DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE FORT GREELYINSTALLATION RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

APRIL 20, 2011DELTA JUNCTION CITY HALL, DELTA JUNCTION, ALASKA

Members presentMr. Stephen Hammond, Community Co-ChairMs. Flower Cole, Community MemberMs. Melody Debenham, Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationMr. Derek Dan Miller, Fort Greely Commander's Designated RepresentativeMr. Mike Murphy, Community Member

Guests presentMr. Bill Burke, AECOMMr. Brad Chastain, SivuniqMr. Jon Jones, Integrated EnvironmentalMs. Renee LaFata, Senior Environmental Scientist, ASTSMs. Kristin Miller, SivuniqMr. Glen Shonkwiler, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense CommandMr. Norman Straub, SivuniqMr. Ed Vaughn, ASTS, RAB Support SubcontractorMs. Mary Vavrik, Registered Merit ReporterMr. Fred Vreeman, Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationMs. Deborah Ward, Fort Greely Public Affairs Ms. Tara White, Fort Greely ResidentMr. Tom York, Kaya

Members absentMr. Dick Anderson, Community Member (excused)Mr. Pete Hallgren, Community Member (excused)Ms. Mary Leith-Dowling, Community Member (excused)Mr. Steve Fields, Community Member (excused)Ms. Carol Stock, Community Member (excused)

Purpose and Agenda ReviewMr. Hammond called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. He welcomed everyone and explained thepurpose of the meeting. He then asked for any comments or additions to the agenda.

Ms. Cole pointed out that the agenda refers to the minutes for approval at this meeting as being from the November 11 RAB meeting, but the minutes themselves say the meeting was November 10. Mr. Hammond confirmed that the meeting was on November 10. Mr. Vaughn acknowledged the change needed and apologized for the error. Ms. Cole moved approval of the agenda as amended, Mr. Murphy seconded, and the motion was approved on a unanimous aye vote.

IntroductionsMr. Hammond asked that everyone introduce themselves to the room, and all did so.

Approval of Minutes from the November 10, 2010 MeetingMr. Hammond asked for any comments or corrections to the minutes from the November 10, 2010 meeting. Mr. Murphy said that line 505 in his copy should read “that the contamination that remains there is NOT from the waste oil UST, but from a fuel spill in the building." He also said that at line 529 in New Business, he believes the words attributed to him regarding appreciation for documenting the tour and the tour’s importance were actually said by Mr. Hammond. Mr. Hammond agreed.

A difference in line numbering among the copies received by the members, apparently due to varying formatting, was pointed out. Mr. Vaughn acknowledged the differences and said he believed the differences were no more than four lines.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667

In response to Mr. Hammond, Ms. Cole moved approval of the minutes as amended, Mr. Murphy seconded the motion, and it was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Public Questions or CommentsMr. Hammond invited comments and/or questions from the public, and none were offered.

Agency ReportsMr. Hammond then called for any agency reports. Ms. Debenham said Mr. Shonkwiler’s presentation would include most of ADEC’s activities. She also said she had looked into comparing some of the old UST sites it was thought might have been closed before the BRAC process. She said there was no comprehensive list to compare them easily. However she went through the sites that additional work has been done on through the BRAC process and compared them. In most cases the work trying to find data to fill some sort of data gap and close the site. Responding to Mr. Hammond, she confirmed that Mr. Vreeland is her boss. Mr. Hammond told Mr. Vreeland that the RAB is happy to have Ms. Debenham as a member. He then introduced Mr. Shonkwiler for his presentation. Old Business-Fort Greely Schedule and Status Review

Mr. Shonkwiler said he is the restoration project manager for Fort Greely and his presentation would be a brief update on work since the last RAB meeting in November. He said the primary effort has been documenting the work done last summer and resolving AEDC comments on some of the documents begun in 2009. As a result, he said, a large number of documents have been added to the RAB website, including work plans for the in situ oxidation systems at both the BRAC site 94 and the South Tank Farm.

686970717273747576777879808182838485

86878889909192

The draft South Tank Farm surface soils corrective action report was added and summarizes three years of activity from 2006 to 2008 bioremediating about 22,000 cubic yards of soil. Others added were the finalized annual groundwater monitoring report for 2009, the treatability study report for the BRAC site 94 in situ oxidation system, the final Installation Restoration Program sites annual report for 2009 and the draft 2010 report. Mr. Shonkwiler said he encouraged everyone look at any of the draft reports on the website and provide comments as they see fit to him or to Fort Greely as the documents are being finalized.

Mr. Shonkwiler said the 2010 IRP sites annual report is quite large, reflecting the significant amount of work accomplished last summer. He said it has just been sent to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for their review and that any comments on it from the public would be welcome.

He said a series of other reports is planned for the RAB website in the very near future. Theyinclude the characterization reports for both the BRAC site 94 and South Tank Farm in situ oxidation systems. Also planned for inclusion are the 2010 groundwater monitoring annual report and work plan addenda for work planned for BRAC site 94 and the South Tank Farm for the 2011 field season. An Installation Restoration Program work plan will also be up on the website in the next month or so.

One of the bigger efforts being worked on for later this year, he said, is a draft proposed plan. Whatwill follow from that is a Record of Decision that will close out or propose the final remedy actions at over 40 of the Installation Restoration Program sites.

93949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116

Mr. Shonkwiler said that because he gave a more comprehensive review of work completed in 2010 at the RAB meeting in November, he would continue with just a quick overview of some of last summer’s accomplishments.

Much of the work focused on removing petroleum contaminated soil at a number of sites, especially in the old post or airfield area. They included BRAC sites 72, 76, 92, 98, 99, 100 and 118, he said. Approximately 1,300 cubic yards of petroleum contaminated soils were removed from these sites. They will be treated this summer either with a bioremediation land farming type process or somethingmore economical. The process to be used is still being determined.

Mr. Shonkwiler said one of the larger efforts last summer was removing the remainder of the MOGAS diesel fuel line in the Old Post area. This included removing approximately 2,000 feet of pipeline that still contained over 700 gallons of fuel and about 300 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated soil from that area. Investigations and minor removals were completed at 17 other sites to prepare them for closure, and most of them will be included in the proposed plan mentioned earlier.

117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133

Mr. Shonkwiler said the largest project by far is the in situ oxidation systems. One went in at BRAC site 94, near the airfield. The second is planned to go in at South Tank Farm this summer. Both injection trailers are currently mobilized to BRAC site 94, and one will be moving to the South Tank Farm later this year. He said there is a well field of 12 or 13 injection wells at BRAC Site 94, where ozone is being injected into the vadose zone, the unsaturated soils right above the groundwater table. The goal is to remediate the petroleum contamination that is feeding the groundwater. There is also a benzene plume that extends downgradient from this site. If that source of petroleum to the groundwater is cut off, the groundwater can essentially clean itself up through dilution, dispersion and other natural processes and return the aquifer to a drinking water condition.

134135136137138139140141142143144

This is an early picture of the two trailers set up as they were being put in. Both trailers are essentially a series of chillers, oxygen generation systems, and then ozone generation systems. The ozone is then injected into the well field.

145146147148149

Mr. Shonkwiler said this is the MOGAS pipeline removal mentioned earlier.150151152

Mr. Shonkwiler said this is the North Delta Tank Farm where a groundwater investigation was completed over the last couple of years. It confirmed that petroleum soil contamination at this site has not impacted the groundwater and it will be proposed for closure in the proposed plan that was mentioned.

153154155156157158159

Mr. Shonkwiler said 2011 plans include removals and investigations on six sites, and they include theEvergreen Road fuel spill. Additional data is being collected to help with hydrocarbon risk calculatorcalculations needed to allow this site to be closed without further remediation. A similar effort is under way at BRAC site 116, a former power plant. A surface removal is also planned at that site to remediate surface petroleum contaminated soil. Data is also being collected for that hydrocarbon risk calculator at BRAC site 134. He said those are just a few borings to collect additional data to permit closing those sites without remediation.

Responding to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Shonkwiler said the borings are scheduled to go down to 100 feet below ground surface or to below the contamination. On-site readings of instrumentation will determine when the borings have reached below the contamination. Further responding to Mr. Murphy regarding the presence of clay, he said there is a silt layer where the contamination spreads out, but contamination goes below that as well.

Mr. Shonkwiler said investigations of former dry wells at a couple of buildings will result in removing the wells or collecting enough data to close those sites out. He also said anomaly investigation work plans are being prepared for couple of sites in the Munitions Response Program. These are sites where subsurface geophysical surveys have identified possible UXO or other metal debris below ground surface, and a determination is needed as to whether it is actually UXO.

Responding to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Shonkwiler said what is labeled as a dry well at 501 is a septic system. He confirmed that it is functional but not used, and is referred to by EPA as a dry well. Mr. Murphy said it is a contingency system and closing it make no sense, but also said that’s okay.

Responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Shonkwiler clarified that the 1,800 linear feet of MOGAS lines removed from the Old Post was not the MOGAS line that ran out to the North Delta Tank Farm. It was the pipeline that ran from the underground tank farm at Building 163, now being called BRAC site 94, throughout the Old Post facilities and terminating at the steam plant, Building 101. It fed USTs and buildings all along that route through the Old Post area. However, responding further to Mr. Hammond, he said ultimately they are all in a connected system. The pipeline ran from North Delta Tank Farm down to South Tank Farm and then back up through the post to BRAC site 94 and then throughout the Old Post area.

Mr. Hammond said one specific concern is whether the line between the South Tank Farm and the North Delta Tank Farm has been closed out. Another is whether Fort Greely or ADEC should answer any questions about it, because some of it was on post and some not on post. Mr. Murphy said Public Works pulled a lot of pipeline out of the ground

160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194

when a fiber optic line was being installed and took it to the landfill. He said it was used for years to build fences, gates and other items. Mr. Shonhkwiler said he knows large portions were removed in the 80s but not whether it was a complete removal. Ms. Debenham said she will go back and take a look at ADEC files and see what they have on that. That's a good thing to note and a good thing to follow up on, she said.

Resuming his presentation, Mr. Shonkwiler said some of the other plans for this summer include determining the point to put a remediation system at the South Tank Farm. Focus was on the valve pits in the South Tank Farm in the past, he said, but investigations last summer could not find significant contamination all the way to groundwater at the valve pit. As a result, the northeast berm of the South Tank Farm is now being looked at as the point where contamination reaches all the way to the groundwater. He said some additional investigation at the South Tank Farm between the northeast berm and the valve pit is planned to define the area where remediation would be warranted.

Mr. Shonkwiler said the remediation system at BRAC site 94 will continue operation, as will land farming or other bioremediation of the soils dug up last summer.

Mr. Shonkwiler also said one of the bigger news events is that the Corps of Engineers finally has some funds to initiate their all hazards assessment of the former reactor complex and all facilities that were related to the operation of the reactor. Later this year they will be putting together a work plan to initiate the final process of complete decommissioning of the reactor complex.

Mr. Murphy suggested that the Corps use some of the money to find a disposal site for anything radioactive they uncover, because during BRAC, finding such storage turned into a crisis and cost much more than it should have. Mr. Shonkwiler said some sites in the Lower 48 states, one in Idaho and one in Utah that the Corps already uses for such work, would probably be used if something needs to go off site. He agreed with Mr. Hammond that they are for low level radioactive storage and higher level material would probably go to the Hanford, Washington site.

Further responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Shonkwiler said that treatment goals are being achieved by land farming, but that it is taking longer than expected. So one of the lower cost alternatives being discussed with the state is possibly using the Fort Greely landfill. Additional sampling data is being collected and modeling is being conducted to confirm the petroleum contamination would not leach to groundwater if the petroleum contaminated soils are put in the landfill. He also confirmed that the less volatile, heavier chains in the DRO (Diesel Range Organics) are the driver. He said it just takes longer to add more nutrients and more bioremediation to get to the cleanup criteria for the DRO. So it becomes a more labor intensive and a little more costly process to get to those closure criteria. Responding to Mr. Murphy, he and Mr. Vreeman confirmed that the cleanup criteria for unrestricted use is now the migration to groundwater standards. They are very attainable, but difficult to attain by bioremediation. Mr. Vreeman said that is why his suggestion is always an alternative use that would be allowed if it is a location where the contamination would not leach to groundwater. Usually landfills are good targets for that, he said, and they need the soil for daily cover anyway.

Responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Miller confirmed that the Fort Greely landfill is not lined. Mr. Shonkwiler and Mr. Vreeman said a leaching assessment would have to be done to prove that it would not leach to groundwater at that location.

Responding to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Shonkwiler said the 22,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils from the South Tank Farm was actually spread out on the site. The soils met the criteria after three years of bioremediation. He said that is why a more expedient approach is being looked for, but the land farming is always a fallback. Mr. Hammond suggested burning it, but Mr. Murphy said “that’s a sin.”

195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241

Mr. Shonkwiler said the work plan for this year's activities is undergoing internal review, and he expects to have it to the State and up on the RAB website by mid-May. He said a notice would go out to the RAB when it is available for review and comment.

242243244245246

Besides the Installation Restoration Program, Mr. Shonkwiler said, the Military Munitions Response Program, mentioned earlier, has two sites that need anomaly investigations. One is a World War II former bivouac and probably also a Korean War bivouac area. A UXO item was found in 2008 and identified as a discarded military munition that was a 4.5-inch rocket round. A subsurface follow up investigation found a lot more anomalies. The work plan being developed to make sure they are not more discarded munitions will be put through the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board for approval, and that could be a long process. It could be next summer before the investigation can actually begin. He said the other anomaly of interest is in Jarvis Creek approximately where munitions were found eroding out of the creek bank in the '70s. It may require a similar process, he said.

Responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Shonkwiler confirmed that Fort Greely environmental officials were involved in that planning process for the proposed hotel and enhanced-use lease area very close to Site 112. They made sure that developers avoided site 112 and that Fort Greely would fence it off to assure there was no access to that site as part of that development project.

Regarding the boundary line issue with the Jarvis Creek munitions burial site, Mr. Shonkwiler responded to Mr. Hammond that the issue resolved was that the west bank of Jarvis was Fort Greely’s boundary.

247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264

Mr. Shonkwiler said, as mentioned earlier, the Corps does have funds this year and is starting to develop a work plan for their all hazards assessment, and this will start the final decommissioning of the SM-1A reactor. He said they will look at all known contamination remaining from the operation of the reactor during the '60s and the '70s.

Responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Shonkwiler said the assessment is being done by the Corps working for the Army Reactor Office. He said he has worked with personnel from this office of the Corps of Engineers at other radioactive waste sites, including David Hays and Brian Hearty, and he confirmed that Hearty continues to be a significant presence in the office He also said that the team is going to be headed by Hans Honerlah out of the Corps’ Baltimore District.

265266267268269270271272273274275276

Mr. Shonkwiler said this is the rough schedule for the year with work plans currently underdevelopment. He said that he hoped to be in the field in the July/August time frame, performing the investigations and the planned remediation.

Another budget review cycle has been completed Every year the cost-to-complete estimates are reviewed for each site to program and budget for the funding needed to complete the site investigations and restorations.

Ms. White, a member of the audience, said she is a resident of Fort Greely and had just become aware of the contamination from the reactor and from the diesel and gas. Mr. Hammond asked that she wait until Mr. Shonkwiler was finished, and said there is a public comment period when her comments absolutely would be welcomed and her questions addressed.

277278279280281282283284285286287288289290

Mr. Shonkwiler said his final slide just gives some information on the RAB website. He said it contains a lot of the documentation of the historical investigations and cleanup actions at the post. It also includes all the information about the RAB, minutes and agenda, advertisements. He said he encourages anyone to take a look at the RAB website and to provide comments on not only the documents that are on it, but things they would like to see or things they would like to see done better. He also said that the site is the information repository for the decision making onsite at Fort Greely.

Mr. Hammond asked whether the group at the table had any comments or questions for Mr. Shonkwiler. None were offered.

New BusinessMr. Hammond requested any new business items from the RAB members. None were offered.

Public Questions and CommentsMr. Hammond thanked Mr. Shonkwiler. He then told Ms. White that it was her turn and asked that she state her name for the record and invited her to bring absolutely any questions or concerns she had to the group.

Ms. White said her name was Tara White and spelled out Tara. She said she had become aware of the meeting just today, happened across the RAB website and found it very easy to navigate. She said she was curious about specifically the reactor contamination and how the average person can get ahold of prior reports of what was contaminated, how it was handled and cleaned up and how to get ahold of the information from the new all hazards assessment.

Mr. Hammond suggested Mr. Shonkwiler could give her just a kind of a snapshot status, if he would like to. But, he said, if she had been on the RAB website that the information is there. He also suggested that Mr. Shonkwiler could tell her where to find the information on the website while updating her.

Mr. Shonkwiler said there is a documents page on the RAB website and the first link on the page is called administrative record documents. He said that link will take you to a list of probably 110 documents, categorized by what they are associated with. All of the documents related to the reactor have an SM-1A designation in the column summarizing what they are related to. He said if he could get on line after the meeting, he could show her the site and where some of the documents are.

On the RAB website, he said, are some of the histories of the operation of the reactor from 1962, when it was

291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325

installed, to the 1973 decision to decommission it. It was partially decommissioned in '73 when the fuel rods and all the most heavily contaminated items were removed and sent to the Lower 48 for disposal.

What remained on site were some large volume materials, like contaminated soil pulled out of the reactor complex and the structure of the reactor itself that couldn't easily be cut apart for shipment to the Lower 48. He said all of that was put inside the reactor dome itself, into the shell, and sealed up with a lot of grout, lead plating, and various other shielding to partially decommission it in place. What is essentially a surveillance system was added then and is used to perform surveillance every year to determine whether any unacceptable risks are emanating from the sealed dome. He said the annual surveillance reports are on the RAB website and show the dosimeters that are analyzed every year to confirm that there are no unacceptable risks, to not only the workforce working right there at the diesel power plant, but also to the rest of the public living on Fort Greely or in the Delta Junction area.

Responding to Ms. White’s concern whether the dosimeter airborne also checks ground samples around thearea, Mr. Shonkwiler said the surveillance includes dosimeters posted around the complex and would absorb radiation in any form. He said soil samples are also collected beneath the reactor dome annually to confirm that there is no migration of contamination downward that could get into the groundwater. Historically, groundwatermonitoring was performed around the downgradient of the reactor complex, he said, but nothing was ever seen and it is no longer performed.

Ms. White asked when it was stopped because, she said, the housing office tells residents to filter their drinking water but never why. Mr. Shonkwiler said the filter requirement is in response to lead, from lead solder in your copper pipes and other lead fittings and the older distribution system of the drinking water. He said he believes the last test for radioactive constituents was in 2003 or 2004 He also said lot of groundwater monitoring was done after the radioactive wastewater pipeline from the reactor to Jarvis Creek was removed in 1999. The Corps of Engineers evaluated some of the wells that were used as part of the reactor complex to determine whether there was any residual radioactivity that would pose an unacceptable risk, he said, and nothing was seen in several years of groundwater monitoring.

Responding further to Ms. White, Mr. Shonkwiler and Mr. Hammond said radioactive compounds such as Cesium 137 and strontium 90, and tritium were tested for in the injection well. Mr. Shonkwiler said broader testing was also done for total alpha and total beta, which would catch any radioactive compound, regardless of what it is, so Ms. White should not have to specifically look for a particular one.

Responding further to Ms. White, Mr. Shonkwiler said there are a large number of these reports on the website, but possibly not all. He said that if she should find a reference to any not on the website, a search would be made to locate it and get it up on the website.

Ms. White said her only other concern was that the construction of the new housing might hit old pipes or new soil contamination in the new areas. Mr. Shonkwiler agreed with Mr. Hammond and Mr. Murphy that on a military base there is no guarantee even though advance activities have been undertaken to assure clean and safe places to construct the new facilities. He also said that appropriate responses are ready if anything is found.

Ms. White said she hoped that any such finds would be made before construction rather than after. Mr. Shonkwiler assured her that the Installation Restoration Program is proactive in identifying sites that had operations that could have contaminated the environment. As a result a pretty good understanding has been developed of the history of that area, he said, and there were no prior operations that would have contaminated it.

Ms. White expressed her thanks and appreciation, and Mr. Hammond thanked her for her questions. He said the RAB is here to transfer information to the public. He also invited her to spread the word that if anybody else has questions or concerns they would be welcome.

Responding to Mr. Hammond’s invitation of any other questions or comments, Mr. Vreeman said he had just one follow-up. He said ADEC and several contractors present have been involved in the BRAC 94 and South Tank Farm sites He said he is the primary ADEC project manager on those sites, probably the largest contract this last year, as Mr. Shonkwiler had said earlier.

Mr. Vreeman said he wanted to add a note of commendation. He said the team formed what is called a triad approach in order to tackle what was something of a moving target. Especially at the South Tank Farm, it wasn’t known exactly where the contamination was. It is over 200 feet down to groundwater, he said, requiring a very difficult and expensive process. He said he wanted to commend the team for the job they did in keeping ADEC informed, being protective of both the team members and contractors working there, and doing a very credible job from an environmental investigation perspective.

Mr. Vreeman said a second commendation goes to Jon Jones and his crew for getting the ozone generators in. That is a very forward-thinking and innovative process, he said, and there is great anticipation to seeing it at work. He said ADEC is proud of the job that Fort Greely is doing on those two sites particularly.

326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392

Mr. Vreeman also said he is very excited to see a decision document coming out on potentially 40-plus sites. He said he will be glad not to belabor those old sites forever and ever and rediscover them again and again. He said it has been a very good investigation and ADEC is really happy with the way things are going at that site. Not that there aren't some problems and issues, he said, but everyone can be proud of the job being done. Mr. Hammond thanked Mr. Vreeman for his input.

Establish Next Meeting DateMr. Hammond called for setting the next meeting date and asked Mr. Shonkwiler When he would have information on what the summer program was like.

Mr. Shonkwiler said it would probably again be late October or early November that laboratory results would be back from the field activities and permit a report on the full scope of the 2011 activities. Mr. Murphy suggested the first week of November. With no other suggestions offered, Mr. Hammond asked the date of the first Wednesday in November. Ms. Cole said November second and Mr. Hammond said the meeting would be November second at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Hammond then asked for any other comments from the group.

Saying that BRAC 94 would likely go on forever, Mr. Murphy asked how many more BRAC sites would be left to be resolved. Mr. Shonkwiler responded that he hoped that 116, the old power plant, would need a little bit of surface soil remediation and then the hydrocarbon risk calculator could be used to close the site out with administrative controls. He said the vast majority of BRAC sites will be in the list that the proposed plan will close out and get close to wrapping up the effort.

Responding to Mr. Hammond, Mr. Murphy said that would be the end of what he committed to do on the RAB.

Mr. Shonkwiler said that the proposed plan can also propose the final remedy for 94. Mr. Vreeman said what was a big, long list is going to be a very short list when the process is completed, and Mr. Murphy said that’s wonderful.

AdjournmentMr. Hammond then suggested adjournment, and there being no objection, he adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425