|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
Impact Area Review Team Meeting Minutes
Agenda Item
#1. Welcome, Approval of September 7, 2000 Meeting Minutes, Review
Action items Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. He stated that he wanted to wait for everyone to be present before beginning the meeting and apologized for the delay. Mr. Murphy noted that the IART is being held at a new place this evening and welcomed everybody. He stated that before reviewing the agenda and action items he wanted everyone at the IART table to introduce themselves. Review of
Agenda Approval
of Minutes
Agenda Item #2. ASR Team Update Ms. Daehn introduced herself as the Project Manager for the Archive Search Report (ASR) Integration and Enhancement Project. She stated she would like to provide a quick overview, describe what has been completed so far, and provide a rough schedule of major milestones. Ms. Daehn stated the project was initiated at the end of August with a kick-off meeting with EPA, NGB and MADEP. Ms. Daehn stated there are two main purposes of the ASR project. The first is to collect additional information to support the ongoing environmental work, Groundwater Study and UXO Investigation project, to supplement the information collected in a draft ASR which was originally developed by the USACE. She added that as information is gathered it is shared with the ASR team. Ms. Daehn stated the second purpose is to present their findings using GIS based tools. These will help to guide future work and will be available to the public as an information source. She stated some of the activities they have been working on include addressing comments that were made on the draft ASR, primarily from EPA and some from MADEP. Ms. Daehn stated focusing on the comments and attaining some aerial photographs (as were addressed in some comments) will result in a more complete document. Ms. Daehn stated some other ASR related tasks include conducting additional interviews. She said Tetra Tech has hired a Private Investigator who has contacted people who have some knowledge of the NGB to try to gain some more information. Ms. Daehn stated they also have hired a military historian who is researching some of the activities that have occurred on MMR to try to gain more information on that. Ms. Daehn stated Tetra Tech is researching defense contracts to try to obtain copies of contracts that were issued between the Department of Defense (DOD) and various contractors who did testing and other activities on the J Ranges. She added all of this data is being mapped using the GIS to compile all this information into a single source. Ms. Daehn stated that research has been completed on all of the documents available in the Washington D.C. area and is ongoing. She said that the Private Investigator is presently interviewing people who may have info on MMR. He has completed 11 interviews and conducted some follow-up questions based on comments by EPA She said as he gathers information he shares it with the ASR project team so that the team remains informed. She added that he uses a detailed questionnaire that was developed by EPA. So far he has interviewed National Guard employees, people who were stationed at Camp Edwards, and some people who have worked for some of the contractors who have conducted testing. She said it is anticipated by the end of April 2001 that they will have a final report detailing the results of the interviews. Ms. Daehn stated Mr. Dan Eddinger of Tetra Tech is the military historian for the project. He is researching what units trained at MMR between 1911 and 1998. He contacted by telephone potential archival sources of information to investigate whether those sources were worth while to physically go obtain those records. She said he reviewed "Request of Train" records at Camp Edwards which describe who was at Camp Edwards during what timeframe to conduct training. Ms. Daehn stated that in addition he reviewed information from military pay records, contacted state and archival sources, military history museums, Director of the MA National Guard and has a scheduled visit to a military history museum located at Camp Edwards. Ms. Daehn reiterated that this work is ongoing and it is anticipated by the end of April 2001 they will have a final report detailing the results of the research. Ms. Daehn stated that the ASR team is researching contracts that were issued between the DOD and contractors who worked at the MMR J-Ranges. Ms. Daehn said there are several locations and agencies that had issued contracts, some were issued out of Piccatiny Arsenal in New Jersey which have been contacted and are going through a process of obtaining those records from them. Ms. Daehn stated once the contracts are obtained they will be provided to a contract attorney who will provide a legal interpretation of the legal information contained in the contracts. Ms. Daehn stated that in addition they are researching corporate histories consolidacy, how companies have changed hands over time. She said that finally, they are reviewing CERCLA and RCRA information request responses for any information that might be pertinent. The information requests provide information about what activities were conducted which would lead up to what chemicals or contaminents may have been left behind. Ms. Daehn stated the ASR Team expects by June 15th, 2001 they will have a final report detailing the results of the contracts research. Ms. Daehn stated that once all these processes are completed, the ASR Team will revise the entire ASR. The revised ASR document will incorporate all of these elements along with the integration of EPA's comments, by September 30, 2001. Ms. Daehn introduced Mr. Rust who leads the GIS effort to discuss GIS mapping. Mr. Rust stated he is developing the Geographic Information System or "GIS" for the ASR. He said the GIS will combine data from the ASR with other sources and make it available to the public. It will consist of three parts. Mr. Rust explained the first part is an electronic copy of the ASR which can be searched using a key word, or using a geographic coordinate. Mr. Rust stated the second part is a web-based data archive and the third part is an Arc View project. Mr. Rust demonstrated, by projection, what a person would see when the log on to the website. He explained the information is broken down into 5 libraries and the user can go into any of those libraries and download GIS data from that point. He stated the user can access a data-viewing tab where the user would go to get a viewing tool which is freely available and can be downloaded from the website. Mr. Rust demonstrated how the website is part of how they are integrating the information from the ASR with features shown on a map, info relevant to that area will pop up in the form of text or photos. Ms. Daehn stated she wanted to reiterate this project is ongoing, and she is trying to share information continuously with the project team, and would like to come back in February to provide a three month update. Mr. Hugus stated that one of the astounding things about the Impact Area Study is that so few personnel from the military and private contractors have been willing to step forward on their own to provide information about improper disposal activities. Mr. Hugus stated for that reason he is glad to have a Private Investigator who has an active approach to go out and ask questions. He asked if the Private investigation has any legal power behind it. Mr. Hugus asked if the Private Investigator has the right to subpoena somebody. Mr. Martin Blake introduced himself as the Private Investigator for the project. Mr. Blake stated the courts issue subpoenas, Mr. Blake does not. He stated all the information he gets is voluntary. Mr. Hugus asked if he has any evidence of records that may be missing or destroyed for no particular reason. Ms. Daehn stated there are policies that have actually required destruction of some records. They are finding that with some of the contracts records research that various contracts had policies where they were required to be destroyed after a fifteen year period. The ASR Team is trying to find records that may not have been destroyed, but it is a difficult process. Mr. Hugus referred to the finding of buried munitions at the J Range area. He stated he believes somebody buried those munitions, it was not that long ago, the military was involved with the contractor at the J Ranges, either the military or the contractor did the burial of thousands of mortar rounds but nobody knows who did it. He asked if Ms. Daehn or Tetra Tech have found out who is responsible for this burial of munitions. Ms Daehn said the ASR Team is trying to gather that information through Marty's interviews it seems there are some people who are aware of those burials and they are trying to get that information. Ms. Adams stated that, as indicated, Mr. Blake has conducted 11 interviews. She does now how many of those 11 may or may not relate to those burial, but there is some concern about verifying information before it is released. The EPA has been involved in reviewing information as it is coming in. EPA has asked the NGB to hold off on disclosing it until the EPA gets to the verification of a lot of the details. Then EPA plans to make that all available to the public. Ms. Adams added that EPA also needs to address the issue of respondents who have asked not to be identified. The goal is to have all the information revealed to EPA be made available to the citizens. However, there are some delicate issues making sure that people actually feel comfortable in speaking to EPA that EPA is trying to work through. Hoping to make progress in the next coming months. Mr. Zanis questioned the accuracy of the information. He stated that if it is found that the GIS system is inaccurate and can prove otherwise is there a form for changing that, in updating the information to keep it accurate. Mr. Rust stated he does not know the answer to that question, this website is not going to be delivered until after the ASR is completed, and the accuracy of all of the information is going to be documented to the extent that it can be. Ms. Adams stated she had a similar question on how to account for public feedback on the GIS system generally. There may be information where people may have additional information or contrary information to and there should be a mechanism to address that. Ms. Adams stated with respect to the usability of the system, she assumes there is a mechanism where people can say "This function doesn't really work right, can you adjust it?" LTC Knott that is exactly what we'll have on the February update at the IART will go ahead and explained how that system works, what it is, including updates or new data that come in that may prove the original data incorrect, locations, whatever. We will have that close loop return comment how we respond how we direct information and we will present that information at the IART in February. It will also be discussed with the EPA and DEP at the Tech Meeting. Mr. Zanis stated that a lot of this data presented will be official National Guard Data. Mr. Zanis stated his concern is the writing of the information on the internet. He expressed that he hopes the ASR is worded so that the public have a full and real sense of what was going on at these sites. Mr. Borci stated that is why the original ASR was so fully revised because there were so many comments on it. That incorporated everything the group has said, especially Mr. Zanis, about different ranges,& activities that occurred. Mr. Borci said he believes this is meant to be a "Living Document" as we continue the investigation this is going to continue to be updated. Changes and comments will always be welcome. Mr. Borci said it will be as user-friendly as possible and from what he has seen se far he thinks it is going to be a great product. Ms. Daehn stated that the great thing about mapping all of the data in GIS is that you can see where there is correlation because inherent in this process there are flaws, but you can see if there is correlation if different things. Where if you found the same information in different sources and they overlay, when you map the data you have a much higher confidence that that data is accurate. She added that the GIS element greatly enhances the data that is being collected. Mr. Zanis asked if we all need to buy new computers to download the information. LTC Knott stated there are computers provided in the libraries. Agenda Item #4 Munitions Update Dr. Montroy stated that this update will be similar to last month. He said what has been done so far is chopping down trees and removing surface UXO. There is not a lot of new information; however, they are moving forward Dr. Montroy stated that the process of the Munitions survey is to detect potential burial pits or burial sites, locations where munitions may have been inappropriately buried. He stated this is being done via a comprehensive set of steps using subsurface geophysics. The next phase is to physically go in and validate whether the anomalies they find are buried munitions. Dr. Montroy displayed a slide projection of the J-Ranges, Greenway road, the high use target area (HUTA) and the Impact Area. He stated that in the J-1 Range, which looks like a long strip, has been cleared and ready to start subsurface geophysics survey. In the J-2 Range they have kept the mature trees, however most of the scrub and debris has been removed for the geophysical survey. Dr. Montroy displayed some aerial view photos of the J-3 Range from May. He stated it is physically different than J-1 and J-2 because it was most recently an actively used research base. He pointed out structures that have not been seen in J-1 and J-2. Dr. Montroy stated that the Munitions survey is looking at discrete sites within and not the entire J-3 Range. Dr. Montroy stated 55 acres was cut with the brontosaurus in the J-1 Range and cleared UXO, however, there is still some brush to be cleared by hand because of slopes on the surface. He said that about 30 acres is almost cleared. He said they have started J-3 recently, and have cleared about 15 acres. Dr. Montroy stated the subsurface Geophysics will begin in January. Mr. Zanis asked to clarify what they are doing when they say they are clearing debris. Dr. Montroy stated they are removing vegetation and surface debris that can readily see is not ordnance related. Mr. Zanis asked if the cleanup has started and Dr. Montroy said yes. HUTA Dr. Montroy stated the purpose is to characterize how UXO, UXO related material (UXORM), might be distributed in an impact area where ordnance is coming down in a ballistic trajectory. Dr. Montroy clarified that they are trying to understand how it might be distributed, how far it might go, how far down it goes, how far it explodes out - just to get an idea how the UXO acts in an impact area. Dr. Montroy stated an area was picked that was upgradient from MW1, they are working in six 10,000 square foot test plots and just like an archaeological dig, they are taking 3 feet at a time, sifting and sorting, and characterizing it. Dr. Montroy showed a slide that he said he thought was a good illustration of subsurface geophysics that he talks about. He said all the colors red and pink show items below the surface because all the surface items were already removed. He said this was done by brush cutting and surface clearance. He added they are going from fairly low density areas to increasing density areas. Dr. Montroy said test plot (TP)1 excavation is complete. Three 1 meter lifts were excavated down to about 9 feet. He said that the protocol states if the surveys do not find anything in the last lift - another geophysical survey is done down to 3 feet. Dr. Montroy said if they still do not find anything at that point, they stop the digging. Dr. Montroy said extensive sampling is being conducted in the soil for residual explosives under UXO and UXORM. Dr. Montroy stated that same work has begun in TP 2. He said they stacked up where they have found stuff and he displayed the red shows UXO, green shows UXORM and blue shows debris. The colors on the slide were scattered and Dr. Montroy stated that displays the "waviness" of the top of the surface, the craters and so forth. Dr. Montroy reported that he expected to find materials down to 6-10 feet but did not in TP2. He said most materials are clustered in on the top of this particular test plot and there was not much material found below1 meter from the surface. Dr. Montroy reiterated that the goal of the Munitions survey is to get a picture of how UXO behaves or disperses itself when it detonates. He stated that in the next TP excavation the UXO distribution pattern will be different. He added that may be because of the distance from the target, or lots of other different reasons. Mr. Zanis asked if there was any research done on the trajectory angles of the ordnance that was fired into the impact area before this had begun. Dr. Montroy stated that research process is being done now as part of the ASR research. Dr. Montroy added that the Munitions Survey is part of the ASR report that was presented to the IART earlier. Dr. Montroy stated they are going to try to identify gun point (GP) positions. Mr. Zanis stated a lot of the artillery gun positions fired at such a low angle and such as low charge that it wouldn't even penetrate the ground. Mr. Zanis said they would bounce off- porpoise and skid to a stop and a track 20-30 feet long would remain visible. Dr. Montroy stated that on the contrary, there were artillery that were fired from GP 14 & 16 which used a large charge, that might have a higher trajectory and might be found. He said it is unknown which ones they are, however, those deeper and in a different test plot might be found more easily. Dr. Montroy reiterated that it is unknown and is the purpose of the Munitions Survey. Dr. Montroy stated that next month will consist of the continuing with TP 2, including brush cutting and surface clearance and at the J-1 Ranges geophysics will commence. Mr. Hugus stated that he is trying to get an idea of the big picture as far as UXO clearance and the impact area. He asked if while concentrating on the HUTA and J Ranges, if there is any other area that UXO survey is being done. Dr. Montroy stated they picked the HUTA as a good "Worst Case" scenario. It is not representative of 2200 acres in the Impact Area. The Air Mag survey is being completed and explosive ordnance personnel will go out into the field to find the things the Air Mag showed with the idea that we might be able to estimate the "Footprint" the surface area of the impact area that is more like the HUTA than unlike the HUTA. Dr. Montroy stated that yes, it is the long term aim, and these areas are high density areas, others are low density areas. Dr. Montroy reiterated that it is unknown and is the purpose of the Munitions Survey. Mr. Hugus confirmed that Dr. Montroy was discussing the 2200 acres in the impact area and the J-Ranges. Dr. Montroy stated yes, the impact part of the Ranges. Mr. Hugus stated that since Dr. Montroy gives an update every month, is it possible that next month to provide an overall map of the areas that have been investigated and that you are investigating so the IART can get general ideas of the overall project. Mr. Borci stated that all this information is a UXO feasibility study under the administrative order when it comes to what areas will be investigated, it will be the entire impact area and training ranges. It is just a matter of determining what to go out to look at based on the air mag and ground data. He added that surface clearance is not only done by Tetra Tech, Ogden also does surface clearance when installing wells. Mr. Borci stated that in the impact area any surface UXO was cleared out of the slit-trench. The HUTA was cleared and Ogden has looked at least 20+ targets in the central and north central impact area. He noted if you add up all that area, it represents a large area that has been at least cleared of surface UXO to this point. Mr. Hugus asked what was found in the slit-trench. Dr. Montroy stated what was found was primarily trash. He said there were car axles, parts of automobile bodies, scrap iron, stoves, empty cans of oil & anti freeze. Also found were some ends of 105mm cartridges that had been sawed off, so what remained was the flat end of the primer point of the 105mm cartridges. He added that there were no UXO found. Mr. Hugus asked if there was any evidence of whether the empty cans of anti-freeze and oil were empty before they were thrown in or not. Dr. Montroy stated his guess is that they were empty because it was all trash and they were opened at the top. Mr. Zanis asked if the HUTA is upgradient of MW-1. Mr. Borci stated the HUTA is north of MW-1. He added that the HUTA was placed on a number of things, old aerial photos, current groundwater information, all wells on Turpentine Road had hits but some had relatively high hits compared to the others, and that was part of the genesis of where to place the HUTA. Agenda Item #5. Investigations Update Mr. Grant stated Ogden Environmental has sold their environmental group to a company called AMEC Earth and Environmental, which will be referred to as "AMEC." He added there is no change in term of the players doing the job, still the same group with a different company name. Mr. Grant stated the IART should refer to the maps at the back of the handout which are the ones he will be displaying by projection that are smaller and hard to see. He stated the hand out includes maps of all detections of all analyte groups which are at the table for the IART, but they are not publicly available. Mr. Grant stated since October 19 they have installed wells downgradient of the impact area. Mr. Grant displayed a map showing the south end of the western impact area, MW-15, MW134 & MW138. They have installed MW-135 downgradient of the CS-19 area, and installed MW 133 downgradient of previous detections at MW-50. Mr. Grant stated that in the J-Ranges five wells have been installed. The locations include MW-130, 137 on J-2, MW-131 and MW-136 on J-1 Range and MW-132 on J-3 Range. Mr. Grant stated the MW's installed at Demo Area 1, which is the last of the current Rapid Response wells MW-139 at western downgradient extent of the RDX plume. Mr. Grant stated that currently drilling is being done in the J-Ranges, L-Ranges, impact area and starting at phase 2b locations. Mr. Grant displayed a map of the J-1-3-L work plan to show the original plan for the J-Ranges. He said all the wells in red have been installed which are called stage 1 wells. Mr. Grant stated they are in the process of contouring the water table information from those wells to fine tune where the orange colored wells are going to be installed. He said the Orange wells are stage 2 wells and there about 20 of them. Mr. Grant stated that in the impact area response well P-31 anticipated to be completed within a month. Well P-30 is on hold for a short time because it is in an exclusion zone for UXO from HUTA operations. Mr. Grant added that not all Phase 2b well locations are displayed on the map, during the weekly progress reports the well locations will be added. He said the wells presented are the gravity anti-tank Range well, and proposed locations at Demo Area 2, GS-8 north of the center transect RDX response wells, BA-1, former Demo sites, and others they need to add including the former ASP well. Dr. Feigenbaum asked to discuss the proposed well fence inset B, he stated he would like to know why are they are all so close together. Mr. Grant stated that the theory behind the indicated series of wells is to try to set up a very closely-spaced monitoring well network downgradient of the J-3 Range. He stated some wells are actually positioned on a supposed particle track from a location in the J-3 Range. Mr. Grant said he thinks there is probably a fair amount of variability in the groundwater flow directions under the J-3 Range because it is so close to the top of the water table mound. He said that setting up a lot of wells in that area AMEC is hoping to capture anything that may be coming out of the J-3 Range. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if they will be testing for all contaminents. Mr. Grant stated yes, they will complete a profile for explosives and volatiles, then the wells themselves will be analyzed, as well as radiological analysis and perchlorate. Dr. Feigenbaum asked to what depth. Mr. Grant stated they are fairly deep wells to about 250 feet below water table, and some shallow wells also. Mr. Hugus asked that regarding the issue of not being able to define groundwater flow direction because it is at the top of the aquifer, would that mean the wells should go 360 degrees around the J-Ranges rather than just focus on the small southern section. Mr. Grant stated that is true if you had a source right at the top of the water table mound. Basically that water could flow in any direction from that point. Mr. Grant added they need to get a draft map for the agencies to look at; however, it looks like the top of the mound is more off to the side of the J-3 Range which tells them the groundwater will be going in the southerly direction. Ms. Adams stated that given that uncertainty, EPA has instructed the Guard to install wells in a circular fashion approximately 1,000 feet apart. She added that there are wells that are going to be ringing all the ranges, not just those few clusters along Greenway road. Mr. Grant displayed a projected slide of the status of groundwater sampling for the present month. He said there was not much change from last month, however, they have started the December long term monitoring rounds. All the older wells that have been sampled five times will now be sampled six times in next months update. Mr. Grant stated that there have not been a lot of detections in the sampling results and no new explosive detects in the impact area. MW-118 and MW-123, MW-124 wells are confirming the profile results which suggests that there are not any explosives at those locations. J-2 Range wells MW-117, MW-119, MW-120, MW-121, MW-122 so far are non-detect for explosives. Mr. Grant stated that there are three J-1 Range wells installed and he is awaiting the results from those locations. Mr. Grant stated that on the J-3 Range profile detects were found at the Demo pit. MW-132, which is installed at this location came up non-detect for explosives, is a short distance away from the profile detects. Mr. Grant stated there was a monitoring well positioned downgradient, installed a couple of soil borings right through the center of the demolition pit, then collected a profile sample at the bottom of the soil boring. Mr. Grant said that it appears that they need to come up with a better monitoring program to gauge what the water table is. Mr. Hugus stated he was not aware that there is a Demo pit at the J-3 Range. Mr. Grant stated the Demo pit is a 10 to 20 feet squared area in the vicinity of some concrete targets. The concrete targets were set up with a demolition pit behind them but not deep, only 3-4 feet down. Mr. Hugus asked what was detonated there. Mr. Grant stated he does not recall off-hand. Mr. Hugus stated he would like to find out more about this for the next meeting. Ms. Adams stated
it is discussed in the Textron Information Response. She said EPA
can provide it to the citizens if they want. Mr. Grant stated there
is also a paragraph on it in the J-3 Range work plan. Mr. Hugus
stated he will look it up. Mr. Grant stated that the detections
were about 8ppb at the Demo pit. Mr. Zanis asked if Mr. Grant could use the presented data as research to find out how much RDX in soil leaches into groundwater and causes how much contamination in the groundwater. Mr. Grant said yes, this is a situation where there is a good connection between the soil and groundwater data, and it can be used to calibrate unsaturated zone model, which estimates what the soil contribution is to groundwater. Mr. Grant stated the future intent is to develop a model which would have to agree with this specific site in order for it to be an effective model. He added that this is part of the current plan for modeling. Mr. Grant stated the latest soil data is mainly for the J-2 Range, sampling has been completed about 75 percent of the results are back. He said mainly it looks like propellants, there was 2,4 DNT detected. Mr. Zanis asked if Mr. Grant was discussing firing points that have not been used in years. Mr. Grant stated that is correct. Mr. Zanis stated they have not been used in years and they are still contaminated. Mr. Grant confirmed. Mr. Hugus asked if that came from bag burning or something else. Mr. Grant stated he does not know for sure. Ms. Adams stated that from the interviews it was suggested they burnt propellants at that position where firing points three and four are and extending about 200 feet up the road. Mr. Grant stated there was also a propellant detect at disposal area 2 which is close to the impact area. Mr. Grant stated there was HMX detected at berm 3 and TNT and RDX detected at the melt pour building. The detects were all about 100 - 300 ppb. He added there were also elevated levels of metals detected for copper, lead, beryllium and zinc at disposal area 1 and 2 at the J-2 Range. Mr. Grant stated that AMEC is working on an analytical method for halo waxes. These compounds are polychlorinated naphthalene's. They show up two ways, one as an interference peak in the pesticide analysis and another as a tentatively identified compound in the semi-volatile analysis. Mr. Grant stated they are in the process of figuring out what toxicity levels they present, and then coming up with an analytical method that will measure or quantify these levels. Dr. Feigenbaum asked how they arise. Mr. Grant stated they are present as constituents of waxes, however, he is not sure if those are waxes from inert or high explosives (HE) rounds. Mr. Zanis stated it is news that these TICs (Tentatively Identified Compounds) are being identified. Mr. Grant stated from the TIC analysis on the semi-volatile method they can get a general sense but can't say whether it is a particular one. Mr. Borci stated that in order to be accurate, the only reason EPA went back and reviewed the semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) for the TICs was because they had some interference with the pesticides and the analytes identified these as not a pesticide, therefore they identified it as a halo wax. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if there is evidence that these waxes were used in the manufacture of the ordnance or simulation devices. Mr. Grant stated he thinks they were present as an ingredient. Dr. Feigenbaum, stated if the analysis is showing it and that is what the manufacturer said it was in there then there should be a pretty good idea that that is what it was. Mr. Grant stated the problem is at this point is that it has been around for a very long time and has weathered and it is difficult to compare the weathered sample to a pure sample of halo wax. Mr. Borci stated that looking at other sites EPA has dealt with in the region where these compounds have been found, they are physically treated in the same fashion as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)'s. Mr. Grant stated the final comment on the J Range soil sampling is that they are about 40 percent complete with J-1, J-3 and L Ranges. He added that the J-2 Range data is about complete. Mr. Zanis asked if the orange stuff he showed Mr. Grant a long time ago was a halo wax. Mr. Grant stated it was not. Mr. Borci stated the Guard has sampled two different waxes that have been seen in the J Ranges, and EPA is awaiting the results. Mr. Hugus asked why Mr. Grant thinks they found such high levels of explosives near the melt pour building. Mr. Grant stated he does not have that information. Ms. Dolan stated she believes the explosives were detected in discrete samples which were collected just off the concrete pad where the melt pour skeleton exists now, however, the means by which the explosives got there is unknown. She stated she believes it is interesting that there were no explosives detected in the groundwater at that location. Background
Soil Concentrations Methodology Mr. Grant stated the four step process takes a look at all the soil data for the entire study. It is not limited to background locations, off-site, etc… it looks at every single soil sample they take. The goal is to figure out which analytes are possible candidates for background, and can background concentrations be generated based on looking at how existing data falls with respect to spatial patterns. He stated it is a very complicated process. Mr. Grant said the first step is completed, where they tried to determine which compounds they can make the evaluation for. There were 217 total analytes that were looked for. In Step 1 it was said that 99 of those were potential candidates for background. For example, some were totally inappropriate such as explosive compounds where there would not be a background number. Or compounds that were detected at such a low frequency that there is no statistical way to generate a background concentration for it. Mr. Grant said that step 1 was a narrowing down of the possibilities that they can calculate as a background. Mr. Grant stated that some of the numbers that got removed from step1, now have a background essentially of detection limits. He added that you can't calculate a background for them so at present background right now is detection limits for those. Mr. Grant stated that out of several thousand soil samples, there was an additional screening for low detection frequencies, which then screened out another 36 analytes He said they are now down to 63 analytes that they are going to try to calculate numbers for. Mr. Grant stated that the compounds retained from step 1 were taken to step 2 which is a series of statistical analyses. Out of those 63 remaining compounds the 29 were metals, 23 were semi-volatile organic compounds, 6 pesticides and 5 herbicides included in the total list of 63. He stated they are starting step 2 where a statistical evaluation is done to try to look at different groupings of data, if those 63 analytes are spatially distributed in any particular way. If so, it would suggest they are present because of a release and background can't be calculated using this data. Mr. Zanis stated it sounds like a lot of the pesticides and herbicides are being eliminated. Mr. Grant stated that for the most part they are using detection limits for background for those. In other words, there is no anthropogenic background, no background caused by natural processes or manmade processes outside of MMR. However, five or six exceptions may have a real background concentration that can be measured above detection limits such as DDT and DDE. Update on
Demo 1 Mr. Grant noted an interesting thing is that the plume appears to be heading further south than what they had originally projected. He said that in the vicinity of Opening pond further downgradient the plume id bending further south. Mr. Grant stated it is not clear if it is an influence from Opening Pond or something else, but is moving about 200 feet south of the regional particle track. Mr. Zanis asked if any additional wells are going to be installed. Mr. Grant stated that at this point they have to re-draw the plume and have the agencies approve them. He said by doing that they can identify data gaps. What is clear is that they have not reached the western extent yet. Mr. Borci stated that there are a couple of things EPA is looking at. One thing is to look at monitoring history to check for pulsing, also during wet season and dry season contaminents can get flushed through the groundwater. He added that particle tracking is the best scientific guess. Mr. Borci's third point was that the issue of additional monitoring wells leads into another issue that Mr. Grant will discuss. Mr. Grant stated that there is a new contaminant that was detected, perchlorate. He stated perchlorate is contained in a variety of different things such as fireworks, fuzes, possibly some munitions. Mr. Grant stated this material was looked for at a variety of places and the only place it has been found so far is at Demo 1. He stated that the only number to compare detections to is a California State promulgated health advisory number which is about 15ppb. Mr. Grant said MMR has detected levels 40 to 100 ppb in 4 wells in Demo 1. Mr. Grant stated the next step will be to sample all the wells in Demo 1 to see where the perchlorate is. Mr. Zanis asked why the IART has not heard of this chemical before. Mr. Borci stated that they had a lot of rocket plants where they made rocket engines and did rocket compulsion testing. They started testing their water and started finding it everywhere. Mr. Grant stated that the evidence that it is sort of a new concern is that there is not a federal level for it. So far California is the only one that - Mr. Zanis asked if the KD Range would be a place of concern where they fired a lot of rockets. Mr. Borci stated what they are in the process of going back to look at where they have already sampled for perchlorate and then take a look at potential point sources to see if there are additional wells. He added that regarding a national standard for perchlorate, the current guidance from EPA Nationally is they are probably are going to promulgate a 32ppb health advisory. In the meantime we are going to use the California number. Dr. Feigenbaum asked what exactly is perchlorate, and suggested it is a radical. Mr. Grant stated yes, it is a chlorine with four oxygen's attached to it. Dr. Feigenbaum asked what it is attached to where is it arising from. Mr. Grant stated potassium perchlorate is the ingredient that is used and perchlorate is what ends up in the water. Mr. Borci stated that it is used as a component in the munitions, typically in the propellant. It boosts the energy of the propelling charge. Mr. Hugus stated he asked for perchlorate testing at the J Range area also. Mr. Grant stated that is underway. Mr. Hugus asked if any perchlorate was detected. Mr. Grant stated that results are not back from that area yet. The J-2 Range wells have been submitted for perchlorate, and the J-1 and J-3 wells have as well. It is usually a four week turn around for perchlorate analysis. Mr. Grant added they will probably be getting more results for perchlorate back in the next month. Mr. Hugus asked that in all the testing that has been done on the study, perchlorate was not on the analytes list. Mr. Grant stated not until August. Mr. Hugus asked if it is going to be added routinely. Mr. Grant stated that the results at Demo 1 pointed out the need to add it for any additional Demo 1 wells installed. The analytes had been added for the J-1, J-3 and L Range wells. Mr. Hugus asked why it was added to the Demo 1. Mr. Grant stated it is being added to Demo 1 because of the four detections. Mr. Grant explained that in August they selected a range of wells covering the entire base in areas where explosives, RDX and HMX, were detected thinking that perchlorate may also be present. Status of
the Small Arms Range Study Mr. Grant provided a summary of results for soil. There was an initial Guard proposal to follow standard impact area type sampling grid which is a five point grid. He stated that was modified by the IART to include additional sampling notes along the line of fire and slightly set off by a couple of feet to the side. He said they sampled both the tri point grid and nine discrete points Mr. Grant stated that they found some detections in soil propellants. Four compounds detected ethyl centralite, 2,4 DNT , di-n-butylphthalate, and N-nitrosodiphenlamine which is a combustion product. These concentrations did not exceed the reportable concentrations. There were three other semi volatile compounds detected, none above reportable concentrations. For metals they had detections of 12 analytes above background. Copper, manganese, and nickel had average levels above background. In the air samples they had five metals where downwind concentration was greater than the upwind concentration: antimony, barium, copper, lead, and zinc. Mr. Grant stated at this point they are trying to draw a connection between soil and air data. He pointed out that copper is in both air and soil samples. He stated that he is waiting for results from the Gulf and India Ranges and those results are expected soon. Mr. Grant stated that a report will be prepared describing all the results and what we think the potential impacts are for groundwater due to the small arms range firing activity. Mr. Hugus asked what compounds were above reportable concentrations that were the most significant. Mr. Grant stated there were not any in this case that were above reportable concentrations. Mr. Hugus stated that there was some discussion a couple of months ago on how the collecting would be done on the soil. Mr. Hugus questioned the method that they used to collect the data. He asked if it reflects just that days firing or a long-term use of that range. Mr. Grant stated that the decision was made to sample after firing because that is what the IART requested. He added that he believes these types of compounds are probably going to be present for a period long time, and is not a result of this particular firing activity but is the result of what has built up over several years. He added that once the results are back from Gulf and India ranges, they may have a better sense of whether it was long term impact or not. Mr. Hugus asked is Mr. Grant is ready to comment on the concentrations air detects. Mr. Grant stated that the detect followed a pattern of air release. It is difficult to determine if that was detected from the release of air release from the gun itself versus a release from the ground surface which may have had soil containing these metals. Mr. Hugus asked if any concentrations were above RCs. Mr. Grant stated there is no RC for air, so there is not a good criteria. Mr. Hugus asked how we know what is good or bad. Mr. Borci stated that there are Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and NAIA regulatory agencies have permissible exposure levels and there are concentrations that can be compared to. Mr. Hugus asked if this report will be available soon. Mr. Grant stated that the air validation is underway right now and should be completed fairly soon. He added that he is not sure about the soil results from the last two ranges, but certainly by the next IART meeting. Mr. Hugus asked if the IART will get a report in the mail. Mr. Borci stated yes, if there is time, it is his preference to get the report to the team before the next IART; however the lab is very busy right now with soil sampling and has been a little slow in getting information back. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he believes it would be prudent to do air monitoring when there is no firing to resolve that question. Mr. Grant stated in order to do a controlled study the same actions would have to be duplicated in terms of the people firing laying down or kneeling. There are many factors that would need to be simulated. Dr, Feigenbaum asked whether Mr. Grant was saying that the exhaust from the gun kicked up the soil. Mr. Grant stated what he said was that is another possible contributor to the downwind. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that if we looked on a similar day to see what is there it may help. Mr. Borci stated that is you assume the worst case, that the firing did produce these contaminents, then work from that. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that as long as people are casting doubt on that then it needs to be resolved. Mr. Borci stated that it is too early to say anything right now, until there is a comparison to air regulatory numbers and the data from G and I ranges come back, then sit down with the Guard and see what their take is on it. He added that when you see stuff in the air so if you assume worst case you assume there is something being put out at each event then you look at soil data is elevated above background but the question remains is that a leeching threat to groundwater. Mr. Zanis asked what the five metals were in air. Mr. Grant stated antimony, barium, copper lead and zinc. He added that the three in soil that had averages above elevated background were copper, manganese and nickel. Dr. Feigenbaum stated they are different. Mr. Grant said that copper was the common thread. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that it doesn't support the theory that it was kicked up from the soil. Mr. Grant stated it is also difficult to say that the air is contributing to the soil, because antimony is being seen in air, not soil. Mr. Borci stated this is why he wants to wait until the next meeting, because it is too early to tell. Dr. Feigenbaum asked what the four propellants were. Mr. Grant stated they were ethyl centralite, 2,4 DNT, di-n-butylphalate and N-nitrosodiphenlamine. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if these were what they expected to find. Mr. Grant stated that is correct. Dr. Feigenbaum asked what were the SVOC's. Mr. Grant stated the three SVOC's were bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate, benzoic acid and 2 nitro diphenylalanyne. Dr. Feigenbaum asked who's reportable concentrations are we talking about. Mr. Grant stated the MADEP number. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that number is problematic to begin with. Mr. Grant stated that MADEP has a real risk-based number for 2,4 DNT. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if Mr. Grant would tell what the concentrations are. Mr. Grant stated he prefers not to give out the concentrations because they are not validated, but they are a factor of ten lower than the RCS 1 for 2,4 DNT, and the RCS 1 is 700 ppb. Mr. Borci confirmed the RCS 1 is the cleanup standard. Mr. Borci stated that to be clear on the MADEP presentation, when Marc presents the data the important fact is that for propellants it is non-detect. The fact that it was detected is the relevant part. Dr. Feigenbaum asked what other results have been seen at MMR for 2,4 DNT. Mr. Borci stated they have seen up to 10,000ppb and IRP on CS-18 had a maximum of 17,000ppb. Mr. Zanis stated there were two soil sampling plans, the IART members plan and then the Guards. Mr. Zanis stated he would like to review and update the IART plan. He added he believes it was not right and he was too busy at the time to put his two sense in. He asked to review it amongst the citizens before there is any more soil sampling. Mr. Borci stated that for now this is what was scheduled and the data will be provided at the next IART. Mr. Grant stated that when the results are presented, they will compare the different grids results. Mr. Grant stated this concludes what was prepared and it is up to the IART if they want to discuss the handout on the Northwest Corner of MMR. Mr. Hugus asked that on the small arms range sampling, he wants to underscore the fact that MADEP's credibility when it comes to RCs, Mr. Hugus believes, is not high. He added that Mr. Borci's comment on what compounds were found above background is what should be concentrated on. Mr. Pinaud stated there still seems to be some confusion about the RCs 1. The reason it is there is because MADEP wants to make sure that AMEC is flagging contaminents that could be reportable to MADEP. He added it is not a clean up standard, and can't be used as a cleanup standard. Mr. Pinaud added that the SDWA does not have cleanup standards for soil either, so they have to use the MCP methodology to actually determine what the cleanup standards are, or their methodology from CERCLA. Mr. Pinaud stated he believes Mr. Hugus made an unfair criticism of the MCP. Mr. Hugus stated that the way he understands it, all the stuff found at this range does not have to be reported to MADEP so this is of no concern to Mr. Pinaud. Mr. Pinaud stated that is not true at all, it is a flag for whether we need to follow it administratively through the MCP. He added that Mr. Locke discussed earlier that AMEC for the Guard still have to determine if there is a risk, and if there is a risk then they need to do something about it; however, they just don't have to go through the formal MCP process. Mr. Hugus asked if it makes sense that if something is below the RC they don't need to report it. Mr. Pinaud stated it is an administrative piece, MADEP is at the table and get the information, and don't forget about it because it is less than a RC. Mr. Hugus asked if the Guard is obliged to report these things to MADEP even if they are not reportable. Mr. Pinaud stated they get it as part of the information package just as everyone else gets the information. MADEP does not "pretend" that it does not exist just because it is below a reporting concentration. RC only means to MADEP that they need to take action and also the Guard needs to take action to be in compliance with the MCP. It really is an administrative piece that MADEP needs to flag. Mr. Pinaud stated if MADEP does not do that then their not in compliance with the MCP, and then MADEP would have to take enforcement action against them and MADEP wants to make sure they stay in compliance with the MCP. He added that they probably shouldn't even put it on the table because it is flagging an administrative thing that the DEP and the Guard need to comply with. Mr. Hugus stated that he does not believe there is a good idea of what concentrations of these chemicals are safe in terms of human health. He said that as Mr. Locke said there are thousands of chemicals in the environment that haven't been defined in any way, and Mr. Hugus believes MMR is dealing with some of those, and shouldn't dismiss chemicals that have been found on the basis of what regulatory agencies have arrived at through theoretical means. Mr. Gregson stated most of the compounds detected at MMR and certainly a good number of the metals also have Method 1 cleanup standards under the MCP which are the risk based standards and were below those standards in every case where they exist. Mr. Hugus said he does not believe Mr. Gregson. LTC Knott said Mr. Gregson is lying to him. Mr. Gregson agreed with LTC Knott, and stated he is lying and wants to clarify. He said the metals have standards, the 2,4 DNT has a cleanup standard, the other propellants and some of the SVOC's do not. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that first of all he does not want to criticize his friends from MADEP, but it is a confusing nomenclature and believes that it needs to be worked on and is not helpful. He stated that the discussion is not only about the concentrations of these contaminents, but also over the area which it occurs. He added that this is a "toxic cocktail" in terms of soil and air in terms or a dozen or so problematic chemicals. Mr. Murphy stated that he would like to go on with the SERDP presentation because there are a number of people from out of town here. Mr. Borci stated he believes the best thing to do is to have everyone review the handout on the Northwest corner for the next meeting and it can be discussed then. Agenda Item #6. Other Issues SERDP LTC Knott stated that his understanding is that the Environmental Tech center will play a major role in this process. The major point is that MMR will be one of the two places in the country to test use of detection technologies, make them better, to help with the groundwater study, munitions survey, and ultimately, the United States Department of Defense. Mr. Hugus asked if that was eight billion or eight million. LTC Knott said eight million. Upper Cape
Water Supply Project Mr. Gonser stated he would like to discuss those aspects of the project that may be related to the Impact Area Groundwater Study and thus of interest to the IART in particular; well locations, what has been found to date in the sampling done that has been shared with the regulators, what the Zones of Contribution (ZOC)'s are and what the schedule of activities is. Mr. Gonser said there are five well locations that are included on the Ogden Maps. Currently they are concentrating on three wells in the Northeast corner of the installation, MMR, to get the 3 million gallons. Mr. Gonser stated a number of sampling events have been completed. When exploratory wells were drilled water samples were taken and tested for all the SDWA COC's as well as radon and explosives. The results all came back under the SDWA standards. He said the results were provided to the guard and the regulators. Mr. Gonser stated that pumping tests were then carried out in the timeframe of June-July-August. The wells were pumped for 5 days as a pretty good rate, at least one half million gallons a day. He said samples were taken at three points during the pumping. The samples were taken in the beginning, near the end and at the midpoint of the pumping tests. Mr. Gonser stated that all the tests results also came back under the SDWA and were shared with the regulators and the Guard. Mr. Gonser indicated that they did find very low levels of chloroform that was found in wells installed by the IAGWSP. He said this information is available to the public and is all the sampling they have done to date. Mr. Gonser said that part of the project includes the construction of additional chemical monitoring wells. He said they will be relying heavily on many of the far field wells that were installed under the 3MGD program. Some wells are not located properly for the 3MGD purposes, thus additional wells will be put in the ZOC. He also said two or three chemical monitoring wells will be installed near Well Site 1. Mr. Gonser said that in late December, 00 - early January, 01 they will install these wells based on input they get back from MADEP. In the January - February timeframe the wells will be installed, sampled and the information will be made available to the Groundwater Study for purposes in studying the aquifer. Mr. Gonser pointed out tentative ZOC's on the map projection, where they were getting 1 million gallons a day. He added he had hoped to be further along in the finalization, but a meeting with USGS last Friday they were asked to go back and look at some aspects of the modeling. He stated that he does not anticipate that the ZOC's are going to change significantly from what is currently identified. Mr. Gonser stated that the ZOC well locations were agreed to be installed to avoid any known contamination from the IRP or the IAGWSP, or anything else that was in anybody's database. He said MW-57 from the IAGWSP hit a low level of perchloroethylene (PCE), is being tracked. He added that the Groundwater Study's MW-18 also had a small hit of TCE which is far from the ZOC but the 3MGD project wants to be aware of everything going on around them. Mr. Gonser said the next step will be the installation of the chemical monitoring wells in January and they will report back with their results of sampling. He added that they will keep tracking the IAGWSP to make sure there are no new discoveries that would be of concern to 3MGD as they go through the new source development process. He said as he gets more information he will share it at the IART. Mr. Hugus stated he noticed that something related to this is that a couple of meetings ago, he said Jan Larkin from the Joint Program Office said that she was going to try to incorporate into the maps that were put out by the IRP all the Groundwater plumes in the Impact Area. He said he would like to see the maps of all the known problems including plumes in the impact area. He stated he believes this map will give a good idea where all the ZOC's are and in problem areas are close to potential water supplies. Mr. Gonser stated that is their intention. When the zones are completed they intend to give the data to Mr. Grant so he can put it right on the other maps electronically so that all the data is in one picture. He added that he is interested in seeing that map as well. He stated there has been a few meetings on it, it was discussed in the Pentagon on Monday with the Board of Directors. He said he hopes to have something very soon, has not seen a draft of it, but he thinks all the parties together have laid out what it is going to look like. Mr. Cambareri asked what the overall project schedule would be? Mr. Gonser stated they are still on schedule and they hope to award contracts in the January time frame which would allow that contractor about 6 months construction time. He added that the designs for the pipelines are complete, but not for the wells and the pump stations yet, but that should come in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Gonser stated the southern water main in under construction now, they have installed from the Falmouth gate up to just short of the air field. Mr. Cambareri asked if 3MGB was going to do profiling on their wells. Mr. Gonser said that profiling is a technique that is used for a very different purpose, so it can be reviewed by 3MGD, but the process right now is to follow the standard Resource and Development process that towns would do in their procedures. Mr. Cambareri stated that because of the location of the 3MGD project being so close to the Impact Area that he believes that there is justification in his request to do profiling; regardless of how the two programs are different and urges Mr. Gonser to reconsider the project. Mr. Borci stated that EPA views profiling wells as an economical and the most efficient way to get some additional data in an area where there are a lot of questions. He added that despite MADEP's response that it is not part of the new source approval, EPA is still going to urge the JPO to do profiling on their own. It is a water supply well and it is in the immediate vicinity of that well. Mr. Zanis stated there are a lot of old ranges out there. He added that of all those 15,000 acres that they are taking water from off-base. Mr. Gonser stated they looked for the best locations and given all the restraints, the locations identified were ones that qualified. He added that there were a lot of constraints, the contamination, surface water bodies, location of the mound, it was hard to come up with good locations. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that he heard the county agency saying that there is a need for more protective action for profiling and he said he hears the Federal agency is saying the same thing. He then asked if it is Federal money that is being used and said that because this is right at the border of MMR so why not just do the profiling. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that FS-12 was discovered when EDB was found when Sandwich was looking for town water, they detected EDB and it was traced back to the base. Mr. Gonser referred back to the original question that profiling is a different process. He said profiling does. It takes discrete samples to depth, it does not tell you about the portion of the aquifer that is coming out of the well. He added that in profiling the water might be flowing over or under a screen, however, he acknowledged Dr. Feigenbaum is interested in characterizing and protecting that aquifer that is going to be coming up out of the well, and you want to be given advanced notice. Mr. Gonser stated there are a number of options exist if there are detections found . He said options include reducing pumping rate of the well, change the screen level of the existing well, the well can be abandoned, it can be treated, analyzed, he said there a number of options to carry-out of detections are found. Dr. Feigenbaum said he believes the first three options will destroy the object of the 3MGD project because the water will not be being supplied, and the last options are what we want to avoid. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he is unhappy with MADEP's letter. He added it seems irrational to him for 3MGD to have a waiver of environmental impact review for the construction of the wells but not for the operation of the wells. Mr. Dayain introduced himself as the Chief of Drinking Water Program at MADEP. Mr. Dayain explained that the letter says that MADEP has no technical justification to require the type of well that is being proposed by EPA. He added there will be a century well system installed as part of the new source approval process for the development of those wells. Mr. Dayain stated that MADEP asked modelers to find locations that would exclude waste sites. ZOC's as USGS contribution delineates and area that provides water under steady state condition. He said that if there is information generated from the far field wells, MADEP will welcome it. He indicated that the people of the Drinking Water Program see that as a site investigation initiative, and through the new source approval process, MADEP does not have the technical justification to do site investigation. Mr. Dayain stated that if EPA wants to encourage JPO or the military for that information, MADEP would welcome that information. He explained that MADEP can not technically justify requiring the information. Dr. Feigenbaum asked Technically or legally. Mr. Dayain said both, the regulations require MADEP to do certain things but the regulations also prevent. Dr. Feigenbaum asked whether Mr. Dayain means that the state regulations from doing what would ordinarily be required in this case. Mr. Dayain said no, "I didn't say it would ordinarily be required in this case" what he is saying is that there is no technical justification right now for the drinking water program to put in site investigation wells in these areas. Mr. Dayain explained that 3MGD is looking at that portion of aquifer that would contribute water to a well under pumping condition. The aquifer would be screened in the vertical horizon so that if in fact that well would be threatened, it would be detected. Mr. Borci stated that EPA asked for the three chemical monitoring wells that are going in just be profiled as they are put in wherever MADEP approves them to go. He said his second point is that the modeling was based on known source areas at that time and CS-8 has two distinct areas that are being investigated and one is a disposal area of several gun carcasses sticking out of the ground which is right on the edge of water supply 1 ZOC. He added a third point that the construction of a gravel path well, any contamination between that well screen and the water table is of some significance. EPA would want to know where that is and that is why EPA thought profiling gets answers for the water supply people, the IRP, the Impact Area answers. EPA thought it would be an economical and efficient way to get some additional information on an unknown area out there. Mr. Hugus asked if there are any active arranges within the Zone 2 boundaries. Mr. Gonser stated there is a range on Gibbs road. Mr. Hugus asked MADEP if those ranges are appropriate for land use above a zone 2, or an active range while water is being pumped from that area. Mr. Dayain said no. Mr. Hugus asked then if Mr. Dayain is insisting that the ranges be closed. Mr. Dayain stated that MADEP will take a look at what risk the ranges present under the use of which it is proposed. Mr. Cambareri stated the establishment of this whole program is under the SDWA, to evaluate, protect, and the community to take advantage of this area as a water supply. Mr. Cambareri stated he believes that profiling the wells to find contamination could result in a good thing if there was no contamination found. He suggested to have MADEP select the locations, do the profiling, and the best thing that could happen is that nothing would be found. Dr. Feigenbaum asked if the sentry wells find contamination creeping up into the production wells, who is going to put the containment system in, and how are they going to make that happen. He asked if it would be under the SDWA or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). He stated he believes that the CERCLA process may not accomplish what is needed. He added that he believes that MADEP has been "less than helpful" in the citizens concerns. Mr. Pinaud stated he wanted to remind everyone that EPA has oversight on CERCLA issues. Mr. Murphy stated that it is now 10:30p.m.and reminded Dr. Feigenbaum that he had asked the USACE about their experience with UXO. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he just asked for a list. Mr. Borci stated there is a handout but he does not believe that is what the citizens asked for. Mr. Deleppo asked if Dr. Feigenbaum wants a local list, a regional list, or a nation wide list. Dr. Feigenbaum stated he requests a representative list that does not have to be every place dealt with UXO, but some of the major areas, what kind of UXO were dealt with, how they were disposed of, what numbers. He said for Mr. Deleppo to choose his cases. Mr. Zanis explained the citizens just want some references where the USACE did a good job on, so the citizens can check on it. Agenda Item #7. Wrap Up, Schedule Next Meeting Date, Review Action items Mr. Murphy stated the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 25, 2001 and the location will be announced when booked. Mr. Murphy asked if the action items should be reviewed or sent in email. It was agreed to send the action items out in the email. Agenda Item #8. Adjourn Mr. Murphy thanked everyone and adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Action items:
|
|
| Administrative Notice |
