The meeting was held at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Offices in Anchorage, and the Bob Reeves High School Conference Room in Adak. In attendance were the following:

1. Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Cathy Villa called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM (Anchorage time). A quorum was present. Due to the late hours in New York, Pam Miller, moved that they postpone the administrative items to the end of the meeting and allow Dr. Scrudato to present his portion of the agenda.

2. Dr. Scrudato's Comments on the Focused Feasibility Studies:

For the purposes of the meeting, Dr. Scrudato presented his comments on the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) comments that were distributed on October 1, 2001. Those comments were in response to the Focused Feasibility Studies focusing on seven sites: The General Communications, Inc., site (GCI); .the Old Transportation Building (SA 78); Steam Plant No. 4 (SA 80); P-80/P81 Buildings (SA82); P-70 the Energy Generator, SWMU 58 and Heating Plant No. 6, (SA73); and Yakutat Hanger. Dr. Scrudato said his intent was to summarize the report for the RAB members rather than have them read the entire report. Dr. Scrudato stated the chemicals of concern were primarily gasoline range organics (GRO). He also mentioned that there were a number of criteria that had gone into setting the objectives and goals in the report. He said once he submitted his comments, he got feedback from Elim Yoon regarding the objectives and goals of the remediation, that is using the 18 AAC 78 Table C remediation objectives. He said that this information changed his comments somewhat; the DRO (diesel range organics) is set at 400 ppm, which seems quite high to him. He said he's not sure of the time factor involved, it wasn't clear in the feasibility study. He said there was some confusion with the "ten times factor" and whether or not it will be employed or not. Elim Yoon stated that the ADEC is not pursuing or accepting the 350 determinations and whether or not it is used as a drinking water source. Dr. Scrudato is aware that the Navy had not responded to ADEC or EPA's comments, and he wasn't sure of the status. Langston Walker joined in the conversation by telephone and stated that the Focused Feasibility Studies are a work in progress and that the Navy is looking at things a little differently now than they were six months ago. He said that what Dr. Scrudato reviewed is subject to change upon resubmission. Dr. Scrudato said he hoped that his comments submitted would be taken into consideration upon making the changes to the Draft FFS.

Dr. Scrudato said that it might be helpful for the members to take a look at Table 1 in the focused feasibility study in question. He said the table goes through the technologies most favored for the seven sites and he noted that his concerns were relative to the technologies. He said that thermal desorption will meet the soil remedial action objectives, but he was concerned about the volatile releases to the atmosphere. He said the Navy should guard against that type of release. Mr. Walker noted that there are seven sites, and he said that if hot vapor extraction were used, it would be evaluated by the EPA and State regulators to ensure it meets the appropriate criteria to protect the atmosphere. Mr. Walker noted that the State air quality group also reviews the reports. He said the Navy has to meet the air quality requirements. Dr. Scrudato asked if there was other geochemical data that would support the biofocus in the reports, that is bioslurping and whether or not aerobic biodegradation is effective. Dr. Scrudato asked when the next round of focused feasibility studies would be available. Mr. Walker noted that the data are still be evaluated and it would be a few months before the focused feasibility studies are available. Dr. Scrudato asked if indicator analyses are available for the biological alternatives. Mark Murphy asked for clarification on what type of information Dr. Scrudato wanted. Dr. Scrudato asked about dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrates, sulfates and those that would be used to evaluate the biological aspects of the sites and whether or not it is in reducing conditions. Dr. Scrudato also noted that methane would be a valuable parameter as well as well as nutrients available. Mr. Murphy said that the information is available and it would be forwarded to Dr. Scrudato. Pam Miller noted that there was a big span of uncertainty related to monitored natural attenuation, whether it be 20 years or 75 years, and she suggested the information would be valuable for evaluation of the alternative. Mr. Murphy said it was a fair statement, and the information would be sent to Dr. Scrudato. Ms. Miller also said that if it was possible to narrow the uncertainty with monitored natural attenuation and speed up the process, that would be valuable to evaluate. Mr. Murphy stated that he could not give a detailed answer, but the goal was to achieve monitored natural attenuation cleanup within 75 years of when the ROD was signed. He said there are only a few years of data available, which isn't sufficient to state one way or another whether it's effective. Ms. Miller stated that she wanted to put in her 2 cents worth and state it was unacceptable to have a 75-year timeframe without evaluating whether or not there are other processes to augment and speed it up. She said she'd like the data to go to Dr. Scrudato as soon as possible. Mr. Walker stated that the evaluation of other processes can be done at some sites, however, he said that right now we're tracking to ensure we can meet the monitored natural attenuation cleanup as stated in the ROD. He said the Navy would be utilizing the next five-year review to take a comprehensive look at the petroleum cleanup. Mr. Murphy also said that the Navy would be able to point out the studies that led to selecting monitored natural attenuation and point Dr. Scrudato in the direction of the data, which might address the data needs of the RAB. He said he would provide a short list of references that come as close as possible to address what Dr. Scrudato might require. He said it might not include all the geochemical data Dr. Scrudato is requesting, however. Dr. Scrudato said that he recalled when he first got involved with Adak, there was an assessment of bioremediation, and he requested that information. Mr. Murphy pointed out that it was a study done by Harry Chapel, and it was a first-cut assessment. Mr. Murphy pointed out that he did not want to misspeak that there is a fairly significant portion of that in the focused feasibility study, and that in those discussions there is information as well. Dr. Scrudato said he would wait for Mr. Murphy's response regarding the availability of the data.

Dr. Scrudato also noted that it appears the sites focus only on DRO (diesel range organics) and GRO (gasoline range organics), and he suggested broadening the range of other types of contaminants that might have been used at the sites. He said one point comes to mind, that GRO used on Adak likely was leaded gasoline and lead should be analyzed. Mr. Murphy stated that most of the contamination on Adak is DRO, that aside, he stated that when an underground storage tank was removed, it followed the investigative procedures and it evaluated whether or not lead was present. Dr. Scrudato said that there is a power plant evaluated; he asked if anyone thought to look for transformer fluid. Mr. Murphy said that if there was a release at the site, it was addressed under a broader investigative approach under CERCLA if there was a reason to suspect anything beyond petroleum. He said this would have included PCBs, metals, and solvents. He said that the feasibility studies are evaluating the cleanup of petroleum, and the other contaminants were evaluated under CERCLA. Dr. Scrudato said he doesn't know why, for instance, at P70 that it was a generator and the site is focusing on petroleum. Mr. Murphy noted that the confusion is from how the Navy labels their underground storage tanks. He said the Navy identifies its tanks by the nearest building, that is why the P70 tank is also called P70. He said it has nothing to do with the generator building, but the tank associated to that building.

Elim Yoon asked Mr. Walker if the Navy intends to respond to the comments received. Mr. Murphy stated that it was envisioned that the RAB members would evaluate Dr. Scrudato's comments and identify those that they believe are relevant to them, and then the Navy would respond to the comments submitted by the RAB. Mr. Murphy stated that it was his assumption that all the RAB members were given Dr. Scrudato's comments, however, to ensure they have received them, the Navy would have OASIS resend them to the RAB members. Mr. Murphy asked the RAB members to review the comments and come to a consensus regarding the appropriate comments. Mr. Murphy also noted that the comments may be evolving, that is, the document is also evolving. He did note however, that regardless of the evolution, he thought it was important that the RAB members comment on the alternatives available. Dr. Scrudato also requested that he gets copies of the appropriate documents as soon as they are available for review, it appears that he has gotten them too late for comments. Mr. Walker agreed to provide them to Dr. Scrudato when they become available for review. Dr. Scrudato asked when that might happen. Mr. Walker said the focused feasibility studies will be revised and then proposed plans would be distributed for public comment. He said that March would be too soon, but April will have 5 focused feasibility studies ready. Elim Yoon said that there would have to be a review of the revised focused feasibility studies prior to going to a proposed plan so everyone is on the same page. Dr. Scrudato stated if it's possible to all get there together, that would be preferable. Elim suggested that the Navy send the master schedule around again; she noted that the last one was sent out in October 2001 and it would be good to see what changes have been made. Mr. Murphy agreed to send a working copy out to the regulators.

Dr. Scrudato also suggested having a RAB meeting prior to sending out the proposed plans to ensure there is understanding of what they will be reading. It was also suggested that OASIS sends out comments and responses to comments once a month, rather than waiting until the next RAB meeting on March 13. Much ground can be covered in a few months. Ms. Yoon also suggested that the RAB members meet sometime in February to discuss the petroleum comments, and then let the Navy know which ones are relevant. Mr. Murphy agreed, he also noted that it should be a community RAB member meeting without the Navy involvement. He said Dr. Scrudato might join in and help foster the discussion. Cathy Villa stated that they would have a RAB meeting without the agencies in mid-February. Agafon stated that he would be in Anchorage. Mr. Murphy said it would really be a benefit if the RAB community members could send their comments to him or Becky at OASIS.

3. Administrative:

   The previous meeting minutes should reflect the name Bernsen not Berenstein. Also, Senator Stevens' name was incorrectly spelled in Section 4, paragraph 3. The meeting minutes were approved as amended.

4. A/PIA Debris Removal Letter Response:

   Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy's response to Chris Riggio's letter was in the RAB packet, and it's self-explanatory. Keith Martin said he found the Navy's response unsettling and unsatisfactory in its "we're doing our job, sorry about the dog" response. Tim Roy also stated that the debris and the Rommel stakes should be addressed in the ATSDR document. Mr. Murphy stated that the ATSDR public health assessment has not been released as far as he was aware. He also stated that the Navy has gone a long way to address the Rommel stake removal and the ATSDR report may or may not have anything to address. He said the Public Health Assessment is an advisory document; it's not a regulatory document. Mr. Murphy stated that the ATSDR is required to provide a Public Health Assessment under CERCLA where sites are listed on the National Priority List, and typically it's done before RODs are signed. He said the ATSDR report has been under preparation for years. The last the Navy saw of the report was two years ago in a pre-release draft stage. He noted that the data in the pre-release report was 3 years old then, and the Navy provided significant comments at that time. He said he is concerned that if they provided a report 2-years ago with 3-year old data, he doesn't know what will happen two-years later and how old the data will have become. He said he noted that the Navy was not the only agency that felt that way; he said the State and EPA had similar comments on the report. Mr. Murphy stated that ATSDR does not do the public service when they make recommendations based on outdated information on the cleanup effort on Adak.

   Agafon Krukoff stated that he also did not care for the Navy's response concerning debris removal. He said that there would be a response to the response that will be first directed at APIA, and then to the RAB. He also noted that the Rommel stake funding used up their community development money. There was $15-million and the Navy used over $3.5 million. Mr. Walker noted that the Rommel stake removal was less than $2-million and it was a noted as a high priority by the community to have them removed. Keith Martin asked if the Navy was using more money from Office of Economic Assistance (OEA). Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy does not use the OEA funds for cleanup activities and that the Rommel stake removal was undertaken based on concerns expressed by the community.

5. Other Issues:

   Mark Murphy stated Dr. Estes is available to present a report on March 13. Mr. Murphy noted that the Navy previously selected that time frame for the petroleum work plans, and it can be adjusted if the RAB members are unable to make that date.

   Mr. Murphy also said that the OU B-1 ROD was signed in December by the Navy, EPA and ADEC. Mr. Murphy also noted that the Navy did send out their responses to ARC's comments and they did not hear back. Tim Roy stated that he had not reviewed them in depth.

   Mr. Murphy asked if Mark Burnham was able to find the Rommel stakes mentioned in the last meeting. Mr. Burnham noted that there were a few on the side of a cliff, but they were not accessible to where people would be going. He said they did not finish going through Palisades Landfill, the grass was too high.

   Cathy Villa asked if the pipeline removal project was going to take place this field season. She said it was taken off the priority last year, and she wanted to know if it made it as a priority this year. Mr. Murphy stated that it was scheduled to happen this field season and there is sufficient funding. Mr. Walker noted that there is a plan to clean and close 30,000 linear feet of pipeline this field season.

   Ms. Villa noted that other RAB agenda items for March 13, besides Dr. Estes, should be APIA/and other Debris Letter Response Responses/ARC's response to OU B-1 Responses/ and the South Runway 18-36 comments from Dr. Scrudato.

   The meeting adjourned at 8:45 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