Area Review Team
Bourne Bridge Best Western
June 26, 2001
Distributed at Meeting:
2001 Draft Meeting Agenda
May 22, 2001
Draft Action Items
May 22, 2001
Draft Meeting Minutes
Introduction: LTC David Cunha, Deputy Post Commander, Camp Edwards
Study Update, IART Briefing 6/26/01
Paper: Upper Cape Water Supply Project Update
Times Editorial: "Another Minefield"
Handout: IAGWSP New Detects Update
Handout: Central Impact Area Draft Development and Screening of
Handout: Draft J1/J3/L Ranges Additional Delineation Work Plan
(J-1 1000m Berm)
Handout: Demo Area 1 Soil Report
Contamination on Training Ranges at the Grafenwöhr Training Area,
Groundwater Study Program General Fact Sheet
#1. Welcome, Approval of May 22, 2001 Meeting Minutes, and Draft
Mr. Murphy convened
the meeting at 6:10 p.m. He noted that the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs (EOEA) is holding a public hearing that some members might
be attending; they are expected to arrive at the Impact Area Review
Team (IART) meeting shortly. He then asked the team members who
were present to introduce themselves.
Mr. Murphy asked
if there were any changes to be made to the May 22, 2001 IART
meeting minutes. Mr. Hugus requested that he be listed as a citizen
in the attendance list of the minutes, rather than as a member of
the Joint Process Action Team (JPAT). He also said that the shortened
minutes are a real improvement but clarified that on page 10 where
it was noted that he asked when the Impact Area Groundwater Study
Program Office (IAGWSP) would be putting out a news release on depleted
uranium, his point had been that the IART should have a chance to
review that document before its release. Mr. Murphy thanked Mr.
Hugus and asked if there were any other comments on the minutes.
There were no other comments and the minutes were approved.
Mr. Murphy asked
if there were any recommended changes or additions to the agenda.
Mr. Hugus stated he would like to discuss the scheduling of IART
meetings. Mr. Murphy suggested adding this to the discussion of
the IART groundrules.
#2. Review Action Items
Mr. Murphy reviewed
the action items from the May 22, 2001 meeting.
Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) will be asked
to provide the findings of the Ecological Risk Assessment that
was performed at Chemical Spill 19 (CS-19).
Murphy noted that AFCEE has provided a summary of the findings
which was attached to the action item document. Mr. Hugus stated
that page 8-5 of the handout reports that the parties involved
should engage in additional discussion regarding the use and
protection of the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) sole
source aquifer to determine whether active remedial actions
are required for the identified groundwater contamination at
CS-19. He noted that this language implies that active remedial
investigations may not be being considered for CS-19. Mr. Aker
clarified that investigations are ongoing, a series of reports
will be forthcoming, and the remedial phase just hasn’t been
requested that the Guard report back to the IART on how far back
in time the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) records go and whether
records are located off-base in addition to on-base.
Murphy noted that the records at the ASP date back to approximately
1985, depending on the ammunition type used. No records are
located off base, and generally after two years the records
asked the Guard to provide the 10 Sources of Information for the
Murphy noted that a handout has been provided in the mailing.
requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bring
the IART’s request for the continued use of the private investigator
to the Department of Justice.
Murphy stated that on June 13, 2001, EPA made a request to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) that the National Guard Bureau (NGB)
investigator be allowed to resume interviews. The Department of
Justice is considering the request.
Hugus asked if there was any indication of how long the process
would take for the private investigator to resume. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski
explained that there are potential conflicts with DOJ ongoing
investigations and the Guard’s private investigator’s interviews.
EPA is working with DOJ to set priorities and ensure that neither
investigation is compromised. He added that the decision between
EPA and DOJ was to hold off on the private investigator that the
NGB was using, and then to resume when it was clear that the conflict
wasn’t going to exist anymore. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated that
he can not discuss the DOJ investigation; however, he is confident
that the DOJ is being as responsive as it can, considering the
established priorities. Mr. Hugus requested a discussion about
DOJ’s investigation at an IART meeting when the DOJ investigation
has been completed. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated that this would
will report back to the IART the status of the non-aqueous liquid
that was detected at monitoring well 164 (MW-164).
Murphy said that the Guard is awaiting the laboratory results
from the screening of this liquid, and he noted that a handout
provided in the mailing. Mr. Hugus asked if this would be discussed
during the meeting tonight. Mr. Gregson replied that it would.
requested that the Guard overlay Aerial Magnetometry (Air Mag)
data over the existing Central Impact Area map to see if the Air
Mag anomalies correspond with increased detections of Royal Demolition
Murphy invited Mr. Gregson to present the overlays.
Gregson displayed the map of the Central Impact Area plume and
overlaid it with the air mag data. He noted that there appears
to be a good correlation between detections in groundwater and
what is seen in air mag data. Mr. Gregson explained that the
data are not perfect, and there are wells downgradient from
anomalies detected in air mag data that are nondetect. He added
that there are areas of anomalies shown in air mag that have
no wells downgradient.
Schlesinger asked how the Guard is going to utilize air mag
information. Mr. Gregson replied that up to 26 additional wells
are going to be installed in the Central Impact Area. These
well sites were selected based upon both existing well data
and air mag survey data. He stated that the Guard is initiating
a process of verification, to go into the field and verify the
anomalies displayed in the air mag survey to see what they are.
Mr. Borci added that air mag data shows targets on the ground,
which need to be identified in the field, and then checked for
sampling around the object. He noted that there are areas where
air mag data show anomalies but there is nothing on the ground
in the field and these areas are undergoing investigation. Mr.
Gregson confirmed that investigations began last week.
Judge asked if the air mag survey is being confined to Impact
Area boundaries. Mr. Gregson replied that air mag survey is
being conducted over the entire 14,000 acres on Camp Edwards.
requested that the Guard report back to the IART regarding whether
the items that were due to be shipped out of the Ammunition Supply
Point (ASP) per EPA were actually shipped out.
Murphy noted within the next 30 to 60 days, approximately 50%
of the items due to be shipped out will be shipped out. The
Guard is still awaiting disposition instructions for the remaining
Hugus stated that the Guard has been aware for two years that
it was not right to store munitions that are not supposed to
be used on Camp Edwards. He said that the response to the action
item implies that after two years, there will be another two-month
wait for 50 % of the items to be shipped out, with no schedule
or commitment to the remaining 50 %.
Cunha noted that he has looked into this issue quite extensively
in the 26 days that he has been on Camp Edwards, and has learned
that in the last two years much more than 50 % of the items
in the ASP have been shipped out. He explained that a letter
March 21, 2001 from the Adjutant General, stated that the remaining
items would be shipped out. It was since then, March 21st,
2001 that 50 % of the remaining items were shipped out. LTC
Cunha said that he will continue to provide updates to the IART
on this issue. He also welcomes another visit to the ASP from
Hugus requested a more aggressive approach. LTC Cunha replied
that moving items out of the ASP is a lengthy process. He noted
that Mr. Borci completed an inspection of the ASP which was
helpful in terms of segregating the items. He also explained
that disposition process involves consulting with headquarters
in Illinois where worldwide needs are determined and shipping
locations are identified. He noted that the difficulty in this
case is that Camp Edwards has small quantities if items, when
normally units want thousands of an item. LTC Cunha assured
the team that he is taking an aggressive approach and that only
a small amount of items are remaining. LTC added that although
he can’t guarantee the date that the segregated items will be
shipped, he can guarantee that the segregated items will not
Schlesinger asked if EPA is confident that the munitions are
going to be moved. Mr. Borci stated that when he inspected the
ASP he found that a significant amount already had been removed,
and what remained appeared to be packed and ready to be shipped.
He stated that he is confident that the Guard has made a lot
of progress on this issue.
asked that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report on options
to support the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC)
Murphy stated that the options are to use an existing contract
that the USACE currently has with the Guard, or to use another
USACE contract. Dr. Stahl noted that the TOSC program coordinator,
Mr. Bill Librizzi, has assured him that the TOSC program has
funding for year 2002, and a letter will be presented within
a week to the IART citizens.
requested that the Guard distribute to the IART the report regarding
heavy metal contamination on training ranges provided by Mr.
Murphy noted that everybody at the table has the document.
requested that a copy of the editorial from the May 6, 2001 Cape
Cod Times about the issue of ecological receptors be distributed
in the next IART mailing.
Murphy noted that a copy of that article was provided in the mailing.
requested that the maps in the presentations be clear and readable.
Murphy noted that during the weekly technical meetings, the Guard,
AMEC, and regulators have discussed how the maps in the presentations
can be made clear and readable. Changes have been made and suggestions
for improvement are always welcome.
provide a summary of the information reviewed at Textron’s attorney’s
Murphy stated that EPA has provided a memo in the mailing.
will provide information on the vulnerability of Impact Area Groundwater
Study Program (IAGWSP) funding to federal budget cuts.
Murphy reported that funding the Groundwater Study is a top priority
for the National Guard and the Army. Money has been programmed
to support the project through 2007. This funding will be maintained
with other programs being cut prior to the IAGWSP. Mr. Gregson
clarified that this means that if the Army needs money, the IAGWSP
would not be the first to get cut; rather, it would be the last,
in order to maintain funding.
requested that an update be provided on the status of bioslurry.
Murphy noted that this update has been provided in the mailing.
Dr. Stahl inquired whether the concentration of pollutant in
the soil was high enough to do the treatability study properly.
Mr. Gregson replied that that was a recognized problem. He said
that he would double check on that for Dr. Stahl.
requested that the following items be placed on the June 26, 2001
Murphy noted that, with the exception of the CS-18 and CS-19 updates
by AFCEE, which are potential items for the next couple of meeting
agenda’s, all of the items are either on tonight’s agenda or are
addressed with handouts.
Item #3. Impact Area Review Team Groundrules and Process
Murphy noted that he received some helpful facilitator comments
and is always open to other helpful tips. He stated that he has
asked people to comment specifically on the section about active
membership, and noted that his proposal is that after three months
of consecutive absences, members would be notified that they were
considered inactive and receive the mailings for three additional
months. Inactive members could reactivate membership by attending
at least one meeting during their inactive period. Mr. Murphy added
that he would also like feedback on the amount of members who should
be on the team.
Schlesinger stated that it is important to have reviewers, whether
they are at the meeting or at home. He also said that he believes
the groundrules should be lenient with respect to people who want
to participate but can’t always attend meetings, provided they help
out with commentary during their absence. Mr. Schlesinger noted
that reports and materials are received and reviewed by all members
at home, so being present at the meeting is a small issue. He stated
that he believes that the IART should not limit the number of team
Hugus inquired about the organizations to which EPA sent letters
of invitation to be on the team. Mr. Murphy replied that he has
been in contact with them; it is an ongoing process and he will
provide an update at the next IART meeting.
Hugus referred to the groundrule that the facilitator would serve
as a channel for members who feel unable to speak openly about a
concern. He stated that anybody should be able to say anything they
want at the table, and he disagreed with that option as a groundrule.
Mr. Schlesinger disagreed with Mr. Hugus, and said that he thinks
that members should have the availability to talk with the facilitator
if they are uncomfortable talking amongst the team. Mr. Murphy explained
that most comments he would receive from members outside of a meeting
would pertain to his role as facilitator. Mr. Hugus withdrew his
objection to the proposed groundrule.
Hugus stated that a lot of the work at the Impact Area is conducted
at the technical meetings, and he believes that should be included
somehow into the groundrules. He added that he thinks it is appropriate
for those who attend the technical meetings to attend IART meetings
as well. Mr. Gregson replied that a good representation of people
who attend the technical meetings do attend IART meetings to answer
any questions and provide input. Mr. Hugus said that he would like
to know who, specifically, attends the technical meetings. Mr. Borci
stated that the concern is that there are proper representatives
at IART meetings to address each subject on the agenda. He added
that it is EPA’s and the Guard’s job to make sure that the right
people are present at IART meetings. He also said that the names
and agencies represented at the technical meetings will be included
in the weekly technical team meeting minutes that are e-mailed to
the IART members.
Hugus noted that PAVE PAWS meetings are held on Tuesday nights,
which conflicts with scheduled IART meetings. He said that he believes
something needs to be done about the organization of meetings so
that IART members can attend other meetings if they want to. Ms.
Larkin explained that the PAVE PAWS meetings are scheduled by the
health agencies on the fourth Tuesday of the month. The Joint Program
Office (JPO) has requested that they change their meeting dates,
but they are unwilling to do so. Mr. Borci suggested changing IART
meetings to a Wednesday night. However, LTC Cunha noted that traditionally
the Guard meets on Wednesday nights. Neither he nor Mr. Cody could
attend Wednesday meetings, nor would any replacements from the Guard
be available on Wednesdays. Mr. Murphy proposed that the July IART
meeting date remain the same. He asked that members get back to
him before the next IART meeting with suggestions for an alternative
meeting schedule, which he will discuss at that time.
Murphy stated that he would make the suggested changes to the groundrules
that were discussed tonight and send them out to team members and
individuals who have expressed interest on being on the team. He
said that he would assume that the groundrules are final unless
he receives additional comments before the next IART meeting.
Schlesinger inquired about the status of the individuals who have
asked to join the IART. Mr. Murphy replied that the selection process
requires attendance at least two meetings so that prospective members
understand the responsibility they would be taking on in joining
the team. After that, the EPA regional administrator makes an appointment
based on the team’s recommendation.
Item #4. General Fact Sheet Discussion
Dolen reported that the general fact sheet has undergone extensive
review in close cooperation with EPA and the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MADEP) and is still in draft form and
final comments are due by July 11, 2001. She stated that the goal
of the fact sheet is to put all of the information in one place
that is an easily readable form, and cover the material and objectives
that the IART wants included. Ms. Dolen also noted that work is
being done on the maps and she would like to hear any suggestions
people may have regarding the maps.
Murphy explained that the draft fact sheet is available only to
team members tonight, the purpose being that it is for review and
comment by the team members, before it is made available to the
Schlesinger noted that the map legend does not define "GTE"
and "LT," and there is no north arrow, nor is there a
web page reference relative to the project. He added that he believes
that acronyms should be properly identified because somebody unfamiliar
with the program would have a hard time understanding them. Mr.
Schlesinger also remarked that the maps have poor content; they
should be showing locations of areas of contamination, such as Demo
Area 1 and CS-19, and not street names. Also, he thinks that the
maps should be moved closer to the front of the document.
Hugus stated that he thinks the fact sheet is nice and short, and
the content is clear; however, his only comment is that he believes
there should be one map that shows all the plumes and major source
areas on the base. Dr. Feigenbaum commented that the introduction
is slightly unclear, and makes the IART look independent of the
IAGWSP which may be confusing to people who do not know anything
about the base cleanup. He also noted that the National Guard is
not mentioned anywhere in the document except under the Administrative
Order #1, so someone reading it wouldn’t really know who was doing
the project. He added that there is no mention that the IART, the
community involvement aspect of the program, was set up by Administrative
Order #1. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated he thinks the fact sheet is
quite good and a great improvement over the last draft. Ms. Grillo
made a point of noting that Pam Bonin of CH2M HILL received and
compiled all of the comments on the fact sheet and did an excellent
job of incorporating them, all with a great deal of professionalism.
Cambareri remarked that the fact sheet needs more emphasis on the
purpose of the program, part of which is to ascertain a future water
supply for the future of Cape Cod. Dr. Stahl noted that CS-19 is
mentioned; however, it is not discussed as a chemical spill.
Dolen thanked IART members for their comments and stated that she
would make the necessary changes based on their feedback and have
the revised version of the fact sheet available for the next IART
Item #5. Investigations Update
Gregson stated that he is going to discuss a number of locations
where there were new detections, starting with the northern part
of the Impact Area. He reported that MW-161 located in Demolition
Area 2, had a detection of (Royal Demolition Explosive) RDX at 1.5
parts per billion (ppb). The second location was downgradient of
the former K Range at MW-170 where there was a detection of RDX
at 0.42 ppb and detections of 2,4-di-amino-nitrotoluene (2,4-DANT)
which is a trinitrotoluene (TNT) breakdown product, at two intervals;
one at 0.68 ppb and one at 0.34 ppb. Mr. Gregson also reported that
a petroleum-like material (PLM) was detected at this well between
82 and 232 feet below water table. The substance does not compare
to any of the fluids used in drill rigs and it looks like a weathered
fuel. He noted that there were similar detections in wells 164 and
168 at the J Ranges, which he will discuss later. Mr. Gregson reported
that at MW-166, located downgradient of the 1000-meter berm, had
a detection of RDX at a maximum of 4.7 ppb. In the same area, MW-164
had a detection of RDX at 12 ppb.
Gregson stated that the monitoring well located on the spit at the
northern end of Snake Pond had an RDX detection at a depth of 85
feet below water table at a level of 4.14 ppb. That detection currently
is unvalidated, but is photo-diode-array (PDA) confirmed. Dr. Feigenbaum
asked if ethylene dibromide (EDB) could be located there. Mr. Gregson
replied that AFCEE took a split sample from that well and did not
Gregson displayed the revised map for Demolition Area 1, which has
been expanded to Pew Road to show all well locations. He reported
that groundwater samples at MW-165 had detections of RDX at 60 ppb,
Her Majesty’s Explosive (HMX), and perchlorate. He noted that based
on the detects at MW-165, two additional wells were installed: MW-172
located to the south of MW-165, and MW-173 located a half mile out
on Pew Road. Mr. Gregson reported that MW-172 had detections of
RDX of less than 2 ppb. From the low levels in the profile data
it appears that the edge of the plume is defined. MW-173 had no
detections of RDX; however, the profile results showed detects of
Hugus asked what the next steps are for Demolition Area 1, and recommended
investigating south and east of Pew Road. Mr. Gregson replied that
based on the profile results, there will be a discussion at this
week’s technical meeting to move investigations south along Pew
Road. A review of the actual screening results from MW-172 will
determine whether a new well will need to be located to the south.
Mr. Gregson stated that it is easier from a logistical and environmental
standpoint to drill wells along roadways because there is far less
ecological damage, that is the reason for drilling wells along Pew
Road before moving into the woods and drilling wells closer to the
Demolition Area 1 area of contamination.
Cambareri asked if there is any more information on the recently
detected PLM. Mr. Gregson replied that the discovery of the detections
was a surprise, and the depths where they were detected in the aquifer
are unusual. He stated that it appears to backtrack to the J Ranges.
He noted that all the information available right now was summarized
in the handout, and the PLM currently is being analyzed. Mr. Borci
added that at the next IART meeting there will be more information
on the PLM. He said that it does not match any of the typical fingerprints
and the effort is ongoing to determine what it is.
Area 1 Soil Report
Gregson stated that this presentation provides a summary of technical
memorandum number 01-10 that was sent out on June 7, 2001, regarding
contaminants of concern (COCs) and COC distribution among soil at
Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1). He reviewed the topography of Demo 1,
which is a kettle hole depression, approximately 45 feet below grade.
The bottom of the depression is about an acre, the area within the
perimeter road surrounding Demo 1 is about 7.4 acres, and depth
of the groundwater at the base of the depression is about 44 feet.
Demolition activities at Demo 1 began in the mid 1970s and consisted
of ordnance destruction activities using C4, TNT and detonating
Gregson reported that 1500 soil samples have been collected at Demo
1 to date, including post blow-in-place (BIP) soil grids, explosive
residual samples, soil boring and soil grab samples, samples below
C4 residuals, and samples from test pits. He noted that COCs for
soil at Demo 1 were screened via capability of leaching and migrating
to groundwater, and health risks posed via ingestion or direct contact
or inhalation of the soil.
Gregson stated that ten COCs were identified through the soil screening
process at Demo 1, including antimony, arsenic, lead, and dioxin.
Six were found both in soil and groundwater: TNT, 2,4 dinitrotoluene
(2,4-DNT), 2,amino-dinitrotoluene (2A-DNT), 4,amino-dinitrotoluene
(4A-DNT), RDX, and HMX. Mr. Gregson noted that after EPA reviewed
this information, it requested that the Guard add nitroglycerine,
hexachlorobenzene, benzene, and 4-methylphenol to the COC list.
Gregson reported that detections in soil are sporadic with a heterogeneous
distribution. Primarily the bulk of detections in soil occur in
shallower surface soils, at Demo 1. Mr. Hugus asked if this is consistent
with Mr. Zanis’s argument that some backfilling activity happened
at Demo 1. Mr. Gregson replied that there was some backfilling activity
to probably about 10 feet, which is going to be investigated. Mr.
Hugus asked what the implications of this are. Mr. Borci stated
that when the time comes for the feasibility study, which will go
into detail about what makes the best sense technically and economically,
options will be weighed. He remarked that he believes that the soil
screening report discusses excavating the first four feet, then
trying to treat remaining explosives in the ground other ways. He
added that excavating below 10 feet is not worth the extra effort;
however, the Guard is in the process of determining geophysically
the historical bottom of Demo 1. Mr. Borci stated that he believes
the soil feasibility study for Demo 1 is due in late fall 2001.
Item #6. J Range Response Plan Update
Gregson reported that the results from the monitoring well located
on the spit at the northern end of Snake Pond, MW-171, had profile
detections of RDX, 80 to 85 feet below water table, at 4.14 ppb.
Based on the model, forward particle tracks predict that groundwater
from that depth would discharge to the pond 125 to 150 feet south
of MW-171. Particle backtracks from MW-171 predict the location
of the source area to the northern center of the J-3 Range.
Gregson explained that the Guard initiated a number of response
activities in conjunction with AFCEE. AFCEE is conducting biweekly
surface water samples and sampling of drive points near the beaches
on Snake Pond. The Guard and AFCEE are splitting samples from that
activity, and the Guard is testing those samples for explosives.
Mr. Gregson reported that today the Guard ran two sets of samples,
which were both nondetect for explosives. The Guard is completing
a number of activities from the J Range Response Plan, which include
sampling of a couple of piezometers in the Arnold Road/Racoon Lane
area, performing a synoptic water level measurement, and working
on the ongoing groundwater sampling data evaluation.
Gregson reported that planned activities include working with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and AFCEE to expedite a sub-regional
model for this area, and collecting surface water samples from the
northern cove of Snake Pond, north of MW-171. The USGS will be installing
diffusion samplers in the pond, similar to those used by AFCEE to
detect EDB. The USGS has come up with a membrane designed to work
for RDX, which is a bigger molecule than EDB. Diffusion samplers
will be installed in the sediments of the pond bottom and then tested
Hugus asked why a plume contour hasn’t been drawn from the J-Ranges
to Snake Pond. Mr. Gregson replied that additional data need to
be gathered in order to draw a plume. Mr. Borci added that more
definition is needed because there are multiple areas of detections.
When soil sampling results become available they will help to tie
in source areas and allow the drawing of an accurate representation.
Hugus recommended posting Snake Pond to inform the public and recreational
users of the pond about potential upwelling there. Mr. Gregson replied
that a posting is scheduled for Snake Pond, and it incorporates
the Guard’s and AFCEE’s detections. He added that the modeling may
predict that RDX is upwelling into the pond; however, until the
diffusion sampling is done, there are no hard data to indicate that
RDX has reached the pond bottom. Mr. Schlesinger agreed that more
information is needed before posting a notice about upwelling at
Murphy proposed that Mr. Gregson review recommendations or documents
relevant to the agenda items under "Investigations Update"
that were not discussed yet tonight. Mr. Gregson stated that the
two items that were not discussed were the J-1/J-3/L Range Additional
Delineation Work Plan, which is a document that is presently out
for comment, and the Central Impact Area draft Development and Screening
of Alternatives report. Mr. Gregson suggested that IART members
review these documents and provide comments to the IAGWSP office
or to Mr. Borci. Mr. Borci stated that he would like comments as
soon as possible on the J-1/L/J-3 Additional Delineation Work Plan,
He also said that comments on the Central Impact Area screening
report should be submitted to the Guard by July 5, 2001.
Hugus stated that the team members received many of documents in
the past months to prepare for the meeting tonight, and he believes
that the Guard should provide some guidance on what it’s proposing
and what EPA believes would have been useful to the team. Mr. Borci
replied that the agenda that is mailed out highlights the documents
that are going to be discussed and would require feedback. He acknowledged
that the current method is not working well and assured the team
that future mailings will clearly indicate which documents the IART
members should be prepared to discuss at the following meeting.
Mr. Hugus requested more information on Demo 1.
Gregson reported that the screening of alternatives included no-action
and minimal-action zoning deed restriction alternatives, which were
retained as a baseline to compare against other alternatives. Other
alternatives that were retained included pump-and-treat using granular
activated carbon; pump-and-treat with zero-valent iron, which may
be a lower cost alternative because the carbon does not have to
be replaced; and pump-and-treat through bioreactor treatment. The
two options that the Guard recommended eliminating were in-situ
chemical oxidation for hotspot treatment, and in-situ redox manipulation
Schlesinger stated that it needs to be clearly noted to whom comments
should be submitted, and the date when they should be submitted.
Mr. Gregson stated that he would clarify that and get back to the
Item #8. Agenda Planning and Review Action Items
Murphy reviewed agenda items and action items. Mr. Schlesinger asked
if an action item could be included regarding the status of the
four people who expressed interest in becoming members of the IART.
Mr. Hugus requested an update of the Guard’s intentions regarding
the Snake Pond posting. Mr. Murphy agreed to accommodate both requests.
Item #9. Adjourn
Murphy thanked the members for coming, stated that the next IART
meeting would be held on July 24, 2001, and adjourned the meeting
at 9:20 p.m.
requested that a copy of the Central Impact Area plume map overlaid
with Aerial Magnetometry data as displayed at the June 26, 2001
IART be distributed to the team.
requested that the attendance list from the IAGWSP weekly technical
meetings be distributed along with the meeting minutes in email.
will incorporate comments made to the draft IART groundrules and
distribute the revised draft IART groundrules to the team.
with the regulators, will incorporate comments made to the draft
general fact sheet and distribute the revised draft fact sheet
to the team.
requested that when documents are distributed to the team, that
the IAGWSP office provide the name of the contact person to submit
comments to and by what date the comments are due.
requested an update on the status of the five people who were
invited to join the IART.
requested that the Guard provide to the team what their intentions
are for the posting at Snake Pond.
requested that the Guard check on the location of residential
wells on the southeastern end of Snake Pond.
of Action Items
of the recently discovered petroleum fluid
Ranges Response Plan Update (Snake Pond)
review of the investigation of 1000 meter berm at the J-1 Range
Chemical Spill-18 (CS-18) update by AFCEE
Spill-19 (CS-19) update by AFCEE