RAB Meeting Notes template

A view of Downtown Adak, overlooking Sweeper Cove

September 18, 2002

The meeting was held at the Adak City Hall, Adak Island, AK, with telephone tie-in with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Offices in Anchorage, AK. The following were in attendance:

Name	Affiliation	Location
Cathy Villa	Community Co-Chair	Anchorage, AK
Mark Murphy	Navy Co-Chair	Adak, AK
Keith Martin	RAB Community Member/Adak Mayor	Adak, AK
Char Gisvold	RAB Community Member	Adak, AK
Mike Mitchell	RAB Community Member	Anchorage, AK
Steve Hinds	Adak City Council	Adak, AK
Dave Jensen	The Aleut Corporation	Anchorage, AK
Chris Riggio	APAI Inc.	Anchorage, AK
Sami Goldman	ADEC	Adak, AK
Roberta Jassal	ADEC	Anchorage, AK
Kevin Oates	EPA	Anchorage, AK
Patty Kelly	EFA, NW	Poulsbo, WA
Peter Gervais	EFA, NW	Adak, AK
Jim Pastorik	Geophex UXO	Adak, AK
Mary Lou Sullivan	EFA,NW/Westaff	Poulsbo, WA
JoAnn Grady	Grady & Associates	Anchorage, AK
Bill Rohrer	URS	Olympia, WA
Dave Humes	Foster Wheeler	Adak, AK

Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Cathy Villa called the meeting to order at 7:20 P.M. (Anchorage Time). It was announced that Mary Grisco and Pam Miller were unable to attend and were excused from the meeting. Ms. Villa asked if anyone on the island was interested in replacing Cynthia Galatniof as the RAB Community Co-Chair. She stressed that it was important that someone from the Adak community should be the co-chair. There were no volunteers so Ms. Villa asked them to consider the co-chair position and let her know at the next RAB meeting. The agenda was approved with the addition of Dave Jenson to give an update on the land transfer after the presentations.

Patty Kelly asked if members could confirm who were members and who were no longer members. Established as members were Char Gisvold; Cathy Villa; Pam Miller; Mike Mitchell; Keith Marten; Agafon Krukoff; Mary Grisco; and Vince Tutiakoff. Chris Riggio said the believed he was a community RAB member as well. Ms. Kelly stated that community RAB members were not paid to participate and she believed that he was an APIA representative. Mark Murphy asked Ms. Kelly to place Mr. Riggio as a community member until there is policy or guidance that states otherwise. Ms. Kelly agreed.

A quorum was established. There was no vote to approve the June 2, 2002 meeting minutes.

Petroleum Cleanup Program:

Mark Murphy stated that the Navy has been involved in petroleum cleanup since 1986. One hundred and twenty eight sites were identified for investigation and, if necessary, cleaned up. Cleanup is completed at ninety-seven sites. The Operable Unit A Record of Decision contained remedy selections for 12 soil removal sites; 11 groundwater monitored natural attenuation sites; and 14 sites with where there were interim remedies selected to recover floating petroleum in the groundwater. He stated that petroleum recovery is almost complete at those 14 sites, and that the Navy is in the process developing focused feasibility studies to determine the appropriate final remedies.

The Navy recently submitted an informal draft focused feasibility study of the General Communications, Inc. (GCI) location to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to ensure that there is agreement on the format of the document. The informal review is ongoing and it is expected to be completed in the next few weeks. He noted that the framework for the focused feasibility studies is based on the ADEC regulations and guidance. Mr. Murphy stated that the first step is to submit documentation that we have met the petroleum recovery endpoints. The endpoints for product recovery is recovering a half gallon of product for 1,000 gallons of treated water in the active recovery wells and less than five gallons per month for the passive recovery sites. Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy expects to meet those endpoints in the next few months for most of the recovery sites.

He said he wanted to use the GCI process as a case study to present to the RAB to help them understand the process. He said the GCI compound is fairly representative of the petroleum recovery sites. His goal for the case study was to provide sufficient information for one particular site for the RAB members to form some impression of the site and process and also to gather community members’ concerns regarding the sites. He said the focused feasibility studies are fairly voluminous he understood why the RAB members would not want to delve into them.

Mr. Murphy said the site is approximately 28 feet above sea level and it is located in a gravel area with very little habitat value. He said that the land use restrictions at the GCI compound are restricted to commercial/industrial reuse, which is consistent with its present use by Alaska Communications. It’s located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest airport drainage ditch and approximately 1 mile from the mouth of Sweeper Creek. It’s due east of the airport terminal building. Historically, there was a 6,000-gallon underground storage tank removed in 1995 that released petroleum in the area and contributed petroleum in the subsurface soils and groundwater. Since 1997, there hasn’t been any petroleum recovered from the groundwater.

Mr. Murphy showed a conceptual site model where the UST was removed and how the contamination got into the groundwater. He said the UST was located about 20 feet above sea level and approximately 10 feet above the groundwater table. The extent of contamination is in the subsurface soils based on the sampling results. He said approximately 153 cubic yards of petroleum contamination occurs in the shallow subsurface soil (less than five feet); 341 cubic yards of petroleum contamination occurs in the intermediate subsurface soil (5-17 feet); and 440 cubic yards occurs in the deep subsurface soil (17 – 27 feet). He noted that there was no surface contamination in the soil. Mr. Murphy stated that extent of groundwater contamination is approximately 1-acre.

Mr. Murphy stated that his purpose for the presentation was for the RAB members to give the presentation some thought and to see if there were concerns about the site. Char Gisvold asked if the contaminated soil can leach, and where would it daylight if it leached? Mr. Murphy stated that the question would have to be answered in the focused feasibility study, and the Navy would be sure to address it. He did say that is unlikely that it would migrate to a surface water body, and noted that the contamination at the site was fairly limited. He also stated that the sampling at the site is extensive and that there is a large database to draw conclusions. Steve Hines stated to Mr. Murphy that for all intent and purposes, this site isn’t going to have any further action. Mr. Murphy stated that the question remains unanswered. He said that one of his purposes was to get feedback from the community this evening to help formulate a plan for cleanup. Mr. Hines stated that realistically, there is a lot of soil contamination on this site, and he asked how many other sites had similar contamination problems. Mr. Murphy stated that the purpose tonight was to get feedback from the community and address their concerns ahead of time in the focused feasibility studies. He said that no one has written the focused feasibility study yet, and if they can be written with the community’s input ahead of time, the Navy will be farther ahead. Agafon asked what the next logical step would be in the cleanup. He emphasized, that’s the question. Keith Martin asked how the sites would be evaluated. Mark stated that the reasonable expected land use at the site would be the focus. The focus will be based on the perceived threat.

Kevin Oates stated that there are interim remedies in the ROD, the focused feasibility studies are going to provide a range of cleanup alternatives and cleanup levels. He said regardless of whether they’re based on the Alaska laws or risk assessment, there are a limited number of alternatives, hence they’re called focused. He said the next step is that the Navy will evaluate the options to cleanup the sites from the focused feasibility studies. Based on the alternatives, the Navy will propose a remedy to the regulators and the community under a proposed plan for cleanup. Following input by the community, there will be a decision document and the selected remedy will be implemented. Mr. Murphy stated that the Alaska regulations would be the guide used for the remedy selection process.

Chris Riggio asked if there were risk assessments performed for each of the sites. Mr. Murphy stated that the informal draft does provide a risk assessment. Mr. Oates stated that the first question the Navy and the regulators will be asking is what has to be done to protect surface water. He noted that even though there may be groundwater contamination, the goal is to protect surface water; they don’t want the groundwater contamination to reach surface water.

Mr. Murphy stated that when he was preparing the presentation, the intent was to get community input to feed into the next logical step for the site. Ms. Gisvold stated she wanted to hear from the state on what kind of remedies are typically taken at other sites in Alaska. Sami Goldman stated she would look into specific examples. Mr. Krukoff stated whatever the next step is; he wanted Adak to be given the same consideration as Anchorage or Poulsbo, Washington. There should be no difference.

Mike Mitchell asked what the levels of contamination were in the soil and groundwater. He noted the slide just stated there was contamination and he wanted to know if it was orders of magnitude above the cleanup levels or whether it was in the same range as the cleanup levels. Mark stated he would provide the concentrations in the meeting minutes. Mr. Mitchell asked whether this site was the closest to the ocean. Mr. Murphy stated that this was not the closest to a surface water body, South Runway 18/36 is at the mouth of Sweeper Creek and it’s the closest to the surface water.

Mr. Riggio asked whether the ROD had to be reopened to address the free product sites. Mr. Murphy stated that the State was sending a letter in that regard. Ms. Goldman stated that the state has sent a letter to the Navy that they would like to reopen the free product recovery sites in the ROD only. Ms. Gisvold asked if there are any of the 82 sites being reconsidered for other remedies. Mr. Murphy said no. Dave Jenson asked if anything discussed in the presentation would have any impact on the suitability to transfer property. Mr. Murphy said no, it doesn’t have any bearing on the transfer. Mr. Oates added that petroleum is not treated the same as CERCLA sites for the transfer of property and it has been somewhat of a headache to EPA to have them in the Operable Unit A Record of Decision. Mr. Oates stated that if they were to reopen the ROD, his preference would to have all of the petroleum sites taken out of the ROD. He further noted that the Adak Federal Facility Agreement is the only one he is aware of that addresses petroleum cleanup. At every other location, at least in Alaska, they are addressed under a two-party agreement between the State and the federal lead on the cleanup.

Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy originally expected to have the focused feasibility studies submitted by September 2002, however, it is taking longer than expected. The goal is still to have remedies proposed by the 14 free product recovery sites by April 2003. He noted that the Navy will not be submitting all of the focused feasibility studies all at once as was originally thought would happen.

Field Work 2002 Summary: Mr. Murphy stated that there was a summary sent to the members with the RAB package.
- He said the cabin demolition is complete; all 52 cabins were demolished by August 20.
- The Navy expects to complete the UXO work at 1A and 1B by September 27, 2002.
- Mr. Murphy clarified with Keith Martin the date that product recovery should be complete. Mr. Martin stated November 11.
- Mr. Murphy stated that the transit road bridge seep hasn’t produced a sheen on the water. The booms are still in place as a precaution. He said the Navy would not be taking any further action at this site.
- Groundwater monitoring will take place in October.
- The pipeline abandonment work will begin in its preliminary stages this season and it will be completed next season and that it turned out to be a little more complicated than originally planned. Mr. Krukoff asked which pipeline was being abandoned. Mr. Murphy stated there are some diesel and aviation gasoline pipelines that still have to be removed or closed, and he wasn’t quite sure which lines were they were. Mr. Krukoff asked if there were any between the power plant and the airfield that might be required to be abandoned. Mr. Murphy stated that the contractor would be out in September and October to verify which lines would require additional work, and once that happens the Navy would be able to give a better answer.
- Mr. Murphy stated that a drinking water study was conducted and it was determined that faucet replacements in Sandy Cove Housing would be the best alternative to reduce the levels of lead and copper. He said the work is slated to begin in October. Keith Martin asked if the faucet replacements would take place in Quarters A, B and C. Mr. Murphy stated he would check into it, and if they weren’t already slated, he said that they would be included with the faucet replacement work.
- Mr. Murphy stated that there was a lead-based paint abatement in Kuluk Housing. The area was identified having unacceptable lead-based paint concentrations.
Mr. Krukoff asked what other faucets in town were going to be replaced. Mr. Murphy stated the housing units. Mr. Krukoff stated that consideration should be given for other areas as well; the housing replacements are addressing part of the problem but not the entire problem. He said the red shed, public works, the administration building and anything actively in use should be considered part of the faucet replacement. Mr. Murphy stated that he would get back to the RAB regarding the rationale for selecting housing units. Steve Hines asked how many sampling points there were besides those at Sandy Cove Housing. He said his concern is that there were fish in the processing plant that high lead levels. Mary Lou Sullivan stated that it’s very unlikely that the lead in fish is related to the drinking water due to the fact that the fish are dead and biological uptake is not going to happen. Mr. Murphy said he would have to review the report to refresh his memory regarding the selection of the housing units. He did say it was forwarded to ADEC and Sandra Moeller of the Aleut Enterprise Corporation. Cathy Villa asked if the report was in the Anchorage and Adak repositories. Mr. Murphy stated that he could make the report available in the repositories. He also stated that one consideration, is part of the decision, is the future maintenance and costs of other alternatives. Char was curious as to whether the Lake Bonnie Rose was contaminated. Mary Lou said the lead is in the distribution system. She said that the results of the sampling ranged from 18 parts per billion (ppb) to 111 ppb. The regulatory level was 15 ppb. Kevin Oates stated that there are ways to determine whether it’s from the distribution system vice the source. He said you draw two samples from a tap; the first one is after the water has been in the pipes, for example overnight, and then draw another sample after it has run for a few minutes. He said that’s the type of information that the Navy was looking at to make this determination.

Mary Lou Sullivan added that the lead was removed from commercial faucets in the late 1990s and this is way to reduce possible exposure to the population. She said most exposure to people comes through their residents, and another way to reduce exposure is to run the tap for 30 seconds before drinking the water. She said, that as Mr. Oates noted, the second sample is lower than the first, and in all cases on Adak it was below the regulatory level. Agafon reemphasized that the Navy should replace all the faucets in town because the city would eventually be taking over the operations of the water distribution system. Dave Jenson agreed with Agafon and stated that the city fathers are wrestling with the future of the utilities since the municipality provides those types of things. He said the city fathers have a right to take a position and have a concern. Mr. Murphy stated that the Navy would provide a response on this issue. Mary Lou Sullivan suggested providing a fact sheet; everyone appeared to be in agreement that a fact sheet would be helpful. Mr. Murphy stated that once the fact sheet is out, the RAB could discuss this issue again.

Char Gisvold said that the faucet replacement appears to be a quick fix. Ms. Sullivan stated that a considerable amount of time and effort went into the studies. Mr. Krukoff stated that if any sampling is done on the water system that the city be notified. Mr. Murphy stated the sampling results are fairly well detailed in the reports. Ms. Gisvold stated that a person from APIA, Mr. Doug Abbot, looked over the wastewater and drinking water system. She said that Mr. Abbot noted that there were other possible contaminants in the drinking water that could be contributing to the lead content of water. Ms. Gisvold noted that it was in a letter sent by Mr. Abbot. Mr. Murphy stated he was unaware of the letter. Chris Riggio stated that Mr. Abbot was a remote maintenance worker. Mr. Krukoff restated that Mr. Abbot said it was a quick fix to the problem. Mr. Murphy stated he would like a copy of the letter. Mr. Riggio agreed to track down the letter and provide a copy to the Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Krukoff stated that he believed all the faucets in the active buildings should be replaced. Ms. Gisvold stated that it shouldn’t be active, just because they’re not active now doesn’t mean they won’t be in the future.

Ms. Sullivan stated that one of the reasons why the faucets in housing are being replaced is that the bulk of people’s consumption of water is from home. She further noted that the report on the faucet replacement study showed that the lead concentrations were reduced 86%. She said the source of the lead is believed to be in the plumbing and the faucets due to the historical analytical data. The Navy collected water samples within residential areas both for water which was allowed to be undisturbed for 8 hours and samples from water collected after the fixtures was flushed for 30 seconds. The results of the analysis show that the water that resided within the fixtures for 8 hours were consistently above action levels for lead and copper. The water that was flushed for 30 seconds yielded levels that dropped off below regulatory levels. This indicates that the source of the metal originates from the internal plumbing and fixtures of the housing units and not the main transmission lines. Therefore, the APAI assumption that water system is leaching metal from another source is simply incorrect. She also said that replacing fixtures won’t achieve regulatory levels but neither would the installation of a source water treatment system. She also said it’s not getting you below the drinking water levels, but neither did any other alternative. She said there are currently fliers in housing that suggest running the faucets prior to use, and she said she can also include that information in the fact sheet.
ICMP Overview and Status: Mary Lou Sullivan stated that the ICMP was finalized last December, and not much changed in the Adak Island Institutional Control Management Plan from the presentation in November 2001. She said the basic reason for institutional controls is land use restrictions and to prevent residential exposures, also know as unrestricted land uses. She said the primary reason for the ICMP is to notify current and future land users about the environmental conditions of the property that is encumbered by institutional controls; it describes where and how land use will be limited to commercial/industrial and recreational land uses in designated areas; it provides a process for inspection and maintenance of institutional controls and engineering controls; it provides a way to track land use over time in the areas with land restrictions; and it provides details for an educational plan to keep the community informed, such as the ordnance awareness and safety video.
Ms. Sullivan stated that institutional controls are measures to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances left in place at a site, or assure effectiveness of the chosen remedy until cleanup levels are achieved. The remedies selected on Adak were for the anticipated land uses, and the restrictions that are found are typically commercial/industrial in an existing commercial/industrial area. She said there are levels of ways to enforce the land use restrictions. One is with an equitable servitude and right of entry. The equitable servitude and right of entry language was negotiated with the Department of Interior, The Aleut Corporation, and the regulators ADEC and EPA as part of the Finding of Suitability To Transfer. Basically, the equitable servitude puts restrictions on the property that runs with the land, which means it passes from owner to owner. The right of entry allows the Navy to perform their environmental cleanup work and institutional control inspections. Another layer of assurance that the land use remains consistent with the remedy is the institutional control excavation permit system. There are two types of excavation restrictions, the first is prohibited excavation that occurs where there soil covers such as at a landfill; and the other is to let the Navy know if the proposed project is consistent with the land use restriction.

Keith Martin stated he never heard of the institutional control excavation permit and wondered where they got them. Patty Kelly stated that the Navy sent up numerous maps and a write up to the Caretaker Site Office and had to supply additional maps because they had been handed out. Ms. Kelly stated that the basic concern is whether or not someone is putting a residence in an industrial area. If the land is used as it is today, it’s safe. It may not be safe for someone living on the site over many years; there are different exposures that may be encountered. Dave Jenson stated that TAC plans to divest as much of the property as they can right away and that that the city must become aware of the institutional controls because they will be responsible for enforcing them. Ms. Sullivan stated if they become the owner they will have to ensure they remain consistent. Mark Murphy stated that there appears to be confusion on this issue and stated that Ms. Kelly and Ms. Sullivan would be visiting the island soon and it would be a good idea to go over these issues with the city. Ms. Sullivan agreed, she said education is also a key component of the institutional controls.

Ms. Sullivan stated that the key enforcement mechanism is inspecting the sites and reporting on the effectiveness of institutional controls. As she said previously, education is a component of the institutional controls.

Ms. Sullivan referred to a handout with a table and map that showed the types of institutional controls at each site, and the locations of the sites. She said that the downtown groundwater has domestic use restrictions until the groundwater is cleaned up. She said the definition of domestic groundwater use is that used by households or transients for human and animal consumption, cooking, bathing, showering, gardening, irrigation, or use on consumable food products, water animals and any other domestic use.

Ms. Sullivan stated that the next step for the institutional controls is for the Navy to perform their annual inspections to ensure the land use has not changed. Following the inspections, the Navy has 60 days to submit their report to the regulators. The report will also be made available in the repositories.

Ms. Sullivan asked the Adak members if they are all aware of the ordnance awareness and safety video. Keith Martin said that he wasn’t sure if people still went to it and that the sign at the airport is an eyesore. Ms. Sullivan asked if the people were aware that the video was held every Thursday at the Fish and Wildlife offices. The Adak members were generally aware. She said one of the purposes of her trip to Adak was evaluate the effectiveness of the existing educational material on the island.

Mr. Martin asked how the Navy was going to process and enforces the excavation permits. Ms. Kelly stated that she’s aware that Adak is in the process of changing ownership, however, presently the permits go through the caretaker site office. She said once the Navy leaves the island for the winter, the permits can be faxed to Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, and as Ms. Sullivan mentioned, the response will be within 48 hours. Ms. Sullivan also noted that if anyone has questions regarding the permits, there is a toll-free telephone number, (866) 239-1219. Mr. Martin asked that if the Navy wasn’t on Adak over the winter, how would the Navy know if there is a violation. Ms. Kelly stated that the primary concern was a change in land use, and that the sites are safe for their present use. She said the Navy does make trips up to the island fairly regularly and a change in land use is fairly noticeable.

Ms. Sullivan also noted that there are contingency inspections that the Navy will conduct and those can be triggered by several events. One is if the community, the regulators, other agencies, or anyone contacts the Navy about a potential land use violation; they can also be triggered by the annual inspections that are performed. She said that it’s impossible to plan for every event that can happen, however, the whole purpose is to be prepared if there is a land use change. Ms. Sullivan stated that she would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the city council when she was on the island. Mr. Martin stated that if she were coming to the island, they would have a meeting.
Adak Transfer Update: Dave Jenson stated that the House and Senate the legislation, unfortunately it wasn’t the same language and it has to go into the resolution. He said Vince Tutiakoff and he were going to Washington D.C. on Monday and they would look into the legislation issues. He said there is one version’s language preferred over another and he was optimistic it will get resolved. Mr. Jenson stated that his three requirements for accepting the transfer of Adak are progressing. The city council is up and running, and he applauded the city fathers for their wherewithal and perseverance. He said there is a good tax revenue base there for operations and he’s supportive of their efforts. He is very pleased that Adak fisheries with Icicle are there to provide the basic industry for 12 months per year vice the four or five months that Norquest wanted. He said the sticking point remains the airfield, that neither TAC nor the city has the operating capital of $750 thousand to $1 million per year to operate it. He said they were looking at another entity, the State, to run the airfield. The State has agreed to operate the airfield provided they have 10 years of steady funding provided to them. He said he has put the affected agencies on notice that they will have to come up with a contract with the State. He said he’s optimistic that will happen.
He said, speaking as a resident of the State, he believes that the State hasn’t stood up to its obligations. He said the State has been rather distant and has not really been a player. That too is beginning to change. The Department of Education and the ADA have been helpful and have come to the plate. He said he’s more optimistic this year than he was a year ago about Adak. JoAnn Grady asked if she heard him correctly, that the State needs about a $10 million commitment to operate the airfield. Mr. Jenson stated the State wanted to see a long-term investment in Adak by the parties affected. He said he has worked hard on this particular issue and he is optimistic that funding will come through for the airfield.
RAB By Law Revisions: There was insufficient time to address the RAB Bylaws. Ms. Kelly asked people who had suggested verbiage changes to send them directly to her and she would send out the revision prior to the next meeting. Cathy Villa stated that the next RAB meeting would be sufficient time to address the bylaws.

Next Meeting Date: The next Adak RAB teleconference is scheduled January 22, 2003, to establish an agenda for the next meeting and to address the RAB Bylaws. The next RAB meeting is tentatively suggested to occur sometime in March.