Impact Area Review Team

River River Drops of rain on a leaf

Impact Area Review Team
The Bourne Bridge Best Western
Bourne, Massachusetts
June 26, 2001
6:00 p.m.

Meeting Summary






Todd Borci




Jane Dolan




Bill Walsh-Rogalski




Len Pinaud




Ben Gregson




LTC David Cunha




Marty Aker




Tom Cambareri




Peter Schlesinger




Joel Feigenbaum



Richard Hugus









Jim Murphy










Bob Schreiber



Janet Pepin



Ken Gaynor




Karen Foster



Magda Krol




Mike Goydas

Jacobs Engineering



Mark Harding




Buzz Crocker




Richard Judge

Sandwich Selectman


Mary Sanderson



Michael Jasinski



Ellie Grillo




Dave Williams



Tina Dolen




Jan Larkin




LTC Don Bailey



Dave Jacobson




Henry Byers



Jim Stahl



Darrell Deleppo




David Dow

Sierra Club


Ben Rice



Herb Colby



Marc Applebee



Steve Graham




Jim Costello



Raghu Arora



Richard Skryness



Robert Paine



Steve Denahan

Ellis Environmental


Mark Hutson

Foothill Engineering



Pat de Groot



Jim Begley

Horsley & Whitten


Pamela Bonin




Marty Howell




Deirdre DeBaggis




Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

  1. June 26, 2001 Draft Meeting Agenda

  2. May 22, 2001 Draft Action Items

  3. May 22, 2001 Draft Meeting Minutes

  4. Letter of Introduction: LTC David Cunha, Deputy Post Commander, Camp Edwards

  5. IAGWSP Groundwater Study Update, IART Briefing 6/26/01

  6. Information Paper: Upper Cape Water Supply Project Update

  7. Draft IART Groundrules

  8. Cape Cod Times Editorial: "Another Minefield"

  9. Presentation Handout: IAGWSP New Detects Update

  10. Presentation Handout: Central Impact Area Draft Development and Screening of Alternatives Report

  11. Presentation Handout: Draft J1/J3/L Ranges Additional Delineation Work Plan (J-1 1000m Berm)

  12. J Ranges Response Plan

  13. Presentation Handout: Demo Area 1 Soil Report

  14. Report: Heavy-Metal Contamination on Training Ranges at the Grafenwöhr Training Area, Germany

  15. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program General Fact Sheet

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Approval of May 22, 2001 Meeting Minutes, and Draft Agenda

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.

Agenda Item #2. Review Action Items

Mr. Murphy reviewed the action items from the May 22, 2001 meeting.

  1. The Air 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).

    Mr. 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 reached yet.

  2. Ms. Adams 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.

    Mr. 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 are destroyed.

  3. Mr. Schlesinger asked the Guard to provide the 10 Sources of Information for the Administrative Record.

  4. Mr. Murphy noted that a handout has been provided in the mailing.

  5. Mr. Hugus 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.

  6. Mr. 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.

    Mr. 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 be possible.

  7. The Guard will report back to the IART the status of the non-aqueous liquid that was detected at monitoring well 164 (MW-164).

    Mr. 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.

  8. Mr. Schlesinger 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 Explosive (RDX).

    Mr. Murphy invited Mr. Gregson to present the overlays.

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. 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.

    Mr. 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.

  9. Mr. Hugus 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.

    Mr. 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 50%.

    Mr. 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 %.

    LTC 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 EPA.

    Mr. 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 be used.

    Mr. 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.

  10. Mr. Schlesinger asked that the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) report on options to support the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) program.

    Mr. 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.

  11. Mr. Hugus requested that the Guard distribute to the IART the report regarding heavy metal contamination on training ranges provided by Mr. Zanis.

    Mr. Murphy noted that everybody at the table has the document.

  12. Mr. Hugus 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.

  13. Mr. Murphy noted that a copy of that article was provided in the mailing.

  14. Mr. Schlesinger requested that the maps in the presentations be clear and readable.

  15. Mr. 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.

  16. EPA will provide a summary of the information reviewed at Textron’s attorney’s office.

    Mr. Murphy stated that EPA has provided a memo in the mailing.

  17. The Guard will provide information on the vulnerability of Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) funding to federal budget cuts.

  18. Mr. 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.

  19. Dr. Stahl requested that an update be provided on the status of bioslurry.

    Mr. 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.

  20. It was requested that the following items be placed on the June 26, 2001 IART agenda:

    Mr. 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.

Agenda Item #3. Impact Area Review Team Groundrules and Process

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 members.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Agenda Item #4. General Fact Sheet Discussion

Ms. 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.

Mr. 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 public.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Ms. 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 meeting.

Agenda Item #5. Investigations Update

New Detections Update

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 detect EDB.

Mr. 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 2,4-DANT.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Demolition Area 1 Soil Report

Mr. 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 cord.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Agenda Item #6. J Range Response Plan Update

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 for RDX.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 the pond.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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 and biotreatment.

Mr. 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 team.

Agenda Item #8. Agenda Planning and Review Action Items

Mr. 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.

Agenda Item #9. Adjourn

Mr. 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.

Action items:

  1. Dr. Feigenbaum 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.

  2. Mr. Hugus requested that the attendance list from the IAGWSP weekly technical meetings be distributed along with the meeting minutes in email.

  3. Mr. Murphy will incorporate comments made to the draft IART groundrules and distribute the revised draft IART groundrules to the team.

  4. Ms. Dolen, with the regulators, will incorporate comments made to the draft general fact sheet and distribute the revised draft fact sheet to the team.

  5. Mr. Schlesinger 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.

  6. Mr. Schlesinger requested an update on the status of the five people who were invited to join the IART.

  7. Mr. Hugus requested that the Guard provide to the team what their intentions are for the posting at Snake Pond.

  8. Mr. Schlesinger requested that the Guard check on the location of residential wells on the southeastern end of Snake Pond.

Status of Action Items

Future Agenda Items:

  • Status of the recently discovered petroleum fluid

  • J Ranges Response Plan Update (Snake Pond)

  • A review of the investigation of 1000 meter berm at the J-1 Range

  • Comprehensive Chemical Spill-18 (CS-18) update by AFCEE

  • Chemical Spill-19 (CS-19) update by AFCEE

Site Map | Related Links | Comments/Contact Us | Search | Home
Administrative Notice