Impact Area Review Team

River River Drops of rain on a leaf

Impact Area Review Team
Quashnet Valley Country Club
Mashpee, Massachusetts
February 27, 2001
6:00 p.m.

Meeting Summary






Todd Borci




Jane Dolan




Margery Adams




Bill Walsh-Rogalski




Len Pinaud




Shaun Cody




Ben Gregson




Martin Aker




Bob Burt





James Kinney



Tom Cambareri




Paul Zanis




Peter Schlesinger




Joel Feigenbaum



Richard Hugus









Jim Murphy










Justin Mierz



Millie Garcia-Surette




Les Perry





Virginia Valiela

Falmouth selectman


Richard Judge

Sandwich selectman



Jim Stahl



David Dow

Sierra Club


Tina Dolen



M.M. Crocker




Peggy Aulisio

Upper Cape Codder



Reggie Judson




Kevin Dennehy

Cape Cod Times




Darrell Deleppo




Mark Harding




Hugh Sease



Mark Hutson

Foothill Engineering



C. Marshall




Pat de Groot





L. Seijido




Tom Fogg


Pamela Bonin





Marty Howell




Deirdre DeBaggis




Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

  1. February 1, 2001 Draft Meeting Agenda
  2. January 25, 2001 Draft Meeting Minutes
  3. Status of January 25, 2001 Action Items
  4. IAGWSP Groundwater Study Update
  5. Letter: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health, January 25, 2001 RE: Preliminary evaluation of data provided from the Small Arms Range Firing events of July 21 and September 23, 2000
  6. Presentation handout: Munitions Survey Update, February 2001
  7. Presentation handout: Demo Area 1 Draft Development and Screening of Alternatives Report
  8. Presentation handout: Small Arms Range Air and Soil Sampling Briefing
  9. Presentation handout: Central Impact Area Draft Groundwater Report (TM 01-6)
  10. Court Report: Public Hearing on EPA Administrative Order #4 (Formal period)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Approval of November 28, 2000 and January 25, 2001 Meeting Minutes, and Draft Agenda

Mr. Murphy: Good evening everybody. I just want to start out tonight – we’ll get back to the welcome, approval, etc, and go over the agenda in a minute – but I just wanted to see if, Ben Gregson, I believe, had a statement to make early on as we’re just starting out the meeting.

Mr. Gregson: My name is Ben Gregson. I am the project coordinator – program manager – for the Impact Area Groundwater Study. I’d like to read the following statement: "I will be representing the National Guard Bureau at tonight’s meeting. I serve as NGB’s assistant technical point-of-contact for the program and I am a licensed site professional in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. LTC Joe Knott will not be attending this evening. As you recall, LTC Knott made a statement at the close of the last Impact Area Review Team meeting indicating his serious concerns over the conduct of these meetings. LTC Knott strongly feels that the solution for more smoothly-run meetings is to introduce a third-party facilitator. An independent facilitator ensures that equal times and groundrules are observed by all parties. The National Guard Bureau has requested that the EPA work with them to institute such a plan and still hopes that this might be implemented. In the meantime, everyone needed to discuss tonight’s agenda items are here tonight, and we look forward to tonight’s meeting."

Mr. Murphy: Thanks, Ben. I just want to have everybody introduce themselves at the table and then we’ll go through the draft agenda and maybe we…are you the first one down there Ben? I can’t see.

Mr. Gregson: Yes sir.
Mr. Murphy: Yes, okay.
Mr. Cody: Shaun Cody, Massachusetts National Guard.
Ms. Dolan: Jane Dolan, EPA.
Ms. Adams: Margery Adams, EPA.
Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Bill Walsh-Rogalski, EPA.
Mr. Borci: Todd Borci, EPA.
Mr. Murphy: Jim Murphy, EPA. And I am the not third-party facilitator.
Ms. DeBaggis: Deirdre DeBaggis, CH2M HILL.
Dr. Stahl: Jim Stahl, TOSC advisor.
Mr. Kinney: James Kinney, citizen. I haven’t been to the meetings recently but there was such a flap I thought I should come to give the National Guard a little moral support so they could stand up to the citizen problems with the cleanup in the Impact Area.
Mr. Hugus: I’m Richard Hugus, Falmouth citizen
Dr. Feigenbaum: Joel Feigenbaum.
Mr. Zanis: Paul Zanis, citizen from Sandwich, Forestdale.
Mr. Schlesinger: Peter Schlesinger, citizen of Sandwich.
Mr. Pinaud: Len Pinaud with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Mr. Aker: Marty Aker, AFCEE/MMR.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Marty. And there are handouts at the table. Hopefully there are adequate handouts for everybody who is coming in tonight. Just quickly through the agenda and then we’ll come back and do the minutes. We’re going to review the action items. We have three main items tonight: the Demo 1 Update, Central Impact Area Groundwater Update, the Small Arms Range Update. Eight-forty p.m. for other issues – so, if there are any things other people want to bring up, that can be the point. And then the wrap up.

And again, before we get to the minutes, I just wanted to mention a couple of things. There had been – a number of people made comments that they’d like to see the meetings run a little bit smoother. And I think most of the people in the room probably agree that the meetings could run a little bit smoother, and that we could look at some revisions to the team. Maybe going back, looking at who are the active members, who are the inactive members, who are no longer members, and if we need to replace some of the people that are on there, as well as invite other stakeholders out there who should be on the team. We are in the process of preparing – that is, to invite a representative of the Wampanoag Indians, as well as some of the various state agencies who have an interest in what the team is doing – some of the EOEA sub-agencies.

And, I just also wanted to take a minute and just go over what some of the groundrules were for the – that we’ve had for the meeting, since we haven’t done them in a while. And I’ll get to people’s comments in a moment. The groundrules that the team has been operating on are brief, just that sign-in sheets will be distributed for members at the head table, meeting minutes will be recorded, transcribed, and mailed to team members – I think that’s working well. There will be respect shown for each other and the issues raised. Members will take turns speaking and use their nametents to be recognized. Members will make a commitment to attend meetings on a regular basis. NGB technical experts will be available at each meeting to respond directly to questions raised by the team, and members should remain focused on the issues and provide brief and concise comments.

And one more thing is I – after the last meeting when there were, you know, there were numerous complaints about the facilitator – I certainly didn’t take any of them personally – but I thought it would be helpful to go over what I thought were some of the helpful facilitator… I just prepared a little cheat sheet to help us have a better meeting. So, I just wanted to read what some of them were so people can be aware of them, so I won’t have to constantly remind people. And if I miss them, maybe somebody can help me out. Anyway, here are some of my little comments and then we will get on with the meeting.

Facilitator responsibilities: Reminding myself to limit questions during presentations. To remind team members to keep, during the presentations – keep the questions brief and for clarification only, and try to hold the questions until after the presentation. It sounds like a good one. Recognize immediately and discourage personal attacks. Encourage adherence to the groundrules agreed to by the team. Remind parties when they are speaking too long or getting off track from the agenda. If a member brings up a new item, try to defer it to the general updates at the end of the meeting or to the appropriate part on the agenda. Only a couple of more bullets here. Reiterate and remind the group of the question being answered when the question being answered – when the agenda includes a specific item seeking specific kinds of input from the team. And I think the presenters over the last couple of meetings have done a better job of letting people know what they want to get feedback on. Remind presenters and the team when they are running over from the time exceedances from the agenda. After the first round of comments, provide the opportunity for team members who have not spoken, give them a chance to raise questions or concerns. And recognize and discourage members speaking out of turn, or who do not use their placard or hand to be recognized. And, I might add that some of my colleagues from EPA don’t – aren’t very good about lifting up their placards. They are somewhat placardly-challenged, or however we may want to phrase it. But anyway, yes, we’ll stop the personal attacks. Okay, with that said, I think we can get on.

The first item is – Paul, go ahead.

Mr. Zanis: You’re speaking about additional members, yeah, we’re talking about additional members coming to the table here. I think it would be mandatory to have the head of Range Control at these meetings, the base commander, maybe the Coast Guard commander, but we need the commanders. We need the people at the top at this base here at this table so they can hear what is going on and we can ask them questions about past activities or present activities, so we have a good clarification of what the issues are about the contamination on this base.

Mr. Murphy: Our plan, Paul, is to get out something between this meeting and the next one with just some suggestions about the groups that we think should be represented on the team, and there will be an opportunity for other people to make suggestions also. Richard.

Mr. Hugus: Jim, what point are we at on the agenda?

Mr. Murphy: I was taking a facilitator liberty and kind of babbling on in the beginning. We are actually still about to approve the minutes.

Mr. Hugus: So we’re still in the welcome stage of our meeting right now.

Mr. Murphy: That’s correct. Correct.

Mr. Hugus: Okay. Well, I was going to ask that this be put on the agenda, after hearing what you said during the welcome part. But instead of doing that, I’d just like to say briefly that I’ve heard a lot of talk between the last meeting and this one about our last meeting being contentious, about there being personal attacks. And I think all this is way overblown. And I’m also disturbed that LTC Knott has chosen not to come to the meeting. I’d like to ask EPA what the implications of that are. I’m not sure if Mr. Gregson’s statement meant that he is standing in for the National Guard Bureau tonight. If not, then we don’t have a team. But, in any case, I think that the Guard should be coming to the table to tell us what their problems are with the facilitator here. COL Murphy, when I asked him after the last meeting what the problem was, refused to talk to me about it. The citizens haven’t been included in all the dialogue about the facilitator, so it is hard for us to know how to take this news. LTC Knott won’t come to the meeting. There’s complaints from the Guard about the facilitator. I don’t see any problem with the way you’ve been running the meetings here. So I’d like to ask that at the next meeting we air these grievances. This is a team; we are supposed to be working things out among ourselves. And again, I’d like to hear what the implications of the Guards non-attendance meeting are.

Mr. Murphy: So you want to get it on the agenda for the next meeting, but also get a response?

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Responding on behalf of EPA, I guess what I’d say, my understanding is that Ben is representing the National Guard Bureau here tonight and that we should proceed accordingly.

Mr. Murphy: Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: First of all I’d like to congratulate EPA on the Supreme Court decision today. And I think is has been a long time coming. I think it is reinforcement of the good work EPA has been doing on all levels. And we can certainly use more stringent controls on air quality abuses here on the Cape, I think. So, congratulations to you guys for a good job.

I think that Jim has been doing an excellent job as facilitator. I’ve gone to hundreds of meetings that were facilitated in various ways over the past ten years, and Jim is as good, if not better than any of the facilitators that I’ve seen.

I kind of object to the idea that the people in the Guard would go to closed meetings and criticize members of the public. I think that what everybody has to say they should bring to the table, say it like adults, and not do it behind closed doors. Also, I’d just like to ask – we finally were persuaded of the importance of Darrell being at the table, and the importance of the Corps as the contract administrator for the program. And I would just like to invite Darrell to come back to the table after we got so used to seeing him here. It’s kind of confusing – are you here or are you not here?

Mr. Deleppo: I’m here.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, why don’t you come and…

Mr. Murphy: Well, Joel, I think we’re going – Richard has suggested we discuss the facilitator issue and maybe these Guard issues at the next one, or if we have time under "Other Issues." But if we could just move on, I think Darrell looks like he is staying right there.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Darrell, is this a policy reason why you’re this time sitting in the audience? Last three times you sat at the table. Before you were in the audience, I think. Can you just explain to us what’s going on? I think, you know, we have a right to know.

Mr. Cody: I think I can try to explain. There’s been a few meetings where it was asked that contractors not sit at the table to provide room for the actual team members. So, Darrell here is in support of myself and Ben Gregson, should we need him. So, I was wondering if we could move on.

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Murphy: Okay, quickly, the minutes. The approval for the November 28th minutes we held out because DEP had some comments to make on them, which they have just submitted. And, what I was going to ask is that Deirdre incorporate their comments – because there was a number of comments over three pages – instead of going through them all. And then they can reprint those three pages of the minutes and get them out to people we could then approve them next time, instead of going through three pages of word changes and so on. So, is that okay with people? That’s the November 28th minutes. We can approve the January 25th meeting minutes if it’s okay. Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: Couple of comments on January 25th. On page 25, just trying to figure out what it was that you thought I said. In the third paragraph, it should say that I understand about the lateral extent. That’s what it should say. And then the second line it should say, "What we defined thus far is great but it’s not long enough." And then further down in that paragraph, the last sentence, it should be "So I think we haven’t established enough information to say that we know that this is where it is."

Mr. Murphy: Okay, thank. Richard.

Mr. Hugus: I wonder…I noticed that the meeting minutes were taken verbatim. May I ask why? They are usually summarized.

Mr. Murphy: Ben.

Mr. Gregson: In order to try and present the most accurate representation of what occurred at the meeting, we made a decision to change from a summary format to a verbatim format – in an attempt to try and get the best picture possible of what went on at the meeting.

Mr. Hugus: So is that the way it’s going to be from now on?

Mr. Gregson: We’d like to continue that way.

Mr. Hugus: All right, I have a few comments to make. As far as verbatim minutes go, I think accuracy is great, but it’s not necessary, I don’t feel, to read the words "um," "err," and "ah," which we all use when we speak. So, the fact that they are going to be verbatim means that we all have to stop using those words now. I have specific comments on the minutes, is there something that you wanted to…

Mr. Cody: I just wanted to say, generally I think recording verbatim is good. I think there have been times when things have been characterized, and its led me to think, "well was this intentional," or "was it just translation?" So I think a straight transcript does justice to what was said.

Mr. Murphy: Richard, and then Jane.

Mr. Hugus: Some (inaudible) in the meeting. Page 12, four lines down, Dr. Feigenbaum was talking about Pease Air Force base – that’s not P’s, but Pease. Two lines after that Dr. Feigenbaum talks about a red herring – that the fish, not the "hair." And two lines after that Dr. Feigenbaum – I’m sorry if I’m correcting for you here Joel but – "your just not allowed to release any information" – that’s you’re. There’s more P’s for Pease Air force Base. At the bottom of that page – "Mr. Hugus said, ‘I also ask that MADEP’" – that should be asked. Page 17, about two-thirds the way down – "Mr. Hugus said, ‘Your asking for input’" – that’s you’re. On Page 41, third paragraph down, instead of compounding, I said confounding. Page 42, the first big paragraph, about past halfway down "background level is subject to confounding and error" - a-n-d, not a-n. And I guess that’s it, thanks.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Richard. Jane.

Ms. Dolan: On page 30 where "Mr. Grant continued," okay, it’s officially known as the J-1/L/J-3 Wetland, not J-1-3-0.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m sure glad that this new method of taking minutes has improved our accuracy. On page 48, about one third of the way up, second line, I have a comment. It is kind of – asymptotic is the word - and whoever it was, said it was acidtotic which I don’t think is a word. I think we need to know who is editing these. It’s not just enough to throw letters on a page and say that’s improving the accuracy. Ben, can you speak to this?

Mr. Gregson: I’m hearing the comments and recognize there is a need to take a look at the minutes prior to putting them out, and we’ll do so for the next go around. We’ll make sure that we edit these easily-correctable mistakes.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Ben. Are you all set Joel? Okay. We have 50-page minutes; we may have to add a few more minutes to review the minutes. We’re going to look at the action items now. I’m sorry. Tom.

Mr. Cambareri: I also had some editorial comments on the public hearing information. I don’t know when or how I would correct that. There was one item in there in particular.

Mr. Murphy: Margery.

Ms. Adams: Tom, I would suggest that you submit that in writing and we will add it to the record.

Mr. Cambareri: Okay. There was one line in there where I said it would be impossible for one to imagine that there was no contamination in Camp Edwards. And it was written in here that I thought it was possible to imagine that there was no contamination.

Ms. Adams: If you could just write that in an e-mail to me or to Todd, and we will add it to the record. Thank you.

Mr. Cambareri: Okay.

Mr. Murphy: On to the action items.

Agenda Item #2. Review of Action Items

Action Items

  1. Per Mr. Hugus’s request, EPA will research the requirements that may be imposed by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) relating to the storage of explosives by the military. Status: Mr. Walsh-Rogalski will provide an update at the meeting.
  2. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Yes, I apologize. I began that research and EPCRA is somewhat complicated in that it divides chemicals into three classes: extremely hazardous substances, hazardous substances, and toxic substances. And then it also has a series of different activities using manufacturing, processing, etc. There’s some 400 chemicals that you have to sort into these three groups, figure out what activity is occurring, and determine whether thresholds have been met before you can determine whether the law applies. And I wasn’t able to finish that research. So rather than give a guess for an answer, I’d ask for your forbearance until next month’s meeting for a more complete answer.

    Mr. Hugus: That would be fine. Thank you.

    Mr. Murphy: Peter.

    Mr. Schlesinger: Bill, doesn’t this problem of us not having the constituents of the materials in the ASP prevent you from making proper research?

    Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Yes, to some extent. We are also in the process of talking …I’ve sent a letter to the Massachusetts Guard’s lawyers – I think we’ve reached an agreement under which Todd will do an inspection of the Ammo Supply point. So we are moving forward on both at the same time.

  3. Mr. Zanis requested the Guard to investigate and report the breakdown products of perchlorate. Status: AMEC has compiled the following information: Perchlorate (ClO4) is not known to undergo degradation in the natural environment. Perchlorate is a kinetically stable ion, which means that reduction of the chlorine atom from a +7 oxidation state in perchlorate to a –1 oxidation state as a chloride ion does not occur spontaneously – it would require an input of energy (e.g., heat or light) or the presence of a catalyst to help the reaction occur. However, it can be degraded under anaerobic conditions in a treatment system. When perchlorate degrades, it produces chloride and oxygen, neither of which is toxic.
  4. Mr. Murphy: I think people can read that for themselves, since it’s kind of a long response. Number three…

  5. Mr. Hugus requested that perchlorate be added to the contaminants of concern (COC) list. Status: The Guard will add perchlorate to the COC list.
  6. Mr. Murphy: Number four…

  7. Mr. Hugus requested TOSC members be provided monthly Technical Reports which contain information for modeling. Status: The Guard has provided recent technical reports from Fate and Transport Measurements; all monthly progress reports to date, and will continue to do so.
  8. At the next IART, the Guard will provide information on where additional wells will be installed at the Demo 1 Plume Area. Status: Additional well installations will be discussed during the Demo 1 area presentation.
  9. Mr. Murphy: This is going to be discussed in tonight’s presentation.

  10. Mr. Hugus requested new fact sheets be distributed. Status: Four fact sheets regarding RDX, HMX, TNT, and perchlorate will be provided to the Risk Communications Group on March 21, 2000. Following their review, the fact sheets will be made available to IART members.

Mr. Murphy: There’s an update there concerning contaminant fact sheets, and I believe, Richard, you had had a question on kind of an over-all type of fact sheet.

Mr. Hugus: This could be something that maybe we can add five minutes to the agenda about – rather than discussing now – under "Other Issues."

Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Okay, that’s pretty much it. The…

Mr. Zanis: Number seven.

Mr. Murphy: No, I was just going with seven, those weren’t the action items. Those are more the future agenda items. As you see, the first one, ASR, is going to be on the March agenda. Northwest corner summary is going to be discussed tonight, and the JPO map, the answer is there – it is undergoing review. My understanding is that it is being provided to the IRP and the remedial project managers and then its also going to come to the technical people on the groundwater side. So, I don’t know when it’s going to be available to the public. Peter, and then Paul.

The following items will be included on the next IART agenda: ASR Interviews Status: Due to new and additional interview information, the ASR Interviews will be presented at the March IART; Northwest Corner Summary of investigations Status: Will be discussed during the Central Impact Area Groundwater presentation; JPO will provide a map & fact sheet to be distributed that will contain IRP plumes and IAGWSP areas of contamination. Status: The map is undergoing review and will be available prior to the March IART.

Mr. Schlesinger: Just a quick question. Why does the IRP have plumes, and the Impact Area Groundwater study – whatever that "p" means – project areas of contamination?

Mr. Murphy: Do we have someone who wants to take a shot at that? Ben.

Mr. Gregson: It is probably more accurate to say that we have both. Demo 1 is clearly able to be defined as a classic plume, similar to other IRP plumes. In the Central Impact Area we prefer to call that an area of contamination because it is probably multiple source areas and multiple plumes emanating from those source areas that have not yet been well defined.

Mr. Zanis: On that note, I’d like to…so what’s worse? Areas of contamination or a plume? We should state what is worse. Is the Impact Areas of contamination worse than one little plume?

Mr. Cody: They are relatively similar. They are both contaminated areas. I mean, what is your issue with this? You want to call it a plume, not an area of contamination?

Mr. Zanis: I want to have a note saying that we have a defined plume, and areas of contamination are multi-leveled, so they are complicated so people can see that there’s an area of contamination – technically far worse than a nice delineated plume.

Mr. Cody: I think that is something that can be discussed at the technical meeting. I think it goes a little bit beyond that, but we can look at it technically.

Mr. Zanis: All right. And the other issue I have is…the map is undergoing review. Every week I have to change my map. So if you have a map under review, by the time it is issued it is obsolete because I update my map every week with every progress report and my printer quit because I’ve had three maps in three weeks, and my printer actually quit on me. So, how are we going to keep this map accurate, for the citizens to have accurate information – which I think is vital in this study.

Mr. Murphy: Ben, do you have your card up?

Mr. Gregson: Yes, I do. That’s a concern Paul. Both programs have data coming in on a continuing basis, and discussing that today, we proposed to do an update of that map for both programs on a six-month basis – based on incoming data. So if you feel like we need…

Mr. Zanis: I think it should be monthly. It should be a monthly update because – look at the Impact Area plume. These new detects that are way outside – that’s another couple hundred yards in size.

Mr. Gregson: A lot of it depends on when the programs are getting data in. The IRP program does not get new data in as often as we do.

Mr. Zanis: Right, right. I mean, the IRP, they can have their obsolete maps. I’d like to one up them and say our maps are more accurate, our data is more accurate, and it comes in faster and we are doing a better job, myself.

Mr. Gregson: Well, we can look at...the data we get, some of it changes the map significantly, some of it doesn’t. So we can look at the data coming in and see how the interpretation might be changing based on that data, and update the map. There shouldn’t be a problem with that.

Mr. Murphy: I want to go to Joel, Peter and Shaun. Is that on the same topic Joel – the map?

Dr. Feigenbaum: It just sounds to me that "areas of contamination" is ambiguous. It could be areas of soil contamination as opposed to groundwater. Plumes only refer to groundwater. I do think that the map ought to contain source areas as well, of course. But as it stands, it’s really not too helpful.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, then we have Peter, then Shaun, and Todd.

Mr. Schlesinger: Well, we do get these maps, but these maps don’t show – I mean we get these every month. But are these maps going to show our updated areas of contamination? I think the key thing is not just to get the information to us, it’s to get the information to the community and we need to make sure that these maps contain the most updated set and we don’t just get an updated plume or area of contamination map every six months presented to the team. We can’t make decisions on that, it’s not satisfactory.

Mr. Borci: I guess the maps that are handed out, those are changed monthly for this meeting. When it comes to – I think we need to keep in mind the original intent of what this all base-wide plume map was, and that’s to show both the IRP and the Impact Area contamination. So, as far as shifting boundaries between the IRP as a specific definition of what defines a plume – and that’s what they’re going to show on their map. We are working to try and get our hands around an area of contamination. We don’t know how big the exact extents are. And it is going to change a little bit because we are still in the middle of the investigation. So we’re going to have to work with that. But we get data dumps about three times a year. Three sampling rounds a year, and as far as making decisions at this meeting, we’ll constantly have maps that are updated to those changes. Okay. But as far as one map that goes out to the public, we will try and make the best representation possible. The point is to get that information across to the public that there – this contamination up here that’s above a health advisory and that figure will be shown clearly on the maps, and when a change is necessary we can make it. I don’t think it’s going to be a major deal of having to change the maps every month. I think that – once I see this map, hopefully it will be appropriate. But it is clearly defined that this is groundwater contamination on the map, I would hope, and that these are the bounds, best as we know it as of this date. And that should all be on the map and that should get out to the public. And that would be a step in the right direction because that’s something that’s not out there right now.

Mr. Murphy: Okay we’re going to take Tom and then David. And I just want to remind people in the audience, since I didn’t mention this earlier, is that if anybody from the audience wants to speak, if you could get up to the microphone there, and I’ll recognize you as soon as possible. So, Tom and then David.

Mr. Cambareri: On the issue of updating the maps, I am one person that has spent many years on MMR technical teams and following the IRP assessment and cleanup process. We’ve seen the maps change drastically from one year to the next. I think this is a very simple GIS maneuver of aerial data from two programs and I think – I just don’t see why it’s taken a long time. I think it’s a great disservice to the people of Cape Cod not to know what the full extent of contamination is. And I think it is the crux of the whole mission of why the JPO was established – was to put together this information. So, I don’t understand why there would be this problem to put this together. So that’s my comment for that issue.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, David. We’re running just a couple of minutes over, so we can kind of try to wrap this one up.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow with the Sierra Club. In the base-wide maps, since the IRP defines their plumes based on things above MCL’s – as I understand, the Impact Area Review Team expresses their areas of concern on plumes based on what the detection level is. Is there some way this is explained in the base-wide maps so people know that you’re comparing apples and oranges when you look at the plume extent, especially on the areas on the northern 15,000 acres where some of them are being remediated by the IRP program and others under the Impact Area Review Team process.

Mr. Murphy: Todd’s going to answer and then we’ll take Peter. Tom, you still have another question too. Tom?

Mr. Cambareri: Yes.

Mr. Murphy: Hold on a second, okay.

Mr. Cambareri: It has to do with action items.

Mr. Borci: Yeah, real quick David. I haven’t seen a map so it’s a little difficult for me to answer the question, but I believe that a base-wide map will show only detections of explosives above the health advisory. So that would, typically, it’s going to be mostly RDX and maybe TNT detections above 2 ppb, which will still be a significant shaded area on the map – but I believe that’s the way its going to work out.

Mr. Murphy: Peter, and then Tom.

Mr. Schlesinger: I want just some more clarification on this action item. It says that the map is undergoing review and will be available prior to the March Impact Area Review Team – I assume it is meeting. Who is doing the review? And my understanding is that we citizens were reviewing materials for EPA and the Guard as citizen input. Are we reviewing this map? Or is this map being presented to the public without our review?

Mr. Murphy: Well, it is a JPO thing – is anybody, anybody want to respond? Ben?

Mr. Gregson: I don’t want to respond too far down the road for JPO, but if the citizens of this team request an opportunity to review a draft of the map and provide input to JPO on the presentation, I’m sure that can be done. I can bring that to JPO as a request from the team.

Mr. Cambareri: I, for one, don’t want to see the map, the review. I review it when I go the Joint Program Office – I mean, the IRP JPAT meetings. We review it here. All we want to do is see the map combined. It’s a simple process. I would like also, as a JPAT member, that meets on March 7th, it would be great to see that map then, so we don’t have to go through the same discussion again. It would be a great savings of time.

My follow-up question has to do with an action item. I requested at the last meeting a follow up of the status of the profiling of the chemical monitoring wells that would be installed for the public water supply wells. We had a presentation several meetings back on this issue and it was brought up at the SMB. I’d like to know what the status of that is. If somebody from some organization that’s responsible for that is here, I would like to have an update on that at some point during this meeting.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we can have that as an action item Tom, because I don’t think we can get it in here tonight. Richard, do you have another comment?

Mr. Cambareri: I think it was just missing – if I could – it was a missing action item that I asked to have on this for tonight.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. Richard.

Mr. Hugus: These are some things that I hoped we would discuss on the other agenda items. I want to talk about the fact sheet at that point and the map. And so, I’ll save my comments about that for later. But I noticed that the Joint Program Office isn’t at the table tonight, or are they? And I just wondered why. And, aren’t they a member of this team?

Mr. Cambareri: They have sat at every meeting of this team.

Mr. Murphy: Right, I think Hap Gonser is the…

Mr. Zanis: He’s in the audience.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. I guess people like the seats out there better tonight. Okay. Peter, and then Joel.

Mr. Schlesinger: I apologize for keeping going on this, but – I know that some of you are on other base teams – but it isn’t the IRP program that reviews Impact Area Groundwater Study areas of contaminations nor plumes. So, therefore, it should behoove this team to review a map of its areas before that map goes out to the public. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. I think Ben responded to that. Did you have your card up?

Mr. Gregson: I just wanted to make sure that we have some consensus among the team members on what direction you want me to take. Do you want me to have JPO provide this map to the team for review and comment or not?

Mr. Zanis: Yes.

Mr. Murphy: Joel.

Mr. Cambareri: If the map is available before the JPAT meeting, I would like to see the map there.

Mr. Gregson: Okay.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I don’t really see why JPO is involved in this at all. I mean, the IRP has been producing maps without JPO’s assistance for about ten years. And IRP is advised by at least one advisory board that has citizens, regulators, people from the county, etc. They have been quite capable of producing maps. And I think that we’re capable of producing maps here. And, as Tom says, it is just a question of putting these two maps together. So why can’t we do that between the two study groups, engineering companies, etc. We’ve got so many people involved in this. JPO seems like an extra player and I’m sure they are real busy and have other things to do anyway.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. I wish the map was here tonight. But, it not being here…if I could just take Jamie’s comment and then move on, because I think we’ve heard plenty on the maps.

Mr. Kinney: This is my input on the map. I think it’s critical for the community to have up-to-date information on what’s going on, especially in the Impact Area and under the Impact Area. That has not been forthcoming for months and months and months. I seem to recall conversations about this grand map happening six months ago, which is probably the last meeting I came to here. Apparently, no progress has been made. It’s really important, I think, that the community know the extent of the pollution and it would be a simple matter to take the IRP maps that already exist, with explanations that they’re based on five ppb, or whatever, for the different contaminents of concern. And, other notes that explain what’s going on in the Impact Area portion of it. And just make sure it’s clear. And then there are two steps – producing that map, and two, getting it out to the public in a way that goes beyond saying some statement like, "The map is available at the base somewhere in an office, see if you can find us."

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Jamie. So, if we have any more map questions, if we could maybe hold them ‘til the end when we get to the other items. And we’re going to move on to Demo 1 update.

Agenda Item #3. Demo 1 Update

Additional Well Installations

Mr. Gregson: As you see on the agenda there are two sub-items under Demo 1. The first one is additional well installations. If you remember, at last month’s meeting we talked a little bit about the need for additional locations to better define the extent not only of RDX contamination shown in the orange color, but also recent perchlorate detections at Demo Area 1. We took the comments received back to the technical meeting and had several discussions over several weeks of what we thought the best locations would be to help define the extent of contamination at Demo 1. What we’d like to do tonight is to get input from you folks on your feelings on the locations we’ve selected.

The first well we’d like to drill is D1P3. As you can see, it is on Pocasset Forestdale road. It’s about 100 feet down the road from what we think, at this time, is the extent of the perchlorate contamination at Demo 1. This well would serve to help better define the extent, not only of perchlorate, but also of RDX in this location. It is currently located on this tank trail that runs right next to Frank Perkins Road. We feel that this location will hopefully help define the toe of the plume both for perchlorate, which we currently have here, and also for RDX. Based on that are there any comments from the team?

Mr. Murphy: Tom, and then Richard.

Mr. Cambareri: It’s hard to say what the – what are the concentrations of contaminants in these wells that are near the toe? Were we thinking that... I can’t see the well label…

Mr. Gregson: 130? 139?

Mr. Cambareri: I don’t recollect what the concentrations of that were. That’s non-detect.

Mr. Gregson: The contours we show, or the outline we show are the non-detect limits. So that well had a low level detection of perchlorate, but was non detect for RDX.

Mr. Cambareri: And how deep was the well proposed for the toe of that plume?

Mr. Gregson: How deep the well? The proposed depth would be, I believe, 150 feet below water table.

Mr. Cambareri: And how deep is the water table there?

Mr. Gregson: Probably between 50 and 100 feet.

Mr. Cambareri: 115 feet you said?

Mr. Gregson: No, between 50 and 100 feet in that range. The topography is pretty dramatic there, so it depends whether we’re in a hole or on a hill.

Mr. Cambareri: Well, it seems to be in the middle of where both those are going. You have one well, looks to be optimum place for it. It’s how far downgradient of the toe?

Mr. Gregson: As we currently have it mapped, for the perchlorate non-detect limit, we’re about 200 feet from the toe, and for RDX it’s about 400 feet.

Mr. Cambareri: So 400 feet would be a year’s travel time?

Mr. Gregson: Yes.

Mr. Cambareri: So contamination is as accurate as that shows. Or potentially, if it’s left to migrate, wouldn’t see it for a year, I guess – in that well. However, if given the time of the source area and the time of travel and that plume is – and the contaminants have migrated much farther than what we see right now – I guess that we should see it in that well.

Mr. Gregson: Right.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, Richard, and then Paul.

Mr. Hugus: I have a specific question about the Demo 1 plume, but I just want to ask for some background here. Typically, we’re given presentations about ongoing investigations by Marc Grant of AMEC. Is it, the National Guard said its contractor can’t present here?

Mr. Gregson: We believe, in line with the way other meetings are conducted, such as the JPAT, that it is appropriate for the technical contact, me, for the National Guard to be presenting this type of information. The people that are needed, based on the agenda, to review these items are here and we’d like to proceed with having me as the person that presents the team with this information.

Mr. Hugus: No slight intended to you Ben, but just as I thought Jim Murphy was doing a good job, I thought Marc Grant was doing a good job, and I’d like to say that I hope they’ll return. Is this, two wells that are going in, especially the one to the south, is that driven by perchlorate? The earlier perchlorate detections? And could you refresh our memory about what levels of perchlorate have been found?

Mr. Gregson: The levels of perchlorate in the Demo 1 plume area have been up to about 300 ppb in the wells we’ve installed. Whether this…

Mr. Hugus: Can you show where these detections are? By the way, this map – it is really hard to discuss anything in detail. If you have something that would blow it up and we can get into these perchlorate detections a little bit.

Mr. Gregson: There’s a copy of the map provided in the handout if you are having difficulty seeing it.

Mr. Hugus: No, I can see it; I just don’t know what the levels are. I guess we’ll have to go through it one by one, perchlorate levels, because you’re asking us for advice on whether these wells are properly placed. We have no way of giving you that advice if we don’t know where the perchlorate detections are, whether you’re looking for RDX as well – if so, why do you think RDX is outside of the given boundary?

Mr. Murphy: Shaun, do you want to respond?

Mr. Cody: Well, next meeting we can bring what each well, what levels perchlorate have, but basically, obviously the highest contamination is going to be the Demo area working out with the water flow and we’re looking to define the toe of the plume. So Ben’s looking up right now for the exact…

Mr. Hugus: Okay, I understand what you are saying about the toe of the plume, but what about the – why do you think that a well is necessary to the south?

Mr. Gregson: Okay. For a couple of reasons. One, if you look at well number 129, which is located right here, we had a low level detection of RDX – it was below the health advisory – but we did have a detection of RDX of 1.67 ppb. Perchlorate in that same well, well 129, was at 10 ppb. So, based on those levels, we have the dashed line for both RDX and perchlorate indicating that this well here would probably be a good location to try and, as it’s represented here, come up with a non-detect to define that southern edge of the plume.

Mr. Hugus: I read the comment letter from DEP about this plume and I hope that Len will speak up. I understand that DEP also agrees that the delineation of the plume to the south isn’t quite adequate. And just for the record, I’d like to say that this bears out what the team has been saying all along. The citizens on the team have said that the particle tracking that was used to judge where monitoring wells should go was too narrow and didn’t have enough north/south definition.

Mr. Murphy: Paul, you were next I think and then, I don’t know, I have to be a little more on the ball since all these cards are coming up now like I asked.

Mr. Zanis: All right, I’ve been reading the technical meeting minutes and all, and I’ve done one better than just look at a map. I’ve flown it and circled it and studied it from the air for a while. I think the D1P4 is too far to the west because you’re taking the easy way out, and that’s using a road to put the well on. I think D1P4 needs to be where number 51 is – right where number 51 is. It’s too far away. I think you could miss the plume; it could pass right to the south of it, and you’d never see it. And D1P3 is too far down the road to the south. It needs to go down the road to the west a little closer into the green line, to the green dashed line. I just think you’re using the road because it’s level and it’s there, but it’s not the best thing to do for doing this type of research. I think we need to build a road in through the woods to where number 51 is and put the well there. You have to make the big effort.

Mr. Murphy: Todd is going to respond.

Mr. Borci: The simple answer is, yes, we are taking the easy way out. But the technical answer is that I’m afraid those wells – that perchlorate may be past those wells. So I think they’re a good intermediate step for right now, to see what we get in those wells. Hopefully they are non-detect, but I really am waiting to see what the data is, especially the one that’s at the toe, at the tail end of the plume there.

Mr. Zanis: All right.

Mr. Borci: I mean, we are trying to minimize them out of cutting the trees, cutting, all that takes time. If we put them here we can get them in the next available drill rig so it’s going to speed up the process, and I think technically these are the best locations.

Mr. Zanis: Okay, but you do see what I am saying.

Mr. Borci: Yes, the perchlorate is something we don’t have a handle on, and I think these are good locations to try and get that a little bit farther south.

Mr. Zanis: I see. So these are – I was more driven by the RDX, not the perchlorate so much so.

Mr. Borci: I think the way the RDX is depicted there is pretty accurate and we will continue to define it, as I think perchlorate is a bigger question.

Mr. Zanis: I see. So it’s perchlorate driven – like Richard said – more so right now.

Mr. Borci: Well, it’s both, but I think these are the best well locations. I think perchlorate is the main reason. RDX, I think, will be hopefully non-detect in both these wells.

Mr. Murphy: Joel, and then Peter, and then Jamie, and then Len.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Ben, I always think you do a good job on your presentations, but I’d just like to correct you a little bit on the technical aspects of the groundwater issues, which are almost always presented by the Jacobs engineers. So…

Mr. Gregson: Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Feigenbaum: As far as the perchlorate goes, it’s a new – to us – a substance of concern. Is it correct that it is strictly a component of rocket fuels?

Mr. Gregson: The source we are looking at as the probable cause here at Demo 1 is a rocket propellant – a certain type of rocket propellant that has perchlorate as a significant ingredient.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, were there such rockets? Are they visible? Is there debris from the rockets in the area?

Mr. Gregson: I’m not sure if those particular rocket types have been seen in the area, but many different types of munitions were likely disposed of at Demo 1.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I guess it’s about time that we start looking in there and figuring out what’s there. How are we doing on plans for that?

Mr. Gregson: Specifically, what do you mean by, exactly, what’s there?

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, it’s a source area. I have a feeling that if we don’t get in there and remove a source that we’re going to have to remediate this plume forever – because it doesn’t seem like – we’re not getting any disconnection between the source and the plume.

Mr. Gregson: We have a couple of ongoing investigations. There’s of course the munitions survey that’s trying to get a handle on what types of munitions can be found at Demo Area 1. And, in the next presentation on the groundwater feasibility study screening report, we’ll go over some of the schedule of when the soil is going to be looked at, at Demo 1.

Dr. Feigenbaum: In terms of looking forward to the remediation of the perchlorate, is – what do we know about that? It’s a negative ion, that’s in solution in the water, right?

Mr. Gregson: Right.

Dr. Feigenbaum: It’s somewhat different in that respect from large organic molecules. Is it susceptible to carbon filtration?

Mr. Gregson: It’s not. And, again, that’s part of an upcoming presentation where we’ll talk about some of the alternatives. The basic answer is that you have to add an additional step to the treatment train in order to take care of perchlorate.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Something that will precipitate it? Is that it?

Mr. Gregson: There’s a biotreatment type of process – fluidized bed reactor – that will take care of perchlorate. There’s also – if I can wait until the other presentation to go into a lot of detail on the different alternatives.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Sure. I’m glad. We’re looking forward to this, so…

Mr. Murphy: Joel, if I could just ask for a minute…I don’t know if Todd or Len…do you want to respond to something Joel said?

Mr. Borci: I want to clarify something, that’s all. I just want to clarify that the source of perchlorate at Demo 1 isn’t known. And perchlorate is in any number of types of munitions. It’s in pyrotechnics, it’s in artillery simulators, it’s in explosive rounds, it’s in inert rounds, it’s in propellants – and propellant is where it’s usually found at the greatest mass per round. And, yes, we’ve found four-and-a-half-inch rockets, and three-and-a-half-inch rockets and other sizes at Demo 1, but we’ve also found pyrotechnics. Demo 1 has everything, so we’re still looking to figure out where the source is – what exactly the source is. And we’re also looking at, across the base, any other place where we’ve had items found that may contain perchlorate in enough of a mass to sample those wells for perchlorate to see if it’s made it to the groundwater.

Mr. Murphy: Len, did you have a clarification?

Mr. Pinaud: I just wanted to close a loop on Richard’s comment. These two wells are proposed to be installed, based on team comments and regulatory agency comments, and these locations were picked with regulatory input. So, as Todd said, we think these are the best locations for these wells.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Just a clarification of a clarification. The perchlorate that’s in there isn’t oxidized, right? So, it’s primarily for propellant purposes, right? – to oxidize some fuel. It’s not in, for example, there isn’t any in 155-mm Howitzer projectiles?

Mr. Borci: To give you a range of where it’s found – I believe it is found in delay compositions that are in 81 mm high explosive rounds. It’s found in some…

Dr. Feigenbaum: What did you say – delay composition?

Mr. Borci: It’s a delay composition. It’s found in some of the 155 training rounds that have a smoke charge in the nose; it’s part of that smoke charge. It’s also in artillery simulators. It’s in several different types of flares. There’s one type of smoke composition that’s about 40 percent perchlorate. And then there are any of the propellants for three-and-a-half-inch rockets, four-and-a-half-inch rockets. It’s an M7 propellant and that I think contains about eight percent perchlorate. That range pretty much covers a lot of different areas of the base.

Dr. Feigenbaum: So, it’s possible that we’re going to start finding this stuff all over the place.

Mr. Borci: We’ve sampled a lot of wells so far, and the only areas where we found it are at downgradient of Demo 1, and in the J Ranges, so far, and we’re waiting for the latest data to come in. And there’s a well at the end of the KD Range – at the firing point for that range – where several different types of rockets were fired down range, and nitroglycerine contamination in the soil was cleaned up as part of one of the rapid response actions last year. But, that same propellant that introduced the nitroglycerine to the soil also contained perchlorate. So, we’re waiting for the water results for that well. Hopefully it will be non-detect, and hopefully we removed more than just nitroglycerine, but likely perchlorate would already be down into the water table if it was there.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Thank you. Excuse me, just one last little question about the map. These, there’s some kind of elevation numbers that are scattered on the map, like the 51 and 39, 36. Are those ground level elevations? They’re just sort of confusing, bit of static on the map.

Mr. Cody: Contours.

Dr. Feigenbaum: They’re topographic, as opposed to groundwater.

Mr. Cody: Right.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Is there a reason you are showing us these? Or…

Mr. Cody: Just to give you an idea of the variety, the landscape out there. But, we can take them off if you want them off.

Dr. Feigenbaum: If they’re no help…

Mr. Cody: Well they are… if they are no help, we’ll take them off. We think that they are help to show that there’s a significant difference in the way the land is, and the landscape out there.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Okay, I mean, as long as you use it as a discussion point, it is worth having, but we had no idea what they were.

Mr. Cody: Okay.

Mr. Murphy: Shaun, did you have something else to say?

Mr. Cody: I was just wondering if there are any more comments on the additional well installation.

Mr. Murphy: Yeah, we were still trying to get through that side, so Peter has his card up, and Jamie, so…

Mr. Schlesinger: I think the location seems fine to me. But, I disagree that these maps are better in the handout than they are on the – up there as was suggested earlier. The green color of the perchlorate, which is easier seen on the screen in front of us, is hardly seen in the handout. And the color that is used to display the contours – since this is information you want us, to share with us – is hardly visible on what you’re giving us. I wish you’d just…I’m not asking you to change the information, maybe eliminate the little numbers, but show the contours in some visible color, because otherwise we don’t see what you are trying to display. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Jamie.

Mr. Kinney: In terms of the, where the wells are, I think the two positions look fine. My question is, why not put two wells in front of the toe, right now, along that road – one north of the one you have here – so that you’d maybe pick up the northern boundary of the plume where the perchlorate seems to be extending. And two, why don’t you put another well to the south where the dotted line is. It looks like there might be some sort of depression where the 39 and the 36 are – you know, to the southwest of where the well you are proposing is. Why not? If you’ve got the gear out there, if you’ve got the rigs out there – why not do it at once? It always seems to me that what happens is there is a proposal to put in one well or two wells and then we end up doing three wells or four wells later on. And it just postpones the inevitable in a sense. I’m not saying just disregard any data or anything you have; I’m saying the data already suggests that might be a reasonable thing to do. And then downstream from this we would have saved some time in actually stopping or cleaning up the plumes, it seems to me, by actually delineating it more clearly sooner than later.

Mr. Gregson: I understand your concern. It is always a balancing act between getting the data you need and trying to do it as cost effectively as possible. From work we did with the technical team we feel that these two locations will do that. We’re going to drill this one first. If we get the data back from D1P3 and we still have significant perchlorate levels, we’re going to rethink the location of this well down here and we’re going to just put in just enough wells to give us the information we need to move forward with the best process.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. David, and then Richard.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. Since there’s a difference in the rate at which perchlorate and RDX move in the horizontal, do they have the same distribution in the vertical range? Would you have to readjust the depths at which you sample to sample the perchlorate?

Mr. Gregson: Our data that we’ve collected so far indicate that in the vertical, they’re essentially co-located. It’s a matter of the groundwater flow and it’s more a matter of the speed at which the perchlorate gets to the water table – gets it out in front of the RDX.

Mr. Dow: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Richard.

Mr. Hugus: What do you know about how perchlorate travels? Does it travel differently than RDX?

Mr. Gregson: Again, we think it travels the same as RDX – it travels with the water. And again, the reason it is out in front is because it got to the water before the RDX did.

Mr. Hugus: You are asking for comments on these two wells. I just have to say that I don’t have enough information to give you an educated response on it. I would need to know, as I said before, exactly what detections you found upgradient and elsewhere that led you into this. So for the future, if you’re going to be giving presentations, I’d appreciate having an overhead showing us all the information we need to make, to give you the advice you’re asking for.

Mr. Gregson: Okay.

Mr. Murphy: We’re falling a bit behind. Jim has his card up, and Shaun, and Tom. So, if we could try to wrap up this so we can move on to the technology screening. So, let’s try to make it fairly quick.

Dr. Stahl: I have just one comment. I’ve heard it enough times in the past, there’s some concern that tracking could be leading to the south a little bit more. And we don’t have any monitoring wells where – I think it was Richard had mentioned in 51 or that 45 over there – we have nothing really at the toe that would tell us whether or not we do have any, if we have a good grasp of where the southern edge of the plume is. So at some point we may want to consider putting a well in, somewhere between that 51 or that 45 on the southern edge on the toe.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks, Jim. Shaun, and then Tom.

Mr. Cody: Thanks for the input. Just so people understand, when they look to put wells in – even though we are falling behind, we have another presentation to give on Demo 1 – if we can put it on a road, without cutting through the habitat and installing a well, that’s…I don’t consider that the easy way out. I consider that the smart thing to do – and if we can get the same information. So, we’ll take back your comment of installing a well where number 51 is and talk about it at the tech meeting.

Dr. Stahl: Well, even farther south, I think somewhere closer to try to define the southern boundary of the plume. I’m not sure that where 51 is, is going to give you the southern boundary.

Mr. Cody: We can do that somewhere on an already-established road, that will be great.

Mr. Murphy: Tom.

Mr. Cambareri: Couple things. One is I don’t think those numbers are topography, because the water table contour there is 65 feet, so they might be missing 100 there too. It might be 124 of 151. Okay? When we talk about the plume and putting in the wells, I’m also interested in the vertical sense. Do you have a cross-section of this contamination?

Mr. Gregson: We have a hardcopy if you want to look at that.

Mr. Cambareri: Okay. It is difficult to remember the details from one meeting to the next. I guess I can, thanks for bringing this. So the contamination seems to be minus 60, about 100 feet below land surface. So you are going deeper than where you have defined the plume currently to make sure that it hasn’t dived any more in the vertical sense, correct?

Mr. Gregson: Right.

Mr. Cambareri: My comment on the well locations is in some respect I agree with Jamie what, about the toe of the plume area, and Jim, I’m more technically comfortable with the lateral projection of the plume and how it is projecting longitudinally forward, and I think that seems to be the crux of the problem. And, I think you should also have a contingency – you mentioned if you get the IP3 contamination in that then you’ll think DIP4 – and I guess conversely, if you define contamination DIP4, you have contingency or fallback for additional work there. And the obvious additional work would be to bracket it and have a contingency spot farther downgradient. So, the map that we see here only gives us about 1000 feet projection out and I think is a timesaver to have those contingencies built into this.

Mr. Zanis: I’ve got a quick comment.

Mr. Murphy: Okay.

Mr. Zanis: I have to respond to Shaun about the, those are the perfect spots. If you look at the minutes to the meeting, they said that’s convenient to have the road there or whatever – that it was easier to use the road but not the ideal spot to put the well. And now you’re saying that you don’t want to crash down the forest and build a road. But it was okay for the National Guard to run their tanks through that forest all through the 1980s and destroy half the forest. But now we’re doing a technical study. We need to put those, site those wells exactly where we’re going to find the toe of the plume, and that’s what we have to do. And if it takes building a road, I think we need to build a road, and put them exactly where they’ve got to be. I’ve flown the area and I’m telling you, the plume to the west looks like it’s too far away – almost 400 feet from the other wells. And there’s too much of a gap, and the plume is too thin. It could fit right through and we’ll miss it.

Mr. Cody: To clarify exactly what I said before you came at me, was that if we can get the same information by putting a well in on a road, you know, why not do that? If we have to go and put an additional road in we would, but if we can get…

Mr. Zanis: It’s not the same information.

Mr. Murphy: I think we can try to move on to the screening report and...

Dr. Feigenbaum: We’re trying to be nicey-nice here tonight, right? And I don’t think that the minutes ought to show that Paul came at Shaun.

Mr. Murphy: I think Shaun slipped there.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Would you agree to amend that?

Mr. Cody: No, I wouldn’t actually. I was just trying to explain why putting it on a road is better than cutting a new road in. If we have to cut new roads in, we do.

Mr. Murphy: I think the point Joel was objecting to was that you said Paul came at you. I think that’s what he was objecting to. Paul was just…

Mr. Zanis: I’m sitting right here.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, well, let’s just try to move on to the next thing, the screening…

Mr. Schlesinger: I have to say…I’m sorry, but we have to be able to use words like National Guard, military, and parties that we talk about here. And we’re not pointing fingers or making personal attacks. These are the words we use at this table.

Mr. Zanis: And if anybody thinks that the National Guard didn’t run tanks straight through the forest and destroy thousands of trees, let me take you on a tour.

Mr. Cambareri: You said, I just want to say one thing and on the behalf of Mr. Cody. These people do spend a lot of time around the table discussing the environmental performance standards by which future land uses will be governed on the MMR. And, we spend a lot of time here talking about groundwater and that, but there is a whole other venue of people who are concerned about the wildlife habitat and that. So, in that respect, if a well can be put on a road, I think it is a benefit to the wildlife habitat value in that. But, should it be technically required to put it someplace else, then it would be so.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Tom. You’re all set Ben?

Draft Development and Screening of Alternatives Report

Mr. Gregson: Yes, sir. The next topic of discussion under Demo 1 is the draft "Development and Screening of Alternatives" report. The primary…in this report we are going to be looking at the alternatives that we reviewed for groundwater remediation for perchlorate and explosive contamination. The input that we’re looking for from the team is shown on the right there - have we presented, or is the range of remedial alternatives efficient for consideration in the upcoming Demo 1 groundwater feasibility study?

The purpose of the screening alternatives report is to identify the range of alternatives that will be appropriate for addressing groundwater contaminants of concern at Demolition Area 1. The first step in the process – we looked at 39 remedial technologies, which were identified and screened based on their applicability, specifically to the contaminants of concern at Demo Area 1. Eight remedial alternatives were then developed from multiple combinations of technologies. We then took these eight alternatives and screened them based on criteria provided in Administrative Order #3 by the EPA – that being the effectiveness, implementability, and relative cost.

A detailed analysis of the alternatives passed through the screening process will be provided in the feasibility study, which is due in September of this year. As we saw in the previous figure that we just discussed, the current extent of RDX, as we understand it at Demo 1, is a plume that’s about 3500 feet long and about 400 feet wide. It’s moving in generally a southwesterly direction from Demo 1. Based on recent calculations, the plume encompasses approximately 300 million gallons of groundwater above the detection limit.

As we just discussed, we proposed two additional wells at Demo 1. The one at the toe of the plume and the one on the southern edge. The additional contaminants of concern for Demo 1, other than RDX, have been identified as HMX, TNT and TNT breakdown products, and 4-2,4 DNT. These compounds are less mobile than the RDX, so they’ve not traveled as far as the RDX plume, and, as we discussed, as the perchlorate contamination. As we also discussed, perchlorate has been detected in roughly the same area as the RDX; however, it appears to have gone a little bit farther, and some of the detections have exceeded EPA’s Region 9 tap water PRG, which is currently at 18 ppb.

Mr. Hugus: What’s PRG?

Mr. Gregson: Preliminary remediation goal. After we looked through the 39 different technologies, eight remediation alternatives were identified. As we mentioned, these alternatives involved a combination of traditional and proven technologies, and new and innovative technologies. They complement each other to treat not only explosives, but perchlorate as well. Future conclusions regarding perchlorate may impact composition and ultimate design of the remediation system.

These are alternatives, as you can see on the slide. And I’ll discuss in a few minutes, a "No Action" alternative; a "Minimal Action" alternative, which involves zoning restrictions and groundwater monitoring; a collection of groundwater pump, ion exchange, granular activated carbon treatment, and discharge alternative. Number four is groundwater collection – again, pump it out of the ground, ion exchange, a zero-valent or pallidized iron treatment step for explosives, and then discharge. A fifth alternative was collection of the groundwater again, and then treatment through phytoremediation in a constructed wetland, and then discharge back to the groundwater. Alternative six was collection, treatment in a bioreactor, granular activated carbon, or GAC, polishing step, and then discharge. The seventh and eighth alternatives were both in-situ, or in place alternatives which would not involve pumping the groundwater out of the ground. Alternative seven would be chemical oxidation of the contamination, and alternative eight was biotreatment – in-situ biotreatment of the contamination.

The screening criteria used to evaluate these steps were effectiveness, implementability, and cost. As I mentioned, these were the screening criteria that were provided to us in the third Administrative Order by the EPA. The objective of the screening is to eliminate alternatives that are not practical, or provide little or no increase in the effectiveness of implementability over lower cost alternatives. Effectiveness focuses on the degree that the alternative restores the aquifer and protects the sole source aquifer. It also measures the degree to which the alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of the contamination through treatment, and minimizes residual risk. Implementability focuses on "Is this alternative technically feasible?" Is it something that we can…

Dr. Feigenbaum: Can I just…

Mr. Gregson: Sure.

Dr. Feigenbaum: In this handout we’ve got what looks like it would be slides or overheads here. That would, is there some reason why we’re not following along? It’s hard to…this is really got a small print. We could all be at the same place at the same time if we had the overheads.

Mr. Gregson: I’m not sure I understand your question Joel. Are you…this one here is the top slide on the handout…

Dr. Feigenbaum: But then, aren’t you reading the screening alternatives? Oh, I guess I’m not following it. My fault.

Mr. Gregson: Okay. The cost evaluation criteria is really a relative cost comparison for both construction and long-term operation and monitoring so you can get some relative idea of the cost of each of the alternatives we’re looking at. We’re going to take a look now at a brief description of each of the alternatives.

Clearly the most popular alternative is the "No Action" alternative. This is, because of the nature of this alternative, it was not compared rigorously to the screening criteria; however, as required, under AO3, it’s got to pass through the screening to be evaluated during the feasibility study process to provide a baseline for comparison of other alternatives. Another popular alternative is the "‘Minimal Action" alternative, which includes zoning, deed restrictions, and monitoring.

Mr. Murphy: Ben, I think Peter had a question.

Mr. Schlesinger: Clarification says "however plume is currently contained on property." How does the plume get contained on the property if all you do is work on zoning and deed restrictions, and monitoring?

Mr. Gregson: Probably a better way to say that is that this alternative does not provide containment in the same way that a pumping well might.

Mr. Schlesinger: Even off of property bounds?

Mr. Gregson: That’s the monitoring portion of the step. And the alternative would be to have wells placed in order to monitor the location of the plume to ensure that it does not move beyond property boundaries.

Mr. Schlesinger: So does that mean you put in fences at some point, if it decides to go?

Mr. Gregson: This is…

Mr. Cody: Just one step above "no action."

Mr. Schlesinger: I know. But, it seems strange to say that the plume is currently contained on the property when we don’t have any control over it, going near monitoring it, or making it deed restriction.

Mr. Gregson: Right. Contained was probably a poor choice of words.

Mr. Cambareri: This is actually monitored natural attenuation. I mean, because if you’re saying it is going to be contained and not moved anywhere, you’re not doing anything about it.

Mr. Gregson: Yes, the monitored natural attenuation, typically – or should include a rigorous assessment of whether there is adequate natural processes and microbial populations in place to provide cleanup of a plume. I’m not sure that this particular alternative has included that step.

Mr. Cambareri: So this would be kind of a "wait-and-see" alternative.

Mr. Gregson: Right. We’re not saying we like it. We’re saying we are presenting it. Okay, and an obvious drawback to this alternative is it does not restore the Demo 1 area of the aquifer back to its use as a water supply. We talked a little bit in our discussion, in fact didn’t this implementability – obviously the remedy is easily applied to the Demo 1 area and from cost standpoint it does have an advantage, and that’s a lower cost than the active treatment alternatives. This alternative was retained for detailed analysis and feasibility study process, potentially to be used in combination with other alternatives. Now on to…

Dr. Feigenbaum: The perchlorate certainly isn’t subject to any microbial degradation, is it?

Mr. Gregson: Probably only under anaerobic conditions, but not in this current condition in the plume, no. Joel, you all set? Okay.

Now on to alternatives where we actually do something. The first one is collection, commonly known as pump ion exchange, GAC, or granular activated carbon treatment and discharge. This alternative uses extraction wells that we’re familiar with from other IRP plumes. The water would be pumped to the ion exchange system to remove the perchlorate and then through granular activated carbon to address explosive contamination. The water would then be discharged back to the aquifer. From an effectiveness standpoint, bench and pilot scale systems have shown that ion exchange systems can reduce perchlorate concentrations. Granular activated carbon treatment has been proven to be effective for treating explosives. There may be a pre-treatment step necessary to remove compounds that could potentially foul the system, such as iron and manganese. Implementability – this alternative is technically feasible and readily implementable. The cost is moderate when compared to other technologies that we’re looking at. And conclusion – this alternative was retained for detailed analysis since it uses proven technologies for both perchlorate and explosives; it does so at a reasonable cost.

Another "do-something" alternative is collection ion exchange, zero-valent or pallidized iron treatment for explosives and then discharge. The groundwater is extracted under this alternative. It’s first treated through ion exchange to take care of the perchlorate, and then, to treat explosives, the water would then be pumped through a reactor vessel containing zero-valent or pallidized iron, or the ZVI system.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m sure I’m not alone in this, but I don’t mind being the person to show my ignorance. What is the…what is pallidized iron? What do you mean zero-valent?

Mr. Gregson: Okay, that has to do with – my chemistry background was a long time ago – but it has to do with the state of the iron...

Dr. Feigenbaum: I know that.

Mr. Gregson: …in the system. Beyond that. I’m going to have to get back to you with details on what zero-valent iron is.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Okay, maybe we can get Marc here next time?

Mr. Schlesinger: This is the iron curtain.

Mr. Gregson: It’s like the treatment wall that’s used as an in-place technology; however this would be used ex-situ, and the water would be put through a system that has the iron in it.

Dr. Feigenbaum: So, it’s just metallic iron?

Mr. Gregson: Essentially, yeah.

Mr. Murphy: You can go to the mike if you have a comment, and you could introduce yourself.

Ms. Short: I’m Diane Short. I’m with Foothill. Sorry.

Mr. Murphy: Go right ahead.

Ms. Short: It’s like the CS-10 wall. It’s in a gel matrix and so it changes. And the problem they had there was that it would clog and it would rust because there was too much dissolved oxygen. So, the purpose behind this really, is to have it, as I understand it, an ex-situ, so that you don’t have the oxygen concern. But, it’s iron filings in a matrix.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Jamie, just a quick one because we want to…

Mr. Kinney: Yeah, I just want to clarify. So, this is basically one kind of huge filter with carbon in it, another one with the iron pilings in it – kind of in series or a double series or something – like the FS-1 plan. That kind of thing, but it’s got the iron as a step.

Mr. Gregson: That’s right. As was mentioned, there are some concerns and a site-specific treatability study would have to be conducted to determine if this groundwater chemistry at our site would be applicable to this treatment process. Ion exchange works well for perchlorate, but, again, the iron treatment system would require extensive bench and pilot scale studies to see if it actually works here at MMR. The cost from both a capital and operations and maintenance standpoint is considered to be moderate. In conclusion, we chose to eliminate this alternative from further consideration, mainly because of questions with whether the zero-valent iron technology was adequate to do the job. It doesn’t really give us any advantage over using the granular activated carbon treatment.

Probably the most interesting technology is the collection phytoremediation in a constructed wetland and then discharge back to the groundwater. What this would involve is, the groundwater would be removed by extraction wells and piped to a constructed wetland. In the wetland several processes would take place to help deal with the contamination, including filtration, uptake by plant roots, adsorption of the contaminants on to organic soil and neutralization and precipitation of contaminants in the constructed wetland. This type of technology has been shown to be effective for explosives, and some recent research suggests it may be effective for perchlorate as well. Implementability – on the downside, it would require the construction of a very large wetland area, probably on the order of 10 acres or more. And because of where we live, the wetland would probably not function during heavy rains or cold weather, which we sometimes have here on the Cape. The long-term pilot testing would be required to assess the implementability over varying climactic conditions. Cost would be moderate to high. This alternative was eliminated primarily because of the climatic concerns.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we’re just going to take a question from David.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. There are a number of treatment wetland systems that occur up in this latitude that people put under plastic and stuff, where they get around the problem of having to deal with variable climate and rain. I think, I don’t know whether you need ten acres, but it would obviously be a problem if, you know, a lot of these systems treat waste from small companies and houses and stuff. It’s a well developed technology.

Mr. Gregson: Yes, it has been very effective for a number of different compounds. The concern we had with this technology was mainly the size, the 10-acre size, and keeping that, the climate at an appropriate condition on a wetland that size.

Mr. Murphy: Maybe you can pick up the pace here on these last, next three, Ben.

Mr. Gregson: I can only talk so fast. The next alternative was collection bioreactor granular activated carbon polishing and discharge. This alternative again uses extraction wells to collect the groundwater. Water would be pumped to an aqueous-phase bioreactor that contains a microbiological population. The carbon would then be used as a polishing step. The effectiveness – these fluidized bed reactors are a proven technology for remediation of perchlorate, and carbon is a proven technology for explosives. Treatability studies under implementability would need to be conducted to evaluate explosive degradation and bioreaction. The ambient temperatures would be a concern for biodegradation rates – again, similar to the wetland concerns – may require longer cleanup times and additional cost for heating the system. The technology is readily implementable for perchlorates. Cost would be moderate. This alternative was retained.

Mr. Murphy: Jamie, you have a question.

Mr. Kinney: Yes. In terms of comparing this one with the bioreactor part, with the collection with the ion exchange in activated carbon – two of those – those are both retained. I understand that they are not exactly the same, but in terms of the size of a plant, in terms of the amount of maintenance and stuff, are they the same? Or are they hugely different?

Mr. Gregson: I think they are probably similar in scope.

Mr. Kinney: But the bioreactor, it sounds like, from this slide, is not as clearly effective as the activated carbon.

Mr. Gregson: That’s right. Activated carbon is a more proven technology.

Mr. Kinney: So, why mess with it? Why take the chance? If all other things are equal, it sounds like, why take the chance?

Mr. Borci: If you could just clarify…one of the alternatives is ion exchange…

Mr. Kinney: One is ion exchange and then the activated carbon, which is what we’ve seen something like that already working here. The other alternative is the collection, the bioreactor, and then the activated carbon. Sounds good. But, if the bioreaction part is iffy, why bother with it? Why take that chance?

Mr. Borci: In both of those alternatives the ion exchange and the bioreactor are there to reduce the perchlorate. And both of those treatments have been proven, and they are consistently used for treatment. Part of the problem with the bioreactor is that it just might need to be kept at a warmer temperature than we would typically have here at the Cape now during the winter. But they both are needed. In addition, the problem with this whole site is that a mixed RDX perchlorate plume…there are not many that have been found across the country. So, that’s why these two technologies need to be teamed for each of these. The bioreactor may be able to treat both the perchlorate and the RDX. That would be one of the focuses of the treatability study – to see. But I think you would still need that carbon on there as insurance as a polishing step.

Mr. Kinney: Okay, both then, the ion exchange and the bioreaction are proven technologies. That’s what I am trying to get to here.

Mr. Borci: They are used in other treatment systems across the country.

Mr. Kinney: It’s not something new for this. Okay, thanks.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, Joel, and then see if we can get through Ben’s presentation.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Ben, what did you say you were going to use to oxidize? What are you going to put in there? Hydrogen peroxide?

Mr. Gregson: This particular step… Let me go through, I haven’t gone through this slide yet.

Dr. Feigenbaum: This one on the left?

Mr. Gregson: Right. Okay?

Mr. Murphy: Trying to move things along. I like that.

Mr. Gregson: Yeah, he’s pushing. In…these next two technologies are in place, they are in-situ technologies. The first is chemical oxidation. It introduces oxidizers to the aquifer through injection wells. These oxidizers degrade organic contaminants and no groundwater will be extracted or treated.

This technology, under effectiveness, has been shown to work on explosives; however, there is no information currently available on how it would work on perchlorate. This technology may be best used to treat hot spots within the plume and in combination with other technologies, if it’s proven to be effective. Bench and pilot scale testing are needed to assess performance. This testing is currently being conducted under what’s called the ITE program, "Innovative Technology Evaluation" program, which is a study program that the National Guard has implemented to look at new technologies. The cost of this alternative would be moderate. This alternative was retained for detailed analysis and may be combined with other alternatives in the final analysis.

Mr. Murphy: Question, Joel?

Dr. Feigenbaum: I just don’t see how this is going to work. Your last thing was about the hot spots, which weren’t on the slide. But, I mean, what did you say? We have 300 million gallons of water here? And how are you going to mix this oxidizing agent through such a large body of water in the ground? It just doesn’t – you can’t stir it under ground.

Mr. Gregson: That’s a concern with this technology, and as I mentioned, it may be more applicable to – if we have a hot spot – that we could knock down the levels in that area and help with the overall treatment of the plume by some other technology.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Also, I can’t, maybe…Jim’s a chemist, I think, right? But I can’t understand how perchlorate is an oxidizing agent, so I don’t understand how you’re going to oxidize – unoxidize it. Am I wrong about that?

Dr. Stahl: Just take the stronger oxidizer.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I don’t know if there is such a thing. Doesn’t perchlorate ozone bubble through the water or what…

Dr. Stahl: Yeah, ozone or something like hydrogen peroxide, Fenton’s reagent – those would oxidize it, but…

Dr. Feigenbaum: You’d have to have quite a bit of it in that volume of water I think.

Dr. Stahl: Or the contamination would pass through some kind of flow curtain.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, I’m just being skeptical about some of these alternatives, just so we can start moving towards concrete remediation. Despite the previous discussion, I think we’re not so far from delineating this plume, and really ought to be moving more quickly towards resolution here. And more sort of science-fiction alternatives that we’re keeping retained for consideration, the harder it’s going to be to get there.

Mr. Murphy: Can we…let’s just have Ben finish this last one and then we’ll take you, Jim. Sorry.

Mr. Gregson: Okay, the last alternative is like the in-situ chemical oxidation, except it’s in-situ biotreatment. It involves introducing nutrients into the plume in order to stimulate the growth of naturally-occurring microbes. As the microbes grow, the aquifer would become anaerobic and create a reducing environment. Pilot studies are being conducted across the country to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology on explosives. No information is currently available on whether this will work on perchlorate. We have some information that ex-situ biologic treatment has been shown to be effective for perchlorate, suggesting that this might work in an in-situ type of framework. Bench scale and pilot testing will be required for this technology, and is also under evaluation by our innovative technology program. The cost, because it’s an in-place technology, is probably lower than some of the other technologies, so we put it in the low and moderate range. This alternative is retained because it may provide a cost-effective remedy for Demo 1.

Mr. Murphy: Okay thanks Ben. Any additional questions for Ben? Okay, Tom. I’m sorry, let Jim go, he was up first. Jim, then Tom, then Peter.

Dr. Stahl: First I had a comment about the chemical oxidation. You mentioned in your draft document 01-5, that you’re considering dichromate potassium permanganate. I’m just wondering if that would make a bigger contamination than we already have with perchlorate.

Mr. Gregson: That’s always a concern we have when, with this type of technology, you’re introducing compounds into the aquifer to hopefully achieve your remediation goal – you need to be wary of what other reactions might be taking place.

Mr. Murphy: I forget who was next.

Mr. Borci: I just want to say that EPA shares those same concerns. So, it’s not more how you’re going to get the oxidizing treatment into the stream, it’s what you’re creating when you do that, and I don’t think that’s been proven.

Mr. Cambareri: I’m not familiar with the dissolved containment of plumes on the base that are somewhat removed from their source. And they are pretty much passing through a fairly clean, coarse sand aquifer. It’s very well oxygenated. It’s pretty much devoid of any biological activity at all. And so for the oxidation one, I am scratching my head wondering about that, because if it’s behaved as a…if it is near to background conditions, it would have saturation of oxygen in the water about eight milligrams per liter. So, one would have to make it even more oxygenated than that. I’m not familiar with the other biochemical nature of these contaminant plumes. I don’t think we’ve really talked about that, so…are these contaminant plumes at their source? Are they more organic at all? Are they characterized by low DO? Or are they, as I imagined to begin with, pretty much high DO, clean groundwater passing through coarse aquifer with a bit of RDX and perchlorate in them?

Mr. Gregson: Yes, I think your characterization is accurate in describing the aquifer as coarse sand, oxygenated water, probably low microbial activity, and we’re also dealing with relatively dilute plumes compared to other sites.

Mr. Cambareri: I’m kind of skeptical of those last two, how that could be affected.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, just so we can move along, I think we’ll get the question – the question also was, were there sufficient alternatives up there? And we’re getting to be an hour behind, so we’ll keep going, but we have a few more things. So anyway, we had, I believe, Jim was here, and then David, then Peter, then Richard.

Dr. Stahl: I have another comment on alternative eight with the biotreatment. I find it particularly intriguing. I think it’s truly innovative, but I have the same kind of concerns I have with the chemical oxidation. You’re going to be applying nutrients, and what are these going to be? I assume they’re going to be at least carbon. What’s the impact of the carbon going to be on the water source – water supply downstream? And I had a comment about the phytoremediation, but I don’t think that it’s already been – it’s been eliminated, so I’ll just hold that comment. I had a question for either you or Mr. Borci about the ex-situ bioreactor. One of the comments was that it will have to be heated perhaps. What kind of temperatures are you talking for the remediation schemes? I assume the water will be coming out 45 or 50 Fahrenheit. What kind of temperatures do you have to bring this water up to, and what kind of flow rates do you have to get to go through this process in order to get degradation and cleanup in a timely manner?

Mr. Gregson: I don’t have information on what specific temperatures are required to keep the reaction going or what the flow rate is ultimately going to need to be to cleanup the plume in a timely manner. The trouble with the bioreactors are really the extreme temperatures that we have here in the winter time, and just keeping things from freezing up and keeping the system viable.

Dr. Stahl: I assume that it would be of a fairly large mass and you’ll have a rather large flow rate going through, so you’ll have quite a bit above ambient temperature as you pump it out of the ground. And so the question is, "How much warmer do you have to go from there to get the degradation?"

Mr. Gregson: Right.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, David.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. Various options require activated carbon. You mentioned that one of the problems you have is removing the iron and manganese. And in the past when they try to use green sand to do that, it seemed to interfere with the efficacy of the activated carbon treatment. So I was wondering what kind of – if green sand is not what you’re going to use – what options are you going to utilize to deal with the iron and manganese, so it won’t cause a problem with the activated carbon treatment.

Mr. Gregson: Do you know what the nature of the problem is with the activated carbon? After the green sand treatment?

Mr. Dow: I don’t, but I’m sure Joel or one of those people on the JPAT could probably tell you why. It had something to do with a breakthrough on the column; it was something that happened in the green sand that enhanced the breakthrough in the activated carbon columns, and so stuff went through. It didn’t have the right retention kind to be adsorbed.

Mr. Hugus: Yeah, it was called channelization.

Mr. Gregson: Channelization of the carbon.

Mr. Hugus: The EDB found a route through, without coming into any contact with the carbon.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m not sure that had anything to do with the green sand though.

Mr. Gregson: Okay, Peter. Go ahead Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: Three quick questions. One is, do the various bench and pilot tests that are mentioned under the implementability sections of these retained alternatives fit with the rapid response goal that the EPA set forth in the administrative order? In other words, is there some…does our administrative order give us time to conduct these various long-term or short-term tests? That’s just question one. Question two is, does cost on this section include environmental cost? And number three is, has there been perchlorate contamination cleaned up elsewhere in the country, perhaps military or other spills, that we could use as a model – because I note that we don’t have a lot of information on a number of these alternatives. We might gain information from some other source.

Mr. Borci: What was the first one again, real quick?

Mr. Schlesinger: About whether the rapid response goal and bench pilot testing fit together.

Mr. Borci: Yes. Essentially the order allows for whatever time we need. We’ve got it constructed so that we can try and get a remedy in the ground as quickly as possible since we have the most definition on this site. But, if we need treatability studies for a remedy that looks like it’s going to be the best choice, then we can allow additional time for that treatability study to get us there. The second issue was…

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: The answer to that is, at this level of screening, the first screening cost doesn’t involve environmental cost. But that comes in for the next screening level for short- and long-term impacts.

Mr. Borci: And the third was…I’m doing really bad here.

Mr. Gregson: Other studies for perchlorate.

Mr. Borci: Oh, all these alternatives were put together based on looking at what has been done across the country. Most of the perchlorate work is in California, Texas, out west, west of the Mississippi, are most of the release sites, and ion exchange and fluidized bed have both been used with pretty good success, so they’ve both been proven in our eyes.

Mr. Murphy: You all set Peter?

Mr. Schlesinger: Yes.

Mr. Murphy: Richard.

Mr. Hugus: At the last meeting we were taken to task for spending about five, maybe six or seven minutes on the question of the letting of a multi-million dollar contract for the cleanup and other work coming up. Tonight we have gone way over schedule discussing slides that we could have read for ourselves at home, or we could have read here at the table, that we did have read to us, and I think it’s sort of an insult to our intelligence to be using our time that way. I think this presentation should have gone straight to where these technologies have been used and what effect they’ve had - whether they’ve actually done the job they are supposed to do. If we had done that, we would have avoided the sort of abstract discussion where once again we don’t really know what to say or what to advise because we’re not talking about specifics here. So, this is a comment about the process and how we should conduct discussion. It shouldn’t be so abstract, and the more useful information should have been where these technologies have been proven.

Mr. Murphy: Anybody want to respond? Todd, and then Jim has a comment.

Mr. Borci: All of this information is in the Screening of Alternatives report, which should have been received. But, yes, I think your comment is noted and that future presentations can have more information on where it has been used and how effective it has been.

Dr. Stahl: I had a comment that goes back to the cost issue of all these. One thing that I don’t know and hasn’t been brought up today, is that we looked at some nice alternatives for cleanup, but also consider that ion exchange and the granulated activated charcoal – those are not destructive. So, you’re going to be capturing the pollutant, and then you’ve got to do something with it. Where your bioreactors are destructive; they will be degrading the chemicals and then… So you’ll have much less at the end that you’ve got to either put into a drum somewhere, or incinerate or whatever. So, consider that when you are doing the cost analysis.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks. Jamie.

Mr. Kinney: Yes. I have a question again about the bioreactor, alternative four up there. Does this bioreactor mean introducing some sort of biological agent that’s going to react with the contaminants? Then, when the discharge is made, the discharge is going to have less of the chemical that you are trying to get rid of. Is it going to have zero of the biological agent? Or is there some of that, so you end up with the same issue as if you did it in-situ and you then are pumping something in the ground that wasn’t there before and you have some sort of residue. Is that true also when you do it in enclosed tanks?

Mr. Gregson: My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong Jim, is that it enhances naturally-occurring microbes in order to accomplish the treatment. So, it really doesn’t introduce something that we might be concerned with for other reasons.

Mr. Kinney: Well, we’ve agreed, and Tom stated earlier and you agreed, I think, that there is not very much microbial action in the aquifer here. So, you could say it’s not introducing anything from another planet, but if you introduce too much of something, you could still have an adverse impact, right? Or just ruin the balance of the groundwater once you discharge the stuff.

Dr. Stahl: Well, realize that every gram of dirt – and a gram is about a centimeter – and that will contain between "10 to the 9" and "10 to the 12" organisms. And we can only actually classify about 40 percent of the organisms that are actually in the dirt. And we probably will not be bringing something… you know, it won’t be putting something toxic back into the environment this way. The reason why you’re not having – or you may not be having action in the aquifer – is you have to have certain chemistry going on in order to degrade these particular contaminants. It doesn’t mean that you have organisms actually living there that are doing their own thing. It just means that they’re not degrading the pollutant that you want them to be degrading.

Mr. Murphy: Millie.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I just wanted to note that the Department takes very seriously comments regarding to process, and I would like to acknowledge Richard’s comment regarding the content in terms of, obviously, we want to make the best use of our time here. So, perhaps there could be a possibility that as we revisit the process we can somehow provide the citizens, as well as the IART members, overheads ahead of time and best frame the discussion so that we can make best use of the time. And that’s just the departmental comment at this time.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Millie. Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: One last question. I’m a little confused on this discussion of biotreatment and the statement that’s in the action item that we received at the beginning of the meeting. The action item, for your review, says that perchlorate is not known to undergo degradation in the natural environment. Are we assuming that somehow we are going to be able to add something to it and then it will degrade?

Dr. Stahl: If you read on it says, it kind of implies, that in our system we’re not going to have natural degradation because we have an aerobic environment. If you read on later, it says that under anaerobic conditions, then you can get degradation of perchlorate to chloride.

Mr. Schlesinger: But is this in-situ biotreatment above ground or below ground?

Dr. Stahl: In-situ would be below ground, it would be in place. And the idea there is that you’re going to add nutrients. So you’ll be driving down the oxygen content, so you’ll be driving the system anaerobic so you can get the degradation – the RDX, the HMX and the perchlorate.

Mr. Schlesinger: I don’t understand how you do that. As Joel said earlier, how do you stir it up and…

Dr. Stahl: Well, basically what’s happened is, if you have enough carbon, that things are going to grow until it runs out of something. Right now we have an excess of oxygen in the aquifer. So, that means that something else is limited, and it’s probably carbon. If you add enough carbon, then it is going to go until something else is limited. So, you’re just going to have to figure out what you have to add in order to get sufficient growth in order to use up all the oxygen, and then it will start using the next redux couple. It could be iron, it could be nitrate, it could be sulfate. And the idea is that you have to keep going until you get conditions sufficiently negative redux potential in order to degrade, to reduce these chemicals of concern.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have David, and then Tom, and then we can wrap this one up.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. If you employ a bioreactor technology above ground, will the high levels of iron and manganese be a problem in carrying forward that process?

Mr. Gregson: I don’t have an answer for that question, but we’ll look at it.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. Tom.

Mr. Cambareri: I just had a comment on Peter’s question about how would you make an oxygenated aquifer anaerobic. You could do a couple of things. You could site a landfill on it and all the organic material will go down; that will create an aerobic plume, and we’ve done that. You could also spill lots of petroleum in the ground, and that would create a biologically-active area and create an anaerobic plume. And so those are some things you can do. It would be an unnatural thing that you would have to do to get these low levels of concentrations. But I did have another question. Is the screening criteria that we’ve talked about – would I take it that that’s basically a CERCLA type screening criteria that you boiled down?

Mr. Gregson: Basically, it’s boiled down for the screening process. A more robust screening process would be in the FS study.

Mr. Cambareri: I guess I think that what you should look at is the decision criteria matrix that was established back in 96, 97, now for the cleanup of the IRP plumes. It was the result of lots of public input as to how the screening process/criteria should be as it relates to the unique features of Cape Cod.

Mr. Murphy: Mr. Walsh-Rogalski.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Yes, I just want to respond. With respect to the screening, there is a two-step process before you get to your remedy. The first is screening, which is knocking out technologies or alternatives that are ineffective, disproportionately costly without any benefit, or non-implementable. You then get into the much more detailed analysis alternatives, which – you should take a look at the order – is very specific to Mass Military Reservation and to the sole source aquifer and to water supply shortage. All those things have to be considered. So, if you go back to that, you’ll have a better idea of what the detailed analysis requires. So it’s not the same as the CERCLA process but it is, it was, based on it and made more site-specific.

Mr. Murphy: Jim, and then Peter, and then let’s move on.

Dr. Stahl: I just have one more question/comment. Now that you’ve identified, I think, six technologies that you are going to investigate further, what’s the time frame, and how soon are we going to be moving on that, and what kind of effort is going to be made for feasibility studies? What happens next?

Mr. Murphy: Do we have any takers here? What’s going to happen next and when will it happen?

Mr. Gregson: I didn’t bring my schedule. Todd, do you remember the process?

Mr. Borci: I didn’t bring my schedule. I believe that the feasibility study draft is going to come out for public comment towards August of this year. So, we are moving this along as fast as we can. So, this process, EPA submitted comments and based on these comments tonight this document will move forward and they’ll begin the detailed screening, plus maybe bring in a couple other technologies that were mentioned in some of our comments. And they’ll look at treatability studies and that will determine whether or not the draft FS does come out in August; but I believe the beginning of August is the time frame for the draft FS.

Dr. Stahl: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: Well, options one and two are not necessarily popular. Are we going to have some sort of health risk-assessment done in order to properly assess them?

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: I think if you looked at the factors and the detailed analyses, one of which was the degree to which you give, an alternative protects the sole source aquifer from any further contamination, I think you’d see that they would rate very lowly, very low. The alternatives, the criteria, and the detailed analyses will show you what will be applied to screen these things further.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, it looks like a time exceedance from the agenda has occurred - reading from my bullets here. So we have, the other two big items left are the Central Impact Area, Groundwater Update and the Small Arms Range Update, which has been pushed off a couple of meetings. So, which way do people want to go, because I don’t think we’re going to get to both of them. Central Impact area going once…

Dr. Feigenbaum: Briefly, on the Small Arms Range findings...

Agenda Item #4. Small Arms Range Update

Mr. Gregson: We have a couple of handouts. But, if you remember, we started to get into this discussion last time. We really have no new information since what we handed out at the last meeting. We are in the process of getting validated data on a couple of ranges and are planning to issue a report within the next few weeks, once we get the validated data back. So, there’s really no new information provided on the Small Arms Ranges at this time.

Mr. Murphy: Todd has a comment.

Mr. Borci: Do folks at the table remember getting a write-up over the last couple of months that talked about the range and data? I think the best thing to do would probably be, if we talked about Central Impact Area, is to review that write-up and go into the next meeting and we can discuss it at the next meeting, and anything that changes can be updated to you at that meeting. I believe most of the data is validated, so.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. On with the Central Impact Area draft groundwater…

Dr. Feigenbaum: Wasn’t it just, there were two ranges that were analyzed? We did it for two ranges, I believe. And there were, how many more ranges to go?

Mr. Gregson: There were two ranges where we did air monitoring – the C range, Sierra East. There were three ranges that we did soil sampling – Sierra East, Golf, and India Range. And we are waiting to get the soil data back on the G and I Range.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Can you just refresh our memories here about what the report included? I thought it was only air and soil for two ranges.

Mr. Borci: Yes, I believe that’s one of the things that we should check on and make sure that you have everything. And we’ll send out an e-mail, and if you can’t find all that data we can put together the package again.

Dr. Feigenbaum: It was a very thin little package and we get masses of…

Mr. Borci: I believe all the data has been put out. It may have been in a couple…

Dr. Feigenbaum: Could we just accumulate the whole…all the data in one place, and send it out to the teams?

Mr. Gregson: We can send out another copy to the team of what was previously provided so you can review, or if there is anything new, we can put it all together.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Thank you. Just as the work process that we’re committed to is to remind you that we are supposed to revisit that data and possibly redesign the study. Do you recall that?

Mr. Gregson: I recall that discussion. Yes.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, on to the Central Impact Area.

Agenda Item #5. Central Impact Area Groundwater Update

Mr. Gregson: Moving on. This is a report that is coming out this week; it’s the Central Impact Area Draft Groundwater Report, technical memo 01-6. The input that we’re looking for from the team tonight is on the right – do we have an adequate understanding of the nature or what compounds we’re looking at at the Central Impact Area, and the extent of contamination? Do we have the RDX contamination adequately characterized? – not necessarily to drill a well and find every last molecule of RDX, but characterized to an extent to proceed through the feasibility study process.

Just to briefly go over the schedule to where this report fits. We have a characterization report and feasibility study report on the horizon for the Central Impact Area. We divided it into two operable units. We have a soil operable unit, and a groundwater operable unit. The groundwater operable unit is leading the charge as far as the investigations and feasibility studies go. The report I’ll be talking about tonight is there in the first dashed item – the draft groundwater report that’s due out tomorrow. The next characterization report is going to be the draft soil report, which will include a lot of the High-Use Target Area investigation that is going to come out this summer. Following behind are the feasibility study reports; the groundwater FS screening report is coming out in the middle of June, and the draft soil feasibility study screening report will fall out on Halloween.

The purpose of the technical memo is shown here – update of the information on what contaminants we’re finding and where they’re located – to look at what the contaminants of concern are, to move forward with the feasibility study, and to talk to you folks about data gaps and where we might need additional wells to better characterize the extent of contamination in the Central Impact Area. This is the extent of RDX detections in groundwater in the Central Impact Area. The geometry – we’re looking at about 1100 feet or so in an east-west direction and about half that in a north-south direction.

Mr. Hugus: Is that 11,000 or 1100?

Mr. Gregson: 11,000. It’s about two miles from this point here to this point here – about a mile wide. That’s the RDX contamination. We do have other explosives found in the Central Impact Area, the levels are less than drinking water criteria and the extent is also less.

This report is going to include, or does include, a discussion on the identification of contaminants of concern for the Central Impact Area. The contaminants include three explosive compounds that are ingredients of high explosives or degradation byproducts of high explosives. RDX is the principal ingredient of these mixtures and the breakdown products of TNT are also present. A number of compounds went through the process and they were determined not to be identified as contaminants of concern after risk management evaluation. This is part of the process that we worked out with the EPA to look at what the contaminents of concern are, and to sort through the types of compounds we’re detecting, to identify which compounds should go forward in the FS and which should be used to help design the remediation.

HMX was removed from consideration from a quantitative risk evaluation. Compounds that are at background levels were removed; this eliminated the compounds ammonia, molybdenum, nitrate and nitrite. Compounds were eliminated due to frequency of detection; this eliminated compounds such as alpha BHC , antimony, cadmium, BDCM, cyanide, DBCM, dieldrin, MCPP, PCP and thallium. Compounds that were artifacts of sampling or analysis were eliminated; took out Bis-2-exylhexylphthalate (BEHP), out of the contaminants of concern list.

Mr. Murphy: Joel, do you have a question there?

Dr. Feigenbaum: What you’re presenting is just the tip of the iceberg. We’re not privy to any of the analysis of what’s been done or any of it. This is purely a "take it out of faith" kind of thing.

Mr. Gregson: What I’m doing here is, this report is coming out here this week. My intention is to give you a preview of coming attractions of what the key considerations are of the report. When you get a copy of the report you can look at the details of how we came to our conclusions.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Could we just maybe play out one sample contaminant, like, well, I’m curious about cadmium. Was there a prevalence of cadmium?

Mr. Gregson: There was not. That was eliminated due to a low frequency of detection.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Was there cadmium detected in the soils?

Mr. Gregson: I don’t have an answer for that question.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Does anybody know?

Mr. Borci: Cadmium was detected in several soil samples, but it is something that you could find in some of the soil samples. And what we tried to do I believe, two meetings ago, is present that all of the data collected to date was summarized in a background data set. It was attempted to be culled from that. And these levels in this report should be compared to those background levels. These levels in the soil report will be compared to the background levels. But as far as widespread cadmium contamination in the soil in the Central Impact Area, no. We don’t see it around the targets really. We’ve seen it at select spots in and around the ranges, but mostly where concentrated disposal had occurred.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Disposal of what…shells?

Mr. Borci: Yes, ordnance. We don’t have a definite idea on everything that was disposed of in those places. Keep in mind that this report is coming out tomorrow, that the main thing that I think that I’d like to hear input on tonight is, they are proposing some well locations. I think that is something that can be talked about tonight without much discussion, and it is a draft document that is coming out and any comments are more than welcome, just like always. So, take what you can out of this presentation and then go, and you can focus when you look at the report. But, the wells, I think, are something that I’d like to hear any thoughts you have on tonight.

Mr. Murphy: Paul, maybe we can take your question and then try to let Ben go through…

Mr. Zanis: I just wonder, how could HMX fall off the list when it breaks down to more dangerous substances?

Mr. Gregson: Due to the low concentrations, and it was eliminated due to a quantitative risk characterization. It was taken out because of that. I went through the risk assessment process to compare it to risk standards – hazard index it’s called – and cumulative cancer risk, and it fell out with a comparison to those criteria.

Mr. Borci: I just want to say I’m going to have to go back and look at the contaminant of concern process because I believe that the direction we gave was no PEP compounds, which are propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics, can be eliminated as COCs. But the risk management process that Ben is referring to, it’s kind of a twist on the typical risk assessment where it’s done after the COCs are identified. So what he’s referring to are the contaminants that a remediation system would be designed to treat. And I would think that HMX would still have to be in there. So, the way that this whole contaminant of concern process is set up, the argument for each and every contaminant can be accepted or rejected. So if EPA reviews the report and feels that it should stay in there, it will stay in there. So, I don’t know if that gives you a ton of comfort right now, but these are the things to take back and when you look at the report, focus. And if you have comments or you’re not sure that we’ll comment in a way that you’d like, please send comments and things will be addressed.

Mr. Murphy: Okay Ben.

Mr. Gregson: Okay, moving on to what Todd was asking – remaining data needs, otherwise known as where we propose to install additional wells. You take a look on the map on the right; I’m going to talk about a number of different locations. First off, over here near the – if this is the toe, this must be the head of the plume – we have detections in MW-27 and MW-117. And we’d like to get some information on the upgradient extent of contamination in this area. Now, if you look right here, if I can hold my hand steady, we have a well called J1P1. This well is a well that has not yet been installed. It is part of the J Ranges workplan. Now, if this well were to be installed at it’s proposed location here, it would provide good information on the extent of contamination upgradient from MW-27. The problem is, in order to meet the needs of the J Ranges workplan or the J Ranges investigation, this well may ultimately be moved off to the north and then east and would be cross-gradient from 27.

Mr. Hugus: What was the level at 27?

Mr. Gregson: The level would be less than 2 ppb, less than the health advisory. So, with that we either need one or two wells in this area here, we feel. One upgradient of 117 and something upgradient of 27.

The other areas we’d like to get some additional information on, up here on the transect at the edge of the Impact Area. We propose to put a well to the north of well number 96, which is located right here, to help us better define the extent of contamination along this edge. Any well that we drill in this area here also helps us in assessing conditions in the northwest corner of MMR. We talked before about this ground scar well, GS8P1. This is a well that has yet to be drilled, and this well will provide us with very valuable information, not only on the extent along Turpentine Road, but also whether there is a potential source area in the Impact Area that we need to worry about in looking at the northwest corner of MMR.

Likewise, we’d like to propose a well north of MW-50. This is Bailey’s Pond, so it would be something along the road up near Bailey’s Pond. This would help us not only with the, this portion of the aquifer, but would also help us define this small area of contamination that we’ve seen around well 50. At the present time there are no levels of RDX here that are above a health advisory. But we are a little bit concerned that we don’t have information on this side to confirm this depiction in this area.

That’s four wells. There are two more that we’d like to propose and that would be wells downgradient, essentially of CS-19. One would be downgradient of 135, and another would be downgradient of 108 to make sure that we’ve got the toe of contamination in this area.

Mr. Murphy: I think you need a new laser there Ben, a new laser pointer. Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: I’m concerned that we don’t know enough about the Central Impact Area, especially the big eastern side that has no points in it. One of the goals the citizens set before the TOSC advisors, one of the potential goals we were talking about when we brought on the TOSC advisors, was to analyze the, our points, our well sites – to see whether we had enough data to say whether we had spatially represented two samples to adequately characterize the Impact Area. Well, this was not a task because of lack of funding and materials and so on. Charles Harvey put one of his students on such a task and the student came back with information saying that there weren’t enough data points to make the analysis. I’m hoping that we will improve our quantity of information especially in that great gap. I don’t have a pointer so I can’t show, but there is a great hole there that we know nothing, and yet I have all the maps spread out in front of me – we don’t have munitions – that whole area right there. When I look at the maps that I have in front of me we have all sorts of hits – not of explosives – but in these outer wells out here we have all sorts of various things: VOC’s, SVOC’s, herbicides, pesticides, metals. So I’m really concerned in terms of remaining data needs, we need information about this location.

Mr. Murphy: All right. Richard.

Mr. Hugus: I’d add to what Peter said. Peter talked about a large sort of unknown area to the west and Tom Cambareri and I have been talking for months now about the large area of unknowns to the northwest. No, I’m sorry, Peter is talking about to the east. Sorry Peter. And Tom and I have been asking for more information about the northwest. I think that’s one of the things we are supposed to be discussing after this presentation. So, to answer your question about whether we think, whether I think the Central Impact Area plume is ready for a feasibility study, I’d have to say no, because we don’t really know where the plume is yet and a lot of work has to be done soon in order for us to find that out. On the maps that you have – you can’t really see it on the overhead – but the piece of paper I have here has a huge shell of non-detect to 2 ppb. I just don’t see much definition there. And also I’m concerned about the connections between these small plumelets and the Central Impact Area plume proper. That’s what I think. And also I’d like to hear about new detections since we were here last time.

Mr. Gregson: We have provided a handout. It’s been typical for us to provide information on new detections as part of a formal briefing, but in order to try and help save time we provided a handout that includes the things we typically talk about – like which groundwater monitoring rounds were on, where the detections are – to help provide you with that information in written format.

Mr. Hugus: So, this handout was given at the table tonight?

Mr. Gregson: It should be in your packet in front of you.

Mr. Hugus: Yeah, in other words, we have no time to read it. I mean, I’ve got like six inches of paper in front of me here. Okay, well I’ll just have to take a look at it.

Mr. Murphy: Jamie.

Mr. Kinney: I think the experience of the citizens who are involved in the IRP process over the years – we saw the process of building these maps, which is essentially a connect-the-dots exercise as the data came in. And when we saw plumes that had strange detached pieces of high concentrations, and then stretches of low concentrations, and long fingers that seemed to be kind of standing out so it looked kind of like a hand, over time, that all disappeared, and it became larger plumes that were well-defined and well-connected. It seems to me the more wells you put in here, the more you’re going to find that. And, I mean the wells that you suggested sound fine. I’d say ax three and double it, or something like that, and then we’ll get somewhere. I’m afraid that’s been the situation over time, so it makes sense. It’s not foolish or saying "let’s waste money."

Driven by the data we already have, I would say that you’d want to connect the dots from the southern part of high concentration to the 2- to 10-ppb piece to the larger 2- to 10-ppb piece, and then you’ve got that piece way up at the northwest that seems to be detached – but how likely is that? That’s not in the center of the Impact Area. It seems unlikely that it’s not in the Impact Area at all. It seems unlikely that that would be the result of a mini source area or anything like that. So I think you’d have to follow back on that. So it looks like there are not many wells for quite a long stretch in that section. I’d say put some in there. And then to go farther afield, to try to protect the long range water supply work that other groups are working on. I think you’d have to do something to give advance warning of whether or not those places are in danger from any of these plumes, or if you are going to pick up little detached pieces like this. So, more wells to protect the long range water supply areas, which we have been promised are going to meet the needs of the Upper Cape for years to come. And to try to connect the dots more right in the interior part. It just doesn’t seem likely, based on our experience here, that those are in fact detached pieces of 2 to 10, or 2 to 20 ppb of anything.

And my second question – perchlorate relates to that map how?

Mr. Gregson: We’ve done fairly extensive testing for perchlorate in the Central Impact Area and have not detected it to date in any of the wells we sampled. We sampled wells along Turpentine Road and this transect here. We haven’t sampled every well, but we have sampled the newer wells that we’ve installed.

Mr. Murphy: Richard, do you have a comment?

Mr. Hugus: Yeah, since my earlier question, I had a look at the groundwater study update page and I saw groundwater results for the J Range area, but nothing for the Central Impact Area. So, this sheet doesn’t answer the question I asked you, which is what are the new detections for the monitoring wells in the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Gregson: I think you don’t have any information on new detects because we don’t have any recent new detections in the Central Impact Area. The drilling for this particular phase of the program is wound down. There is only one well left to drill and we need to wait to drill that until the work is completed at the High-Use Target Area. So the short answer is there’s no new detections here because there aren’t any.

Mr. Hugus: All right, well, that would just underscore what I said earlier about the need to be doing more work. I mean you’re asking us to get started on a feasibility study or discussing a feasibility study when you don’t even have any new data that’s much needed for the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Gregson: We’re at a point now, Richard, where we’re looking at the data we do have and are looking to come to a decision on where additional wells are needed.

Mr. Hugus: Yeah, we need to do that before we talk about feasibility study I think.

Mr. Gregson: All right. That’s what we’re doing.

Mr. Murphy: Todd, and Paul.

Mr. Borci: I just want to jump in and clarify – hope to clarify a couple of things. When we look at this map I think, Jamie, EPA feels the same way – that, you know, that we were likely here, if we ask for more wells than six, we’ll likely hear there are hundreds of wells out there. I think the relevant facts are that I think we have slightly over 150 monitoring well locations trying to characterize thousands of acres. So, yes, additional wells are needed. For a feasibility study I think it is important also to keep in mind that we need to get a handle on the extent, and then we can start to think about what the appropriate remedies are, how many different areas might need to be treated separately, break things into operable units. That’s sort of what would lead into the feasibility study. So I think the wells that we need to see put in should try to get to that goal, which is – I see areas of contamination out here that don’t really have anything downgradient for a long ways. Like around MW-23. Those are the areas that we’d like to see a little bit more defined, so when we review the report, those are some of the things that we’ll be looking at and I think they are very similar to what you’re saying.

Mr. Kinney: Can I respond to that?

Mr. Murphy: Yes.

Mr. Kinney: Yeah, I think you’re right, and MW-23 is one of the places I’ve tried to point out. There must be some sort of connection between that and the larger plume to the south east of it. It would be important to know that. When the IRP program was looking at the CS-10 plume, there was a lot of back and forth with the citizens and AFCEE saying, you know, "how many wells…let’s propose two, no, we want three, no, we want seven, no we’re going to put in four." We went through that month after month after month. A feasibility study was developed; a treatment plan was developed. After the treatment plan was developed – "Goddamn, well we missed almost half of this and it’s on the other side of Johns Pond and Ashumet Pond, what a surprise!" So, are we going to run into the same issue here because we’re being penny wise and pound foolish?

We’re saying we don’t want to waste resources – okay, that’s understandable. And then we get to the point where we want a feasibility study within a reasonable time, but because we have now limited the number of wells and how aggressive the initial studies were, we then end up with saying – "Okay, we’ve got a treatment system in place and it’s going to take up everything that’s up to MW-23." And two months after that’s established, we find out that it is way out here or it’s farther north or farther south and so forth. The reason that I bring that up is because we went through that with CS-10 in a big way, and I guess you can say we went through the same thing with FS-12 in a way, and it’s still happening now. So, we don’t want to keep repeating the mistakes of the past. And I think the National Guard has got to learn from AFCEE’s experience with those things, and be aggressive early on in the process – nail down the delineation of the plumes sooner, rather than later. Figure, you shoot a lot of money into it now to find out what’s really going on, and it probably will save money down the road in treatment and everything else.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, it’s nine o’clock now, just to remind people. So I know some people may have to get going shortly, but we have Paul next.

Mr. Zanis: Because the National Guard is not presenting us with new detections, it sort of stops the process, because we have reporters here that want to report something. So if we don’t talk about the new detects, then we don’t talk about the new detects that are off post that are off base. So, what are we doing? We’re stopping the citizens from finding out this new knowledge of what’s going on. Because we are now privy to this information but the public is not. The newspapers are, but how is a reporter supposed to understand this with the maps and all this ongoing study. Usually when it’s done up there with an overhead, everybody can’t understand it in the audience. So these people sitting in the audience – they don’t really know what’s going on here without this report. So I think its kind of shutting the information off to the public.

Mr. Murphy: Peter. I mean, I think the intent, Paul, was to try to – you know there is so much to get through in each meeting, and we were never getting through. That was an attempt to get information out to people without having to get through it in every meeting.

Mr. Zanis: Yeah, but there are some things, like Richard says – that kind of questions our intelligence – we could have read at home. But I think important issues like new detects off post, I think is a legitimate concern that we should discuss. And that everybody should hear it, and know what’s going on. Especially the neighbors that live over there in Grand Oak. That’s right on the border; there’s probably contamination right underneath their homes. I think they should know about it and that we’re going to have to take action on it; we might have, in the future, drill rigs in their neighborhoods. I think we should discuss it.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, let Ben respond.

Mr. Gregson: Just to respond to all, there are no new detections off post that haven’t already been made public through press releases. Some of these detections we’ve talked about at previous meetings. So, I don’t think that there are any new revelations on "off post" detections that haven’t already been released to the public. We will – I agree with your point that it may be good in future meetings – to include a brief discussion of new detections as part of the regular update.

Mr. Zanis: Yes, it says right here – new detects off post.

Mr. Gregson: Right.

Mr. Murphy: Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: Okay, I’m going back to Todd’s comment. If we really need to delineate this particular plume and provide you with the best information, just for this particular activity, then putting wells along roads that are way beyond the plume boundaries aren’t going to do that. We’re going to need to put in wells here to find out whether this modeled turn of the plume is reality. Because we don’t know whether it turns there; we’re modeling that this plume turns and has something related to this, just because of the existence of this finding out here. We have no knowledge that this goes this way; it’s too far a distance, but it’s the existence of this point here that makes this spin. So if we want to put in an additional well and come up with some real knowledge, we need to go down to here.

Mr. Borci: If I can…that’s a good example of what the difference between the wells that we should be installing now, and the wells that would likely be installed as part of a data gap type work after the feasibility study is provided. We have the downgradient fence, we know it hasn’t made it that far and that thousand foot distance in-between, that can be narrowed down when it’s time to install your pumping wells, your treatment system. You’ve narrowed it down, you’ve got it within the box and that’s something that you would save the next phase of well installations for. And I think the wells we need now are to get a handle on the MW-23 area that, basically, there’s no control on that. We don’t know how far it’s made it down from the source area. I don’t know if that comes across clearly, but I think that you need to recognize that there are data gap type work that can be done down the road, and there’s other stuff that we can do now that’s a little bit more important, I think, in getting an idea of the whole picture where everything is. I think it is going to take enough wells to get that whole picture, but that’s why we’d have to look at a second phase for stuff when we get closer to a feasibility study.

Mr. Schlesinger: Well, when you talk about feasibility study, do you mean feasibility study for everything that’s over in this area only? So when you’re saying Central Impact Area and feasibility study, do you mean feasibility study that also concerns all the other effort areas over here? Or just this area?

Mr. Borci: What you’re looking at there. And another thing to point out – the Central Impact Area, we believe that Central Impact Area is the main source for the contamination that we see in the groundwater, and that’s why this has been broken into an operable unit. Now, within this are there many different source areas and many different plumes? – possibly, and that would be something that has to be determined. But these new well installations would hopefully help with that. We may need to break this into more than one operable unit within the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Schlesinger: This area here is what you call the Central Impact Area, not this area here, right? Are you saying the whole thing? Or just this part?

Mr. Borci: The Groundwater contamination in and emanating from the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Schlesinger: For the sake of understanding, so we are speaking English here, this is area "A" and this is area "B." Are we talking about area "B" or the union of areas "A" and "B?"

Mr. Borci: Area "B." We don’t have any defined contamination, so we believe the picture up there matches what we’ll see with the source area. When you look to the east of the contamination up there, wells 106 and 44 – 44 has low levels of a TNT breakdown product, but no RDX. So we feel that’s the eastern bound of the contamination that’s coming from sources along Turpentine Road, which is where you see all those tanks up and down through the center. And then Tank Alley, which goes perpendicular to that along the bottom is another major source area with all the other targets. Now, how much is a target in between those? – we don’t know, but essentially that triangle comprises the source area, so it’s everything coming from that. To the east we could have contamination from the J Ranges; that’s all part of that investigation.

Mr. Schlesinger: Are there other things that are driving this need to do the feasibility study that we’re not aware of or is it just, you think it’s ready, it’s time.

Mr. Borci: No, I think that what I’m hearing is that we need more wells before we can get to a stage where we are comfortable to say this is ready for a feasibility study. And I think that we’re in agreement, what you can do with installing a lot of wells now, seeing what happens, and then we can move the draft feasibility study date off. And that’s the determination that we’ll make based on the input we receive here and the wells that we install. And another thing to keep in mind also – and I see Marty over in the corner – is that CS-19, the IRP investigation, this feasibility study for groundwater has been timed to match up well with the CS-19 work under the IRP program, so that any possible remedial alternative down the road may be combined because you have CS-19 contamination. It looks like you have contamination coming from the Impact Area, coming underneath CS-19, so that is still trying to get a handle on that – both the IRP and the Guard program. So, there isn’t a drive to get somewhere before we are ready – it’s, we can start to push these things and move the data along as quickly as possible, and I think that’s what we’re trying to do.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have Shaun, and then Tom, and Joel. And we’ll see if we can wrap this one up.

Mr. Cody: I just have to point out that we have to be out of the room by ten and that includes pack-up of everything, which takes at least 15 to 20 minutes, so we’re going to have to need to put an end state at this.

Mr. Murphy: Okay.

Mr. Gregson: A half hour for breakdown and pack-up.

Mr. Murphy: Half an hour. Tom.

Mt. Cambareri: I just want to say, a lot of good questions, discussion about this. I agree with the big picture idea that we need a little bit better definition. Obviously been talking about the northwest corner. I guess I’m interested in reading the report because I want to see more information about how comfortable you are with that being the source area. I’d like to add, I see one upgradient non-detect well so, I think, hopefully it will be in the report and that’s the crux of my question. I don’t have any technical questions. But, the report, you say, is released tomorrow? And is there like a comment deadline for that?

Mr. Gregson: We’re looking at about a three-week period to get comments in.

Mr. Cambareri: Is this release of this report going to be a notice in the press?

Mr. Gregson: We weren’t planning on it. This is a draft report for the team and regulator review. We don’t typically do that for reports.

Mr. Borci: This is something that would be…under the IRP program, to use the best example, as you would be familiar with. This wouldn’t typically, this would be a presentation – maybe at a JPAT, you’d give input, but it would not be a report that would be submitted to citizens for comment. So this is a little bit beyond what is done now.

Mr. Cambareri: It’s getting back to the initial talk about what do people on Cape Cod know about this Impact Area, besides us sitting around the table.

Mr. Murphy: That’s getting to the fact sheet that we’re trying to get to. Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I agree, you know, that we should be moving on the big picture Todd, and I’m not at this point able to say we’ll put a well exactly there in the great northwest territory, but we have been talking about that for a year or probably more than that. It’s a real sort of sampling exercise. You’ve got such a vast area that you’re looking to delineate. But, at the same time, I’m uncomfortable in just glossing over Peter’s comment that we not begin to plan now, some of the work between the fences, to start solidifying that a little better. I have a bad feeling about leaving too much data for a data gap. At that point, it’s really not a gap, it’s a data lack. And working with the IRP – you’ve been to enough meetings, Todd – that we’re constantly having this problem with people trying to start designing systems for remediation before they really have all the data, and it’s got to go a little more hand-in-hand. I think we’re really a long way from delineating that plume, even in the more restricted sense. So, I say let’s push forward on both fronts at the same time. Because we’re going to be designing remedial systems at the same time we’re trying to figure out where to put wells and it just gets to be, intellectually, a very complicated exercise.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Joel. Ben.

Mr. Gregson: I don’t see any more cards up, but there are just a couple of more points in the presentation I’d just like to make that address some of the concerns I think have been raised here. A part of the remaining is not only installing new wells, which I went over, is continued long-term groundwater monitoring for both explosives and perchlorate to make sure that these detections that we found are consistent, and we understand the nature of the contamination. And the bullet that we always have there is that we’re going to evaluate the need for additional wells, which is what we talked about here, based on the data we get.

A little bit on schedule, just to wrap this item up, we want to finalize the contaminant of concern with regulators in the beginning of May. The FS screening report for the Central Impact Area groundwater is due the middle of June. And we have a step to determine if post-screening investigations are needed prior to feasibility study. So, that’s really all I have on that particular item.

Mr. Murphy: All right, if that’s it on the Central Impact Area, we can move quickly to the other issues.

Agenda Item #6. Other Issues

Mr. Murphy: Richard, you want to talk about fact sheets and there was a facilitator issue that maybe we could talk about at the next meeting.

Mr. Hugus: As far as the fact sheet goes, we’ve talked a few times tonight about the importance of getting information out to the public. Tom just put it quite well when he said that we here at the table know a lot about the Impact Area; the public knows very little. In fact there have been meetings that have been held with regard to the Camp Edwards Master Plan, which people in positions of authority have said that Camp Edwards is pretty clean, it’s not a problem out there with contamination. So, there’s a pressing need for this information to get out.

On the other hand, the agencies at the base who ought to have done this have presented us with one delay after another. As we said at the beginning, the Joint Program Office has spent six months on the task of trying to combine the IRP map with the Impact Area map for the public to see. So, what I’ve done is attached Paul Zanis’s map to a fact sheet. I think we need both things: a visual, which is a map, and a narrative, which is the fact sheet. This is similar to what we did for the benefit of the Cape Cod legislative delegation when the 15,000-acre wildlife reserve was discussed up at the State House. Of course, since then, which is almost two years ago, a lot of new facts have come out and at that point we couldn’t have put plumes on a map, and now we can. So there’s a pressing need for this information to be put in a package and given to people so they know what’s happening. In fact, it’s our duty to do that, I feel, as citizens.

So, I’ve put Paul’s map appended to a fact sheet, and that fact sheet is made up of simply the information that EPA put together in the latest administrative order, which was a very cogent summary of all the hard data that we have on the Impact Area as of the beginning of January. And I’d like to hand this over to the officer at the Impact Area Groundwater Study Office whose job, I take it, is to see that information from the Impact Area team gets out to the public. This is a public affairs office, isn’t it? So I’m going to be asking this Groundwater Study Public Affairs Office to represent the citizens’ concerns here by taking this map and fact sheet and getting it published so the public can see what we’re doing. I will now hand this over to Tina Dolen.

Ms. Dolen: I wanted to say thank you. Our office has in fact produced our own fact sheet as well, subsequent to the last IART meeting. So, I think what we’ll do is get together and try to meld the both of these and then maybe Richard – if you will – maybe we could consult with you and maybe talk together about what the best way is.

I did want to mention for the benefit of the people here that the EPA – Jim Murphy, and DEP – Ellie Grillo, and myself, and our staff, meet regularly in order to look at how we can better communicate with the public. And since I’ve been there, I think we’ve made some good progress. We have the Public Information Plan just about ready to go; it’s at the designers and it will soon be ready for public comment. And we hope to mail it to you IART members prior to the next meeting in March. We have produced the press release of perchlorate. And we have four fact sheets ready to go; they are going to be reviewed by the Risk Communications Group, and then I think we’ll probably come back to you at some point, and they are on RDX, HMX, TNT, and perchlorate.

And we have also planned meetings. I have met with the selectmen from various towns. We’ve put together a UXO education project in coordination with the Sandwich public schools in developing a curriculum that is very exciting and it is in the works, and we hope to have up-and-running in another year or so with the cooperation of the schools. We also have the Sandwich Notification Plan in place.

And I’m afraid to say anything about announcing an open house for fear that Ben will say something will happen; at the same moment I talked about it and announced the open house at the last meeting, it sort of fell apart. So, I’m going to take the risk anyway and say that the new open house is planned for before the next IART meeting, on March 27, and it will take place we think, at a place in Falmouth. And the sole purpose is to get citizens in, we want to involve the public. In order to do so we want to showcase some of our new technologies that are being tested here. We would like all the IART members to attend. We would like to have the demonstration of the archive search GIS report. Just a whole variety of posters, information. We’re all going to take part in it and no one has stood up yet to say they are leaving, so I think we’re in good shape – I’m making this announcement. As soon as we know where it is, we’ll let you know.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have Bill, and then Peter, and Paul.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: With respect to the fact sheet, rather than having – I think Richard’s suggested that the findings of fact from AO4 be the foundation. Rather than having your office run off and create a different fact sheet, I would like to do what we did last time, which was sit down with a document that lays out all the facts and try to come up with a consensus document.

Ms. Dolen: That’s what I meant.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: So, if what we could do is, at the next meeting start with our findings of fact, and to the extent that people disagree with those facts, we would discuss language changes, but hopefully use that as the skeleton from which to work.

Ms. Dolen: You’re talking about this IART meeting, so that will be an agenda item you will work together on, is that what you are saying?

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: I would like to do that.

Ms. Dolen: Okay, so we will not be as involved, and will continue to work on others.

Mr. Murphy: I think it would be helpful, Tina, for the one that you’re working on is getting the draft out to the team prior to the meeting, so they have the various options in front of them.

Ms. Dolen: Okay, so compare the two things.

Mr. Walsh Rogalski: The goal is to sit down and have the same kind of discussion that we had the last time, so that if there is a point in those findings that the Guard doesn’t agree with – and I would hope the Guard would come prepared to say where they don’t agree with things – that we discuss, because all of those findings come from facts that have been developed as a result of this study. So, hopefully we can reach consensus quickly.

Mr. Schlesinger: I’m a little concerned about a couple of things. You’re having an open house and you’re not going to have your fact sheet for that open house – that’s correct? I just don’t want to see your fact sheet at the open house before we get a chance to review it. I’ve seen too much of this kind of stuff and I…

Ms. Dolen: Oh, no I think that this group is, we really work with this group, and you are the final either of what goes out, you are the review team. So, I think that what I was alluding to is that we have a draft of a fact sheet that we would be happy to share, to work together. But we are not going to publish anything for the open house other than maybe information, who we are, what the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program does – but no, and I’m glad you mentioned that. Please do, feel free to call if there’s something you want us to do or something you think we should stop doing. I want to know.

Mr. Schlesinger: What is the Risk Communication Group that has been brought up a number of times tonight?

Mr. Murphy: That is essentially, is a group more of the technical people from EPA, DEP and the Groundwater Study office. What happens with one of these fact sheets, it’s drafted up and it’s like an internal review to make sure everything is accurate, make sure our risk assessors agree with the statements that are in there…then those fact sheets would then go to this team for comments. That’s essentially what that is; it also has community involvement people in it also.

Mr. Schlesinger: Now, I thought what you were going to talk about Tina, was what happens with Richard’s submission. What happens with his submission? Does this not go out? Are you going to hold it and put yours out? What’s going on? Does he just go into a black hole?

Ms. Dolen: No, no. I’m sorry, I thought I was clear. I’ll try to say it again, I’ll try to say it slowly. The material that Richard just gave us is the material that I understand Mr. Walsh-Rogalski would like to see as the basis for what this team discusses at the next meeting, with respect to a fact sheet. Now, we, our fact sheet that is cobbled together, the material we have, which may well be the same material that is in Richard’s, I don’t know yet. We’ll just send that out to you ahead of time, so that you can keep that in mind. But you know, it is a group effort, in my estimation.

Mr. Zanis: I think we should build – the foundation is the AO4 order – we should build from that and increase the size. I don’t know where you’re getting your fact sheet from, but the only fact sheet I know of is the AO1, 2, 3, and 4, and we should build from it and we should have this map here on an overhead and say, "Is this good or not?" "Is there something we should take off or put on?" – with this map right here. And I hope that it stays pretty complete, because I don’t want to see a map that the Joint Program Office is going to produce with nothing on it. At the Senior Management Boards they stick a map up with nothing on it.

Mr. Murphy: The fact sheet that I believe the Groundwater Office is working on was an attempt to update the one that this team produced in 1997, the one that the team worked on. They were essentially taking that one and updating the information and expanding on it and adding maps and so on.

Mr. Hugus: I have a proposal. Let’s discuss this on the agenda for the next meeting – putting out a fact sheet. Let the package that I just handed to Ms. Dolen be distributed to the Guard so they can review it and be ready for the next meeting to approve or not the facts that we want to put out to the public. Also, one sad fact is that we have too many facts to put out to the public. Our work isn’t going to be to add more, but to see what we can cut out because we can’t hand out a 10-page fact sheet at this point. That’s something to keep in mind for the next meeting. I hope that we can hammer it out at the next meeting and attach a map to it.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. I think we’re going to have to get moving here. Shaun is going to ask everyone to help pack up in a second. Shaun, and then James, and we’ll…

Mr. Cody: I just wanted to say that I want to give CH2M HILL enough time to pack up and we’re cutting into their time.

Mr. Kinney: I think Richard’s suggestion about putting this fact sheet on the next agenda makes perfect sense; I think we should also add to it. How do we distribute this fact sheet to the public? Just having a fact sheet at a table at a meeting like this means nobody sees the facts. So, I think we have to also discuss, "How do you distribute it?" Maybe we can do some kind of mailing to 50,000 people on the Upper Cape. I’m serious. For 12,000 dollars you could do it; I do it for a living.

Mr. Murphy: The other item is the Community Involvement Plan that Tina mentioned. It talks a lot about that and should be ready at the same time for review, so that can be discussed. Tom.

Mr. Cambareri: Important thing on this fact sheet and the facts – what we found up here is that on March 31st the Guard will submit it’s area-wide Environmental Impact Report on the base, which I suspect it will be a synopsis of the facts.

Agenda Item #7. Wrap up, Schedule next meeting, Review Action Items and Agenda for Next IART meeting

Mr. Murphy: Last item in this – wrap-up. We were proposing to have a regular meeting date every fourth Tuesday, similar to tonight. That’s a night that is convenient for the regulators and the Guard and hopefully for the citizens. So that’s what we wanted to check in on, so we could just establish the next few meetings. Paul?

Mr. Zanis: Could we try to get these meetings so that they don’t conflict with other meetings on the base? Like the meeting that’s going on tonight?

Mr. Murphy: This meeting was…

Mr. Zanis: It’s something, I think it’s being done on purpose, it almost seems.

Mr. Murphy: Well, the meetings I believe that are conflicting with it are the PIT meeting, which is a regular meeting date and then this meeting, PAVE PAWS. We’ll have to take that up with PAVE PAWS. I don’t know how many meetings are going to be scheduling but…these meetings have been scheduled pretty much month-to-month.

Mr. Schlesinger: The Sandwich Board of Health is ruling the PAVE PAWS group at the moment. Could somebody from this group who deals with scheduling of events speak with Dick Loring of the Sandwich Board of Health to find out what their plans are for future meetings to try to see how our dates can’t coincide?

Mr. Murphy: I think that would be something maybe Tina could do.

Ms. Adams: Well, why don’t we schedule the next one?

Mr. Murphy: Right. I think we should just go with the next one on March 27th so we don’t have the same problem we had this month of whether there is going to be a meeting or not. Okay, so Tuesday, March 27th. Maybe we can just get the action items out to people in the mail and wrap it up. Is that okay? Thank you very much.

Agenda Item #8. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy: Meeting adjourned.

Action items:

  1. Per Mr. Hugus’s request, EPA will research the requirements that may be imposed by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) relating to the storage of explosives by the military.
  2. Mr. Cambareri requested that the Joint Program Office provide a profiling report on chemical monitoring wells associated with the 3-MGD Water Supply Project .
  3. The Guard will bring the request to the Joint Program Office (JPO) that the IART team members have the opportunity to review and comment on the base-wide map.
  4. Dr. Feigenbaum requested the Guard to gather all data, including new data, related to the Small Arms Range Sampling event and mail this one document to them for review.
  5. Mr. Zanis requested the Guard to include discussion of new detects off-base at IART meetings.
  6. The Joint Program Office (JPO) will provide a map to be distributed that will contain Installation Restoration Program (IRP) plumes and IAGWSP areas of contamination. Status: The map is undergoing review and will be available prior to the March IART.

Status of Action Items

March IART agenda items:

  • ASR Interviews
  • Base-wide map and fact sheet
Site Map | Related Links | Comments/Contact Us | Search | Home
Administrative Notice