The Adak Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) met for its regular monthly meeting on March 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. (Anchorage time) and 6:00 p.m. (Adak time). The RAB met at the Holiday Inn, 239 W. 4th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska. Some participated by telephone conference from Adak, 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 7:12 p.m. A quorum was present. The agenda was amended to reverse the order of items I(d)(a) and I(d)(b) to allow new RAB members to vote in the election of the new community co-chair.

   1. Approval of the October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999 and January 26, 2000 meeting minutes.

      IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Ehrhart AND SECONDED by Ms. Grisco that the minutes of the October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999 and January 26, 2000 meetings be approved as written. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

   2. General Announcements.

      There were no general announcements.

   3. Administrative Issues
      
      
      1. New RAB Member Candidates
         
         

         IT WAS MOVED by Mr. Krukoff AND SECONDED by Ms. Villa that Patty Vessel, Keith Martin, Charlotte Gisvold, Carl Calugan, Laura Calugan, and Chris Gates become RAB members. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

         Action Item: Richard Stoll or Cathy Villa will notify Mr. Arterburn and Ms. Hendrickson that they have not been attended enough RAB meetings.

      2. Election of New Community Co-Chair

         Cathy Villa was unanimously elected as the new community co-chair.

      3. Quorum Requirements

         There are now 20 RAB members. Attendance of at least 10 RAB members is now required to establish a quorum.

      4. Bylaws Discussion

         Ms. Villa suggested that the discussion regarding the bylaws be deferred to the next meeting to allow the new RAB members time to review the materials. Action Item: Ms. Villa will copy bylaw information and distribute it to Adak RAB members.

         1. Concerns, Issues, Questions.

            Administrative note: Mr. Bergerson has relocated will no longer be a member of the Adak RAB. There were no other concerns, issues, or questions.

2. Project Updates and Questions and Answers
   
   
   1. OUB & UXO Process Update
      
      

      Mr. Murphy provided a handout entitled "Operable Unit 'B' Status Update, March 8, 2000, Adak RAB Meeting" to the Anchorage attendees. Action Item: The handout, "Operable Unit 'B' Status Update, March 8, 2000, Adak RAB Meeting" will be attached to the 3/8 meeting minutes and distributed to Adak in the next RAB packet. See attachment for content of Mr. Murphy's report. Mr. Murphy said comments from community members regarding OUB deliverables are strongly encouraged.

      Mr. Oates said the next step in the hazard analysis is linking the data to determine whether additional investigation, cleanup evaluations, etc. is necessary. He explained that a site is given "No Further Action" classification if no ordnance are found or if spent bullet casings are the only debris found. Mr. Krukoff said he agreed with Mr. Gates regarding the no further action (NFA) sites. Mr. Krukoff said some of the NFA site classifications were embarrassing because they were simply based on visual inspections. Mr. Murphy said that a visual inspection was never the sole basis for a NFA decision. Mr. Krukoff said he wanted to avoid the problems that happened with OUA where the community was involved at the 11th hour and had little input on decisions. Mr. Murphy said one RAB member could not properly represent the entire RAB if they were to participate on the OUB project team. Mr. Krukoff said ARC has full-time people who could participate.

      Mr. Murphy will provide a full hazard assessment approach briefing at the next meeting. Mr. Gates expressed concern that there would be insufficient time for the RAB to comment on the work plans and assessments. Mr. Murphy said no final decision would be made until after a proposed plan is issued. All documents are available for review in the information repository and in the environmental library on Adak.

      Mr. Stoll said that when the OUB project team was formulated it included A/PIA and TAC. Mr. Stoll asked what Mr. Gromoff's current status was with the ordnance project team? Mr. Murphy said he had not seen a formal notice regarding Mr. Gromoff's status, but had been told that he will no longer represent TAC on the OUB project team. Mr. Krukoff confirmed that a letter was issued following the board meeting that Mr. Gromoff no longer represented TAC. Mr. Murphy added that TAC had not yet designated a replacement. Mr. Gates said that Mr. Gromoff represented TAC on a number of formal and informal boards that are now reassigning the vacant position. Mr. Gates said he did not believe that TAC's board of directors was aware that a replacement was needed, but that someone will be appointed to take Mr. Gromoff's place in the near future.

      Mr. Gates requested that community representation be included on the OUB project team. Mr. Murphy said the project team was established due to a formal dispute and the project team members were designated specifically as part of the dispute resolution. There is a community relations plan in place that seeks community input and involvement, which includes RAB meetings and fact sheets. Mr. Gates said he felt that detailed information should be distributed to the community to prevent future frustrations, concerns, and questions. Mr. Gates requested that an appeal be made to add a community participant. Mr. Murphy cautioned that participation in the OUB project team is a full-time commitment occurring during normal business hours. It requires significant resources for travelling and teleconference participation. The project team meetings can last for several days and regular teleconferences are scheduled. Mr. Krukoff said ARC has at least two members who could be involved with the project team. Mr. Gates said that even though the community representative may not have the resources to participate in every meeting, the opportunity to do so is important, as well as access to the written materials. This would allow the community to make comments and suggestions. Mr. Murphy said he did not think anyone on the project team would oppose community involvement, but it would need to be discussed. Mr. Oates agreed with Mr. Murphy and added that the project team is not an exclusive process. The team should discuss ways to better distribute information to the community. Mr. Oates also agreed that the project team is a lot of work. Mr. Murphy said anyone is free to communicate requests for community participation. Mr. Stoll added that the project team must decide how people may or may not participate.

      Mr. Gates was pleased with the data distributed from Mr. Gromoff's office in November 1999; however, there have been no RAB briefings since then. Mr. Gates said he felt it was wise to allow more participation and information distribution.

      Mr. Stoll stated that Mr. Gromoff was appointed to the project team because at the time, he fulfilled many rolls. It was envisioned that Mr. Gromoff could distribute information easily to TAC, ARC, A/PIA, and the RAB. Now that Mr. Gromoff has left the project team, that vacancy will have to be discussed by the project team. Mr. Stoll said the community relations plan is a method by which the project team keeps the community informed. Mr. Krukoff pointed out that in the OUA, the community was not part of the project team and was to receive information through a community relations plan. However, there remained many unanswered questions. Mr. Krukoff expressed concern that OUB would be closed without sufficient community participation. Mr. Stoll said it was good that community concerns were brought up, and encouraged further participation.

      Mr. Murphy said the project team meeting minutes could be reviewed by anyone, and suggested that the minutes be included in the RAB packet in the future. Ms. Miller said the community relations plan was vague because it did not explain the formal opportunities the RAB and the community would have to influence the process.

      Mr. Gates suggested that the RAB take a vote to advise the Navy that a community project team participant would be in order. Mr. Oates felt this was a fine recommendation. Mr. Oates said the project team has looked to TAC and A/PIA as representatives and conduits to the community. Mr. Oates said if an additional person is added he hopes he/she will be from on Adak. Action Item: Ms. Calugan volunteered to distribute project team information to the Adak community.

      Mr. Murphy invited suggestions on how to improve the community relations plan. Mr. Krukoff stressed that information must be distributed before decisions are made. Mr. Stoll said the project team needs to decide how best to distribute information. Mr. Oates said the community will definitely be involved in the decision making process. The team is still in the early screening and planning stage for OUB.

      Mr. Murphy said a community member might be overwhelmed with the large volume of project team information. The project team requires virtually full time dedication. He added that it is probably not reasonable to expect someone to participate effectively on the project team on a volunteer basis. Ms. Carr said not only were there logistic limitations, but also anyone joining the project team at this time would have to do additional work to become informed on the historical details.

      Mr. Stoll said a Web site is online at www.adakupdate.com. He suggested that the OUB project team information be added to the Web site. Mr. Oates said there have been frequent discussions regarding how to develop better community involvement.

      Ms. Calugan noted that the work plan is due March 30, 2000 and the fieldwork is scheduled to begin in May. She expressed concern that there was insufficient time for the RAB to influence decisions. Mr. Murphy said the details supporting the decision for each site is available in the draft preliminary assessment report by Foster Wheeler (three binders) and can be commented upon. There is nothing that prevents a NFA decision from being revisited. Mr. Stoll said comments can be made at the RAB meetings, letters can be written, and the Web site will be interactive in the near future. RAB members may wish to review the agency comments to the preliminary assessment rather than digesting the three-volume assessment.

      Mr. Murphy said a fact sheet/newsletter is in development that will explain the OUB process in lay terms. Action Item: A fact sheet/newsletter explaining the OUB process will be distributed in March.

      Mr. Krukoff asked when the work in OUB and the petroleum sites would be finished? Mr. Murphy said the original schedule called for completion in 2001, however that may need to be extended.

   2. Petroleum Recovery System and Petroleum Sites Update
      
      

      Mr. Stoll said that a fact sheet was sent last week by mail and Adak should receive it very soon.

      Ms. Villa said that she heard some of the wells would be cleaned with chlorine, and expressed her concern that the wells have not been redeveloped since 1997. She felt that data collected in 1997 could not be accurate, some of the wells were not even producing water. Ms. Villa said she did not understand why the wells were not redeveloped as required. Ms. Gisvold said that not enough is being done to make sure the wells are reading properly and there are not enough wells to make a full assessment. Mr. Stoll said that well redevelopment is not required and the fact sheet addresses some of these issues. Action Item: Mr. Stoll said he was not aware of any attempt to treat the wells with chlorine, and will follow-up on that issue.

      Mr. Stoll recalled that Mr. Langston Walker had reported that the wells had been redeveloped in 1997 and the pumping system was upgraded. Following that large expenditure, only a small, temporary spike in the oil recovery percentage was observed, afterwards, recovery levels returned to historical levels. The issues are currently being reviewed to determine what actions need to take place.

      Ms. Gisvold said the Navy had referred to the oil spill as "alleged." She did not feel the subject was being taken very seriously, even with the knowledge that someone was jailed following the spill. Mr. Murphy said the spill itself is not considered "alleged," only the quantity of the spill is alleged. It had been estimated anecdotally that 10,000 to millions of gallons of fuel were spilled due to a leaking pipeline. Ms. Villa asked if there would be further research into the issue? Mr. Gates said the RAB needs more information about this. If someone is in jail, there must be some reference to the volume of oil spilled in the legal documents. Information from the criminal prosecution should be found and provided to the RAB.

   3. Long-Term Comprehensive Monitoring Plan/ICMP Update
      
      

      Mr. Stoll said there is an ICMP plan available in the repository and there was nothing new to report.

      Ms. Miller asked if there was a formal comment procedure? Mr. Stoll said comments would be accepted at any time.

      Mr. Gates said that the petition to form a second class city has been pending for quite some time. Last week the Local Boundary Commission recommended that the second class city petition be denied for three reasons. The community feels that compelling information to overturn the recommendation is available. The ICMP assumes that ordinance mechanisms would be available to implement institutional controls. If the second class city petition were denied, ordinance and zoning mechanisms would not be available. Mr. Gates wanted to alert every one of the potential problem, but felt the community would be successful in gaining second class city status. Mr. Stoll said if second class city designation does not come about, the ICMP will be reviewed.

      Mr. Krukoff said a draft of the proposed ordinance language is needed. Mr. Stoll said he thought the draft ordinances are being written by John Gloiva of DCED. Mr. Gates said he was not aware of that. Mr. Stoll said he had not seen any drafts yet, and suggested that Mr. Krukoff contact Mr. Gloiva.

   4. TAPP Grant Renewal Status
      
      

      Ms. Miller was to write Dr. Scrudato's proposed scope of work based on RAB comments, but did not receive any input. Ms. Miller felt the three required tasks should be to assist the RAB in reviewing and commenting on the OUA long-term monitoring plan; reviewing and assisting the RAB members in making comments on the institutional controls plan; and hazard assessment for OUB.

      Mr. Gates said Dr. Scrudato did an issue summary on November 29, 1999, and asked where the response is? Mr. Murphy said the responses were prepared March 6, 2000 which was distributed to Adak and provided as a handout to Anchorage RAB members.

      Ms. Calugan said that some Adak community members felt that Dr. Scrudato had received a considerable grant but was withholding his conclusions until additional funding was provided. Ms. Villa, Ms. Miller, Mr. Krukoff, and Mr. Stoll all disagreed. Mr. Stoll (who reviews Dr. Scrudato's invoices) said he felt Dr. Scrudato had done much more work than he had charged for, and that much of Dr. Scrudato's work was akin to philanthropy. Ms. Villa felt Dr. Scrudato had given very good answers to RAB questions and Dr. Scrudato should be retained as the RAB consultant. Mr. Stoll added that if the RAB chose to retain another consultant, that the competitive bid process would be undertaken again, which would protract the process.

      IT WAS MOVED by Ms. Miller AND SECONDED by Mr. Ehrhart to retained Dr. Scrudato as the TAPP consultant. THE MOTION PASSED with unanimous consent.

      Mr. Stoll will wait for a task list from the RAB before moving forward with Dr. Scrudato's contract.

3. Public Comments.

   Mr. Gates said he had spoken with the dredging contractor, who said there were "buckets full" and "tremendous amounts" of oil-contaminated soils in the south end of Sweeper Creek. Mr. Gates inquired about the oil-contaminated soils. Mr. Stoll said the oil was the reason the soil was treated. The oil-contaminated soils were not land fillable so they were thermally desorbed. Mr. Murphy said the PCB contamination was low enough that it could have been disposed of without treatment at Roberts Landfill if the oil contamination was not present.

   Mr. Gates asked if the dredging removed all the oil-contaminated sediments? Mr. Stoll said he did not recall the specific oil concentration in the sediments. Mr. Murphy said the objective was to remove PCB contaminated sediments. That objective was met.

   Action Item: Mr. Krukoff requested that A/PIA's letter that generated the EPA's February 3, 2000 response be included in the RAB packet so that additional discussion could be had.

4. Set Date and Tentative Topics for Next Meeting

   Agenda topics will be set during the Review and Planning Conference Call set to occur within 15 working days of this meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for Saturday afternoon, April 15, 2000 in Adak (1:00 p.m. Adak time, 2:00 p.m. Anchorage time).

5. Meeting Adjourned.

   The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:31 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