The Adak Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met for its regular monthly meeting on July 14, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. The RAB met at the Holiday Inn, located at 239 West Fourth Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska.

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 7:02 p.m. A quorum was not initially present. Agenda items for a report on the UXO Focus Group and an update on the formal dispute were added. Later in the meeting, after a quorum was present, the agenda was approved.

   1. Approval of the June 9, 1999 meeting minutes.

      IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Ehrhart AND SECONDED by Mr. Bourdukofsky that the minutes of the June 9, 1999 meeting be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

   2. General Announcements

      There were no general announcements.

      1. Administrative Issues - New RAB Members on Adak.

         Mr. Murphy said that on June 10, 1999 he visited the information repository and discovered that two copies of the draft ROD were there. However, there were two separate indices, one of which was inaccurate and did not list the draft ROD. Action was taken to correct the problem and there is now a single, accurate index at the repository. Other improvements undertaken were labeling of the binder spines and removal of outdated documents. In addition, the librarian has been instructed to allow materials to be checked out. Mr. Murphy left a phone number with the librarian so that if requested information is not available, the appropriate persons can be contacted. Mr. Murphy felt the information in the repository was very complete, but it could have been better organized. A full set of repository items are available for use on Adak.

         Concerns, Issues, and Questions

         For the benefit of Adak community members, Mr. Stoll said that comments and questions are welcomed on all issues.

         Mr. Ehrhart asked if the June 9, 1999 letter from Jennifer Roberts of ADEC to Robert Uhrich of EFA NW had been answered. Mr. Oates said that Ms. Roberts letter was a reply to a previous Navy letter. Mr. Stoll said the Navy does not plan on replying to Ms. Roberts' letter. Mr. Oates asked if the letter clarified the state's position that it supports the lease program. Mr. Stoll said the Navy and the Aleuts are presently in discussions relating to the lease renewal, including the longevity of the subsequent master lease. Mr. Oates said ADEC supports the lease program as an interim step to provide a bridge to transfer.

         Mr. Cora asked if Dr. Scudato has made progress in evaluating the PCB data. Mr. Stoll said he did not know, but that a great deal of information had been sent to Dr. Scudato. Dr. Scudato plans to attend the next meeting.

2. PROJECT UPDATES AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
   1. Review of ROD Decisions.

      Mr. Murphy said that following the RAB members' concerns that they did not have a complete understanding of how decisions were arrived at for the OU-A ROD for both CERCLA and petroleum sites, the Navy had committed to re-presenting information for educational purposes. Mr. Murphy suggested that OU-A ROD itself be used as a framework for categorizing the sites and the decisions that were made. For example, the sites could be divided for review as described below.
      
      

      1. No further action sites. These sites are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 in the draft ROD. Figure 4-1 lays out the process that was used to arrive at decisions for all sites.
      2. Remedial action sites. These sites are listed in Tables 7-1, 7-2 and 7-4. These are sites that required some remedial action such as institutional controls or some other more intensive remedial action.
      3. How the remedial action alternatives were developed and how remedies were selected. Tables 8-1, 8-2 and 9-4 in the draft ROD describe the remedial alternatives for the CERCLA and petroleum sites.

      Mr. Murphy suggested that at future meetings, the Navy and the agencies could explain how decisions were made, how remedial actions were evaluated and how remedies were selected. Mr. Cora felt Mr. Murphy's categorization method was good. He added that No Further Action sites such as Finger Bay should also be discussed.

      Mr. Ehrhart requested that a separate, early notice to all RAB members addressing Mr. Murphy's suggested categorizations be sent so that they can more fully participate in the decision making process. Mr. Murphy agreed to provide the above-described ROD tables and a draft outline of his suggested framework for the next RAB packet. Mr. Ehrhart requested that the RAB members be given as much time as possible to review the materials before the next meeting.

      Mr. Lekanof asked if the three categories included UXO sites. Mr. Murphy said they don't. Mr. Lekanof asked if the categories included toxic materials. Mr. Murphy said that for the CERCLA and petroleum sites, each site's chemical toxicity was the basis for designating them in the first place, as opposed to the safety hazard from ordnance.

      Mr. Krievsaldt added that the more information provided the better. Mr. Murphy said the Adak community would receive all information on the same timetable as the rest of the RAB members.

      Mr. Cora said that the parties have been working on the OU-A ROD for a year. People have raised concerns that things might be missed or that cleanup levels are insufficient. Very specific justification is needed to show why the remedies would not be protective. EPA feels that the remedies are protective, and that the process has been followed. The same concerns have been raised for the last six months, and the explanations given still do not seem to be sufficient. Mr. Murphy said that the presentations would not be provided for the purpose of revisiting decisions unless new information is received. The Navy has no plans to delay signing the OU-A ROD.

      Mr. Lekanof asked if the ROD was final. Mr. Murphy said the ROD is virtually ready for signature. Mr. Lekanof said that tribal nation is on a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Mr. Lekanof said he did not believe the Aleut tribal nation had been consulted or communicated with properly on a government-to-government basis. Mr. Cora said the EPA's tribal office director, Scott Suficol, asked the 12 tribes whether they wanted EPA to treat them with a trust capacity on Adak. No indication was received that that was the tribes' intent. Mr. Gromoff disagreed. Mr. Gromoff said he understood that EPA would probably not recognize the United Aleut Nation (UAN). UAN has been tasked to work with EPA to get recognition. No response has been received from the EPA. Mr. Cora said he fully supports that, but that the request for trust capacity from the tribe must be made. Mr. Cora said The Aleut Corporation, a corporation, will receive property from the U.S. government. No one has told EPA that they want their sovereignty rights protected by the U.S. Government in the dealings with the Navy. EPA is treating the tribal interests as a corporation. A lot of comments have been received from the public, but that does not equate to a tribe. Mr. Cora said it is a very significant change on how EPA would relate to the situation.

      Mr. Gromoff said that the Aleut Corporation was trying to get tribal recognition through UAN. The legal position is still being evaluated. Mr. Cora said that Mr. Gromoff should contact Scott Suficol, and that EPA does not want to discourage tribal recognition. Mr. Lekanof said he thought the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, which represents the 12 tribes will probably prepare a statement for the dispute resolution committee. EPA takes this issue very seriously, but the relationship must be clearly defined. Mr. Murphy said that to his understanding, tribal recognition is separate from signing the OU-A ROD by the three signatories to the FFA. Mr. Cora said it's not so much different, but EPA will consider the tribal interests. Mr. Cora said tribal recognition might have no impact on finalizing the OU-A ROD, but it could have a significant impact if the EPA's regional administrator said that the tribe's interests were not adequately addressed. Even so, the remedies might stay the same.

      Mr. Martin pointed out that it was important that Mr. Lekanof specifically state what the tribes' interests are because in Alaska the corporation is the landowner, not the tribes. Mr. Lekanof will prepare a document that points out that the WWII/Aleut reparation bill requires that the environment to be cleaned up.

   2. Report of UXO Removal.

      Mr. Murphy said the UXO work undertaken by Foster Wheeler is still in progress. They are doing geophysical surveys and intrusive investigation. Geophysical surveys have been completed in Hammerhead Cove, the Lake Jean area, Zeto Point, Clam Lagoon, the magazine, Haven Lake, Finger Bay area, and Combat Range 8. Geophysical investigations are continuing in the Lake DeMarie area, Combat Range 3, and Combat Range 8. No geophysical work has been undertaken on Mount Moffett. The geophysical work is almost 50% done.

      Intrusive sampling has been done in the Hammerhead Cove area, Clam Lagoon area, Lake Jean, Zeto Point and Finger Bay. Generally, they are finding fewer than expected number of anomalies. The intrusive investigations are between 30% and 40% complete. Approximately 170 grids have been sampled or about 35% of the total number planned. 31 ordnance items have been discovered in all areas intrusively investigated to date. Items found include projectiles, mortars, practice grenades, flares, cartridge cases and fuse components. No analysis has been done yet to calculate an ordnance density in any of the areas. No risk assessment of the potential hazard associated with ordnance exposure has been done.

      Mr. Ehrhart asked where historical aircraft would have jettisoned armaments. Mr. Murphy said that he didn't believe anyone could give a specific location where ordnance might have been jettisoned. It has been speculated that it was jettisoned on the approach to the runways. It was also speculated that the ordnance disposal area approximately 12 miles off the north end of Andrew Bay was used for jettisoning unwanted ordnance. Mr. Ehrhart asked if there was standard operating procedure for jettisoning ordnance. Mr. Murphy said that to date the archival research has not uncovered any conclusive documentation about where that activity might have occurred. Mr. Ehrhart asked what the current standard operating procedure is. Mr. Murphy said he is not the right person to answer the question, but that he believed the Army managed that aspect of the campaign. Mr. Floro added that he was fairly certain that today the military does not dispose of armament or ammunition on the way into landing at a military air base.

      Ms. Gomes said that her historical research, and accounts of pilots and eyewitnesses during WWII, indicated that pilots made every effort to drop their loads on Kiska and Attu before returning to base. Severe weather conditions occasionally required that bombs be jettisoned. Pilots reported that generally bombs were jettisoned in the Bering Sea long before they reached Adak. Ms. Gomes said her research indicated that it was highly unlikely bombs were jettisoned near Adak.

   3. BECT and BTAG Meeting Briefings.

      Ms. Miller was not present to give the briefing.

   4. Report on Public Meeting on Adak.

      Mr. Gromoff said the meeting on Adak was successful. There needs to be more communication with the Adak community, and the community needs to be more involved. Mr. Gromoff has sent a letter to Michelle Brown regarding the community's comments (this letter will be included in the minutes packet). Mr. Murphy said that the Adak meeting showed that there is clearly a lot of community interest, and that their interests should be considered.

   5. Adak RAB Meeting Frequency and Location.

      Mr. Murphy said there should be more meetings on Adak, such as alternating the RAB venue between Anchorage and Adak with additional telephonic participation. Mr. Gromoff reported he had not had any success arranging for RAB transportation to Adak through the National Guard.

   6. Update on Formal Dispute.

      Mr. Oates reported that both EPA and ADEC have sent a formal dispute notice to the Navy. The first meeting of the Dispute Resolution Committee is scheduled for July 22, 1999 at EPA's Seattle offices. EPA and ADEC will make a joint presentation to the Dispute Resolution Committee regarding what they feel the nature of the dispute is. Then the Navy will present its view. The Aleut Corporation, Aleut-Pribilof Island Association (APIA) and USFWS have been asked to present written position statements and to be available either in person or by telephone to answer the committee's questions. From that meeting, it is hoped a resolution will be reached. A resolution at this level has to be unanimous; Lynn Kent of the ADEC; Mike Gearheard of the EPA and Captain Conaway of the Navy have to agree on what the solution is.

      Mr. Cora asked if APIA, TAC and USFW would attend. Mr. Lekanof said APIA would submit a letter, and attend by teleconference. Mr. Martin said USFWS already submitted a letter and that he would attend in person. Mr. Gromoff said he would attend in person.

   7. UXO Focus Group Briefing.

      Mr. Martin distributed documents entitled 1999 CPEO Military List Archive, by Lenny Siegel; Thoughts for the Benicia UXO Conference, by Ted Henry; a June 29, 1999 letter from USFWS to ADEC and the Range Rule Risk Methodology that he gathered at the UXO Focus Group meeting. Mr. Gromoff also attended. The meeting was held at Benicia, California, which is the site of a very old armory that is beginning to have problems with UXO and other issues. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss what information is necessary to make good risk management decisions, how characterization technologies are selected, how future land use relates to UXO remediation strategies, the reasonable standards for safety and reliability, and the proper roles of community members in the decision making process. Various RAB members throughout the country attended, as well as representatives from EPA, the State of California, and DoD UXO contractors.

      Mr. Martin said there was quite a bit of discussion about the Range Rule and the move to risk management versus risk assessment. Mr. Martin said he just learned that the Range Rule has been rescinded. Mr. Oates clarified the statement, and said R3M as a risk assessment methodology had been rescinded. Mr. Cora said that EPA does not accept Grid Stats/Site Stats or OECERTS either. The information in the handouts pertaining to R3M is no longer relevant.

      Mr. Martin said he learned that this is a national problem. WWII sites are exempt from the Range Rule. Mr. Martin said he requested that exemption be changed. Another important point was that DoD information was often incorrect because of lack of information. Lack of information does not mean UXO does not exist on a site. It was clear from other sites that institutional controls do not work, nor do deed restrictions. For example, a developer in California built houses on top of an old landfill. In another location, houses were built on old bombing ranges. In both cases, the deed mentioned the hazards; no one paid attention to it. Mr. Martin said no one at the conference could explain "how clean is clean." There was a lot of discussion that risk management was preferred over risk assessment, but the difference between the two was not clear.

      Mr. Gromoff said RAB members were not getting good information from the ARC and developers. There seemed to be a communication break among the various entities. Mr. Martin said part of the discussion focused on whether the cleanup drives reuse, or whether the reuse drives the cleanup. Ideally, the reuse should drive the cleanup, but there was a feeling that this did not occur in many places.

      Mr. Lekanof said he had been serving on the R3M partnering team for quite some time, and asked what happened because he had not been informed. Mr. Cora said that the Army Environmental Center (AEC) was managing the Range Rule. EPA authorized DoD to produce the Range Rule rather than EPA promulgating it. EPA in good faith had been allowing DoD to work out the regulations. About a week ago, after years of negotiating with DoD and commenting on models and proposals, EPA said AEC had not addressed its concerns in good faith. EPA's comments that the statistical methodology of Grid Stats/Site Stats and OECERTS should not be used were disregarded by AEC. In response, EPA rescinded R3M. The Range Rule is essentially at a dead end. It is not known what will happen next.

      Mr. Lekanof asked if the munitions group was disbanded too. Mr. Cora said the munitions rule is a promulgated rule under RCRA, but it postponed regulations for managing ranges. That's what the Range Rule was proposed to address. A group claimed ordnance and explosives were not being managed properly under RCRA and sued EPA. The court decided that rules must be promulgated. The first step EPA took was the munitions rule which determines when a solid waste becomes a hazardous waste under RCRA. EPA postponed promulgating laws and regulations to deal with military ranges and ordnance because EPA felt that the military is the national expert on the subject. National security and other things come into play on munitions management. Therefore, EPA gave the military some leeway to develop the law in joint partnership with EPA and the states. Mr. Cora said he did not know what would happen next. Mr. Lekanof expressed dismay about the wasted money and no results. Mr. Cora said he received a brief email that said the Range Rule was no longer on the table, and that was his only notice.

      Mr. Martin said USFWS had taken the position that any chosen remedy must allow refuge lands to be used as outlined under ANILCA, and that cleanup should not stop at the military reservation boundary.

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. Set Date and Tenative Topics for Next Meeting

   Mr. Cora, on Ms. Miller's behalf, requested that the next meeting be held August 18, 1999.

   IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Nash AND SECONDED by Mr. Ehrhart that the next meeting be held August 18, 1999 at the Holiday Inn. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

   Mr. Murphy will give a presentation on the decision making process undertaken for the OU-A ROD so that RAB members may make further suggestions on additional information they require for future briefings.

   Ms. Miller will present her BECT/BTAG briefing as well as a report on the National RAB Caucus.

   Dr. Scudato will give a report on the status of his work.

   The RAB will identify and implement the procedure for adding Adak members to the board. Mr. Darrington and Mr. Krukoff are no longer on-island and will not participate as RAB members.

5. Meeting Adjourned.

   The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for August 18, 1999. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:46 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