates stated that CERCLA does not have cleanup standards, it defers to other federal and state cleanup laws. In the case of petroleum, it is deferred to 18 AAC 75, and it's enforceable in the OU A ROD. There are no disagreements about the goals and objectives, they're clearly identified in the OU A ROD.
Mr. Walker explained that there might be confusion in the petroleum cleanup process and when documents are released and reviewed. He volunteered to give a presentation at the next RAB regarding the petroleum cleanup process being used.
Tim Roy asked if the NORPAC Hill seep is due to fuel lines. Mr. Walker stated that contractors investigated the area and did not located a UST. He noted that it was curious why there would be fuel lines so far away. He stated there is an ongoing investigation to locate the source of the seep. Tim Roy asked if it was an above-ground UST. Mr. Walker stated that there is not evidence of an aboveground fuel tank, however, the investigation may reveal more information.
Chris Gates asked whether the petroleum volumes recovered from the windmill recovery systems were available. Mr. Walker said that he would present the available data at the next RAB meeting. Mr. Gates also noted that the regulatory comments were very good regarding the focused feasibility study process and he wanted to know if the Navy planned on responding. Mr. Walker stated that there would be responses to comments. He said he met with Ms. Yoon and Mr. Oates on Monday to clarify their comments. As for the timeframe of the responses, he noted that the people working in the field would be the same people responding to the comments. As with the field work, the comment responses will be a work in progress.
Rommel Stakes:
Chris Gates asked whether the rommel stake report was available. Ms. Kelly stated that she had talked to Mr. Murphy and that it was ready and that Mr. Gates was on the distribution list.
Asbestos/Lead- based paint: Agafon Krukoff asked about the Navy's requirements for lead-based paint and asbestos surveys. He asked that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Mark Burnham explained that the lead-based paint survey will be conducted for the target housing this season. Chris Gates pointed out that the generator building was not included in the previous asbestos survey conducted by the Navy. Mr. Burnham stated that there was a 4-foot section of asbestos that was encapsulated and repaired. Mr. Gates questioned the completeness of the original asbestos survey. Mr. Burnham stated that Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion & Repair - Portsmouth, VA Environmental Detachment, Vallejo (SPPORTS), conducted a $15 million asbestos survey and abatement project. Copies of the survey and reports have been provided to The Aleut Corporation offices. Mr. Krukoff asked if there had to be disclosure upon transfer of the property. Mr. Gates stated the Navy has to disclose this information, and he reiterated his concern that other buildings may have been missed. He did complement the Navy on the work that was done: however, for real estate purposes, he had concerns for the transfer of the property. Mr. Burnham stated he was unaware of any other buildings besides the generator building in which asbestos-containing material was present and undocumented. Mr. Burnham agreed to present more information to the RAB.
Mr. Krukoff explained his concern regarding lead based paint was whether or not there would be restrictions on some of the homes. Mr. Burnham stated he would look into it and get back to the RAB.