Meeting Summary

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

1. March 27, 2001 Draft Meeting Agenda
2. February 27, 2001 Draft Meeting Minutes
3. Statis of February 27, 2001 Action Items
4. IAGWSP Groundwater Study Update
5. Community Events and Public Meetings Calendar
6. Presentation handout: MMR GIS Data Archive
7. Presentation handout: Archive Search Report Data Archive Input Request
8. Presentation handout: Archive Search Report Project Update
9. Summary of Archive Search Report Interviews
10. Flyer: BOMARC CS-10 Public Site Tour and Meeting
11. Packet: Draft Public Involvement Plan, Draft fact sheet outline, draft short form fact sheet, 1999 fact sheet

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Approval of February 27, 2000 Meeting Minutes, Handouts (Distribute Draft of the new Public Involvement Plan) and Draft Agenda

Mr. Murphy: Good evening. It is a little bit after six, so if there are any other team members in the back, if you could come forward so we could get started. Inaudible

Ms. Grillo: Ellie Grillo, DEP
Mr. Cambareri: Tom Cambareri, Cape Cod Commission
Mr. Schlesinger: Peter Schlesinger, citizen of Sandwich
Mr. Taylor: Ray Taylor, citizen of Sandwich
Mr. Aker: Marty Aker, AFCEE/MMR
Mr. Zanis: Paul Zanis, citizen
Mr. Stahl: Jim Stahl, TOSC advisor
Mr. Hugus: Richard Hugus, citizen of Falmouth
Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Bill Walsh-Rogalski, EPA
Mr. Borci: Todd Borci, EPA
Ms. DeBaggis: Deirdre DeBaggis, CH2M HILL
Mr. Murphy: Jim Murphy, I’m the facilitator and from EPA
Mr. Cody: Shaun Cody, with the MA National Guard

Mr. Gregson: Ben Gregson of the Impact Area Groundwater Study office and National Guard Bureau representative. I’ve got a statement here that I’d like to read. It was written by LTC Joe Knott: "To the members of the Impact Area Review Team. I sincerely regret that I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting and personally thank you for the privilege of working together with all of you over the last two and a half years. Like everyone else in the military, I can expect to receive new assignments any times during my career. I recently received orders to report to my next duty station, a two-year assignment in Ohio with a report date in the very near future. I would like to express my personal appreciation and thanks to all of you; and especially to the citizen members, specifically Richard, Joel, Paul and Peter, for the opportunity to serve with you on the IART. We may have at times disagreed with the process but I feel we have always agreed on the goal, findings and cleanup past contamination on the base and ensuring clean water for our children and grandchildren. I have served in the armed forces for over twenty years and this assignment has been by far, the most challenging and the most rewarding assignment of my military career. I greatly respect your commitment to your principals and the personal sacrifices each of you makes every day to accomplish the IART’s goal. I am confident that my replacement; Mr. Ben Gregson, will continue to serve with dedication and distinction with all of you in completing the groundwater study and ensuring a responsive and successful cleanup of Camp Edwards. God bless you all and God bless the United States of America. Sincerely, Joe Knott, LTC, U.S. Army".

Mr. Murphy: Thanks, Ben. Richard.

Mr. Murphy: I’d like to ask Mr. Gregson to send Joe Knott our best wishes, at least from me. And thank you for his message. But I have a question about who will be representing the National Guard Bureau from the National Guard Bureau here at the table? The letter said that you will be his replacement, but I wasn’t aware that you are in the National Guard Bureau or representing the National Guard Bureau.

Mr. Gregson: I’m not a member of the National Guard but I am currently the alternate technical point of contact for the National Guard Bureau on the Groundwater Study Project. I will be in the future the representative of the National Guard Bureau for this project.

Mr. Hugus: You are a licensed site professional hired by the National Guard Bureau for this site, is that right?

Mr. Gregson: It is really the other way around. I have been hired to be the program manager for the project I have been working on now for two years. I also happen to be a licensed site professional, providing those services as well.

Mr. Hugus: I’d still like to see somebody from the National Guard Bureau as an institution. The 0institution of the National Guard Bureau has taken the lead on this entire study. That is the lead responsibility for it, and I don’t see that we have the representation here. Joe Knott filled that role and occasionally when COL Murphy came up. And the reason I say this is that I feel there are going to be problems connected with not having their representation and it may cause delays in our getting answers to questions that we have that require their authority to answer. So, I’d like to ask you who do you report to in the National Guard?

Mr. Gregson: At the time being I report to LTC Knott, once he is gone I will report to COL Murphy.

Mr. Hugus: Well, if you can convey that to COL Murphy – and I’d like to add that at the last meeting I asked if we could talk about COL Murphy’s complaints about these meetings. The ones that led to LTC Knott leaving the meeting and I noticed that wasn’t put on the agenda. So, I’d like to ask for there to be some time for that.

Mr. Murphy: You want that later? I was going to note that when we went through the agenda that you had asked the last time and it wasn’t captured as an action item. So we can talk about that under other issues or are you asking for them to come back and respond at the next meeting?

Mr. Hugus: No, I’m not asking for a response at the next meeting because I asked for it this to be on the agenda at the last meeting so I feel this would be the best time. And wherever you see fit to put it on.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, I suggest we put it under other issues. It will be the first thing there. Bill.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski: Could you explain why the National Guard Bureau isn’t here tonight? I know you’ve read your statement from Joe Knott and I think that explains why Joe Knott isn’t here. But can you explain why the National Guard Bureau isn’t here?

Mr. Gregson: I think the answer I can give as far as the National Guard Bureau is concerned they are here tonight and I’m their representative on the project as program manager and as upcoming technical point of contact. That’s the intention of the people I work for at National Guard Bureau, that I will be their point of contact here, on the ground, for all issues on the Impact Area Groundwater Study.

Mr. Murphy: So if we could leave any further discussion to the other issues part on the agenda. Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m happy that Marc is here and I’m just wondering why Marc doesn’t take his usual place at the table. And I’d like to invite him to come up because technical issues that he might have something to say about might come up at a moments notice.

Mr. Murphy: Joel, one of the things that has been discussed with the agencies was the table was getting crowded and we had talked about asking contractors certainly be available but to be able to sit in the audience. Now, unfortunately that then kind of coincided with the meeting where the Guard didn’t come and didn’t let the contractors come. So it actually was moving to the point where contractors were just going to be available in the front row similar to the way they are at some of the other team meetings. Certainly Marc is available for Ben and we are very happy to see him tonight in the first row.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, since the COL is not taking up a seat at the table and certainly we have one extra chair, I am just used to seeing Marc’s friendly face across the table from me, that I’d certainly appreciate it if we could bend the rules to allow – you know you didn’t ask the about that question

Mr. Murphy: That’s true

Dr. Feigenbaum: So, I would criticize the facilitator for taking unilateral action.

Mr. Murphy: Criticism well taken.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Unilateral is a big word around here. Again I’d like to see if we can get Marc up here.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we’ll put that out to the team and to Marc’s boss there and see how we want top proceed. Ben.

Mr. Gregson: I think I mentioned in the last months meeting, the way that we would like to proceed is in a similar fashion to the way other meetings on MMR proceed; with myself as the National Guard Bureau representative and technical point of contact on the project, program manager. I would like to be giving the majority of the briefings. I agree that it is a good idea to have Marc here because there were a couple of questions at the last meeting that I was unable to answer and that’s why he is here, to answer questions that I don’t have the information on. So, it would be our preference to have me here at the table giving the presentations and have Marc there right in the front row to answer any questions that might come up. There are other contractors here from firms such as Tetra Tech and there will be other contractors in the future with specialties, services. That will be in the audience as needed to provide technical back up and to make presentations as required.

Mr. Hugus: I think that Marc’s experience is important in that we should have direct access to it and the idea that his not being able to give presentations directly to us makes me wonder why there is a layer. Why we have to add another layer of access. Marc, usually has at the tip of his fingers all the data that we need about numerous wells and sample areas. It’s sort of like a matter of being able to talk. This is important because if he is here then we can talk directly to the person who is out there in the field and has the best knowledge of the data that has come in. That is the way I feel about it.

Mr. Murphy: Can I make a suggestion that some of the process issues that really haven’t been discussed by the team before are going to come up for discussion. For example; some of the groundrules, how many additional people should be on the team, that type of thing. So, I would like to see if we could just possibly discuss it at the next meeting so we could move on this agenda. I think your point is well taken that is has changed without much conversation with citizens on the team and that obviously it is not the situation that you want to see. If we could just wait until the next time because we will need to talk about how many people we think should be on the team and any additional citizens, agencies, that type of thing. So we could leave that until the process – who should sit at the table type of stuff.

Mr. Hugus: Jim, can I just say briefly that I’m for this meeting being as open as possible to as many people who want to be at the table and that includes more people from the public, whatever.

Mr. Murphy: Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Ben it is just a factual issue about the so called other meetings that are held here. The only parallel meeting is the meeting of the JPAT concerning the cleanup of the groundwater mostly from the air force. And it is just not true that the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) does the presentation. Almost all of the presentation is given by their contractor. I’d say ninety percent. And It’s no insult to you but I just don’t think – you come in more or less without the same level of detail. And expertise that Marc has and he has much more ‘practice’ shall we say, at making the presentations and I think it is a much better use of our time.

Mr. Murphy: So if we can – Millie, sorry.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Quick question for Marty Aker, is he here at the table? Marty, can you weigh in on that regarding who provides the information, whether it is at the JPAT, SMB other forums that are typically like Rose Forbes, yourself. I just want to clarify just so we can…

Mr. Aker: Sure. Most of the time what we try to do is have me, Rose Forbes, and Spence Smith do the presentations and we are from AFCEE. There are some instances when Jacobs does the presentations to because they have a little bit more first hand information, or somebody from AFCEE may not be available.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Marty. All right, if we can move on to looking at the February 27 minutes and see if anybody has any comments of the. They were pretty long verbatim minutes. Yes sir.

Mr. Stahl: On page 33, down in the middle, the third set of comments by me, the bottom of that it says: ‘get a conditioned sufficient negative redux potential’ that should be, ‘get conditions sufficiently negative.’

Mr. Murphy: It is a tongue twister. And I think we can get it right. Any additional comments? While Richard is looking for his comments I just wanted to note that in your packet, the couple of handouts are the Groundwater Study update and I think these were in the back table as well as in all the packets and then the munitions survey project. And those are just handouts tonight since there won’t be presentations on those. And Also team members are receiving a copy of the draft of the new public involvement plan and Tina Dolen from the Groundwater Study office is just going to say something on that briefly but we’ll just wait until we finish the minutes discussion. You can stand by Tina.

Mr. Hugus: I can’t find the reference I needed to mention, but a general comment is that we have a 49 page book of minutes here. There has been an improvement because the use of common words and dialogue "um", "er", and "uh", have been taken out of them. Verbatim minutes are really tedious because they have that kind of stuff in there. But they are still tedious and I’d like to see if we could draw back to a bit more paraphrasing in order to make the minutes be shorter.

Mr. Murphy: That’s music to my ears Richard. I think at the last meeting a representative from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supported the verbatim minutes and I think has rescinded his opinion on that. They are quite long and I think that was one of the things hopefully we could address immediately. I was going to bring that up again during the process, team groundrules discussion that we’re going to have next meeting or so. Do any other people have comments on the minutes? Do you prefer them verbatim or the paraphrase type? Millie.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I’m all for shortening so long - people don’t feel the paraphrasing is not representative of what the statement was all about. With that in mind, thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Peter and then David had a comment also.

Mr. Schlesinger: How are our minutes used? Is there somebody outside this group that reads the minutes? Does somebody at the Pentagon go over what we say and so forth? Or does these just go in a little black hole in the EPA?

Mr. Murphy: They are public. I don’t know if they actually are posted on the web site yet, but I am sure they will be once it is up and running one hundred percent. I certainly can’t say how the team members use them, but I know they are fairly widely distributed and are available to the general public. After we have finalized them. David.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow from the Sierra club. I just wanted to mention that my email address is WHSUN1, numeral one and not a seven.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, thanks David. I just want to remind any members of the public here, if you have any comment on what is going on at the meeting or if you have any questions, if you could just come up to the microphone back there and we’ll try to recognize you as soon as team members – just in the rotation. So, again if anybody has any questions or comments feel free to come up to the microphone there. Are we set on the minutes? You didn’t have any specific comment Richard, so… okay.

Tina Dolen from the Groundwater Office is just going to say something briefly about the Public Involvement Plan, then we will quickly run through the agenda and get back to it.

Ms. Dolen: Okay. We’ve put four items in the blue jackets before you on the table. The first is a cover letter from me to you explaining the goals of the other three items. I did want to say just briefly about the public information plan. This plan lays out the history of the groundwater study program. It talks about the administrative orders. It tries to identify community concerns. It lays out a public process for involvement throughout the program. It has a very substantial set of references that is made available to the public, and it is an excellent desk tool, reference tool for people to use. And, we wanted to give it to you now, early, even though the public comment period won’t begin until the April 24 reception and open house. So you get it tonight and you have about seven days.

You have two times to comment on it. Between now and April 4, you can give us your comments to Pam Bonin; if you have information on it or changes or suggestions that you think should be considered for change for the next printing. Once the second printing is done and it goes out to the public on April 24, you can also comment within the public comment period which lasts until May 24. That’s how is will go.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Tina. Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: There is no map or plumes in it.

Ms. Dolen: Yes, I meant to tell you that. The final version will have many color maps, it will have the chemical detects, the explosive detects, it is by no means completed for you tonight, this is a draft.

Mr. Murphy: Those maps will be available when the drafts are released for public comment.

Ms. Dolen: Yes.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, just quickly, running through the agenda. We’re going to move on to this presentation on – just a quick note on future agendas we should probably write out, instead of using acronyms – it does say it above, I know, but we could probably do that on the agenda. It’s just so people from the public; it will be a little bit more user-friendly.

We’re going to review the action items, it’s six thirty. At seven o’clock the groundwater detections. Small arms range data at 7:20. Impact Area groundwater study program fact sheet, Tina will be back up to talk about that at eight o’clock. Then other issues, the one we have that Richard mentioned about why the National Guard Bureau is not represented at the meetings. Then the wrap up and schedule of the next meeting.

Mr. Hugus: As far as the agenda for tonight. I’d like to mention something about the interview seat that we got. I’m not sure if that’s relevant to the Archive Search Report or not, is it?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, it is. That’s the next thing we’re moving into.

Mr. Hugus: Thanks.

Agenda Item #3. Formal presentation for ASR/GIS

Mr. Gregson: What I’d like to do is just go over a couple - three to four slides – to introduce the Archive Search Report (ASR). Give A little background and then I’ll turn in over to Tom Rust of Tetra Tech who will go over a formal presentation of some of the information he was sharing with the public at the back of the room before the meeting started.

We’ve been over this at previous meetings – on what is the ASR or Archive Search Report project. It’s being inducted based on EPA’s comments from 1999 on the original ASR. It includes military history research, contracts and archive search.

The timing, the revised Archive Search Report will be completed by the Army Corps in the fall of 2001 and the revised Archive Search Report will be available winter 2002.

The purpose of the update is to continue the interview process that was begun in the ASR. The meat of this presentation is going over the data archive concept on the Geological Information Systems (GIS) format to present the prototype and to obtain your input on this product.

Brief update on the ASR interviews. 24 interviews have been completed since September 2000. Summaries have been provided to you folks. We are going to conduct additional interviews and the information we obtain from the interviews is being incorporated into the investigations and the revised report.

The ASR data archive – this concept was presented at previous meetings. We had Tom here before to give you folks a preview of the product. We hope it will be a user-friendly product. It will include text, maps, photos and other data related to the archive search. You will be able to access it using CD ROM, the Internet and GIS tools. We’re going to have stations available for accessing this product and it will be provided at our office and the community involvement center.

We’re presenting an update of the prototype and your input is requested. At this point I want to turn it over to Tom Rust of Tetra Tech to go into the presentations and answer your questions from there. Tom.

Mr. Rust: Okay, I’d like to just take you through a couple of the highlights of this web site. We’ve divided it into three major sections. The first section contains a - this computer is running a little bit slower than I expected - here we go, contains a copy of the Archive Search Report in a digital format that can be viewed on the web. I just clicked on it and I’m opening it. So as you can see, this is actually a draft copy from 1999 that we’ve put in here. So as you can see, you can navigate through the whole report using these links on the left. We’ve also built in a search function so you can enter a key word and it will search the whole report for anything that you type. We’ve also added a geographic search function. Since we’re not - that wasn’t supposed to happen. So, I’m not going to show you that. I think some of you saw that working in the back, that’s actually and AVI movie. We’re not connected to the internet right now, so, the feature I was going to show you requires internet access. This center tag is where we’re putting most of the GIS data which can be thought of basically as ‘MAPS.’ We’ve divided this into five libraries. I’ll take you into one of the libraries under historical range use, just so you can see how it’s set up. Each library has some introductory text and provides summaries of each of the thumbnail images that you see on the right. And this uses a standard image viewer called ‘Mr. SID,’ so you can click on these thumbnails and pan and zoom, zoom into them. This thumbnail, it shows the results of overlaying firing fans, so where you see deep red, you’re seeing a large number of firing fans overlap at that area, so that sort of forms a bulls-eye in the middle of the Impact Area. At the bottom of each archive, we actually include a table that has all the source data, so if you have the right software such as ARCHVIEW or Arch Explorer, you can click on the filename and download it and manipulate it however you want to using your own software. I’m not going to go ahead and download it at this point. If I click download, I’d be able to save it to my hard drive. This third tag, ‘On-line Maps’, would provide a way for the public to make, you can make your own maps here over the internet. This again, requires internet access, so I’m kind of stumbling. I’m not going to be able to click on one of these and show it to you. We still have this set up in the back, so if anyone wants to look at it quickly afterwards, I’ll be happy to show it. But this feature would just allow you to add and remove layers and print maps of MMR. That’s basically what I have to show. So, we look forward to getting your feedback on the questionnaire and I’ll take any questions you have.

Mr. Murphy: Millie.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Thank you Tom. I just had a quick question for you. How do you go about, for example, when you receive an Archive Search Report, what’s the next step, in the sense of the information that’s presented in the ASR, how is that linked to this type of information? I guess, for example, if the Archive Search Report is more in terms of discovery of potential source areas and so forth, where does that go in following, subsequent sampling programs? I suppose, the analytical data then is incorporated in the maps. So I’m just wondering if you could just walk me through, just layman’s terms, in terms of how do we go about, how do we jump from the ASR report to the MMR GIS?

Mr. Rust: So you’re asking what’s the real link between the GIS data and the ASR?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Upon receipt of an ASR report, what do you do with it and how do you distill the information into this wonderful software?

Mr. Rust: Okay, well, we basically parse the report and it’s unfortunate that I can’t show you this function right here, because, what that allows you to do is search on an area geographically and it ties it right back into the report. So, if you click on a range it’ll query the GIS database for the name of that range. And even if that range changed names over time or the extent of the range changed over time, it populates this text box with the name of the range or multiple names and then when you click search, it will actually search the Archive Search Report. But that’s one way. The other way is, I think, most of the data under historical range use, is actually data that’s been extracted from the ASR. So, what we have in here is mostly from that draft version, but as the Archive Search Report is updated and completed, we will update all this to reflect it.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Then I just have a second question. I noticed that your title is ‘MMR GIS Data Archive’, is the goal to be able to do that on a base-wide issue, base-wide, I guess, activity? Or is it, at this point, just for the Impact Area?

Mr. Rust: At this point, this really focus - that’s probably - we’ve decided this is probably a bad title, because this focuses on the ASR, the data that we’ve collected at this point, is Archive Search Report data primarily. And it’s a subset of data that - there may be a central location where all data will be available, this is not it, at this point.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Millie. Richard.

Mr. Hugus: Just one question. Actually, one question and a couple comments. You said that the Archive Search Report will be done by 2002, Winter 2002? Is that right?

Ms. Buriks: This is Carla Buriks from Tetra Tech.

Mr. Murphy: Could you come to the microphone please? Thanks.

Ms. Buriks: Hi, Carla Buriks, Tetra Tech. The Archive Search Report is currently being revised and expanded to address regulator comments on the first version, which was submitted by the Corps of Engineers in March of 1999. The activities to support that are ongoing. Currently the schedule for the revised Archive Search Report is September 2001. Then it will take us time to parse it and take the maps and put them into the ASR data archive, so that’s why that’s projected to be done by January of 2002. So it will lag by a few months, because there’s, the whole purpose of putting it up electronically was to make it accessible to the public because there’s such a large volume of data related to the Impact Areas and related to use of those areas. So it’s a way to try to take all that data that is still being compiled and present it, you know, in a manner that you can search through what you want to search through and link it, rather than looking through a report that’s literally getting, you know, a couple feet high.

Mr. Hugus: Do you know when the Archive Search Report began?

Ms. Buriks: I can’t speak to them, I haven’t been here that long. I know the first one was done in March 1999. Then various sets of comments were provided and negotiated and the schedule agreed to currently for the revised Archive Search Report is September of 2001. Other people may have more background on the history.

Mr. Hugus: My guess is that it began in 1998. That’s my guess. I mean, the study began in Spring of 1997 and we immediately realized here that we needed to get information on disposal activities and firing and everything that we could find out about things that cause contamination at Camp Edwards. So, anyway, if it started in 1998, we’re looking at quite a long process to get this information and it’s an important criticism there, that it’s taken so long. But, I had a couple comments too, that I think the priority for the Archive Search Report is to get testimony from people about, well as I said, activities that were harmful to the environment, and I’m not aware that we’ve had such a huge load of testimony and reports with important content, that a method for organizing all that had to be done, had to be chosen, and that method would have to be a geographical organization of it through a web site. So, what I’m looking for is, you know, really, for instance, we found a number of munitions burial sites around the J-Ranges in the past few years, and I don’t know that any of those burial sites were the result of people being interviewed and telling us about that. There’s been a huge, very large lack of information that’s been provided by the military and by military personnel, about their own activities, so to me, that’s the single largest project for the Archive Search, not necessarily creating a web site and doing a fancy geographic connection between reports and sites. When this, let me come back to one of the specific questions I had to the interviews, after others have spoken.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we’ll get a response from Todd and then go to David.

Mr. Borci: I can speak to why it’s being put in this format, and that, it’s in response to EPA’s comments were, the way the first draft Archive Search document was created, we, almost literally, couldn’t get our hands around it. It was too difficult to wade through. We had 150 comments, I think, several dozen pages of comments. And we sat down with the Guard and said, ‘there must be another way to present this information, that we can at least view it a lot easier,’ you know, I think the original submittal was about two feet thick. And this was the thought of a better way to do that, so.

Mr. Murphy: David.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. In reading a number of reports generated by the, for the Impact Area Review Team, I’ve often found them data rich, but information poor. And it would seem to me, since geographic information systems have ways to integrate data, either to give you averages or ranges within a polygon or the contour data within polygon succinct, compare the pollution in the soil to that in the groundwater, whatever, but I would suggest that when you develop this system, you develop some of these, make available some of these GIS tolls which will allow users to integrate the data to provide some useful information. So it, you’re not totally perplexed like Todd was just describing.

Mr. Murphy: Peter and then back to Richard.

Mr. Schlesinger: I’m a little perplexed. I happen to work professionally in a GIS lab and I’ve been doing it for nearly 15 years. What can this team ask of this data set, even using the tool as it’s set up now, other than, show me the information in this geographic box? And can you go both ways? Can I select an area in my report and have it show me a map? Can I ask questions of the report that’ll give me useful information? Otherwise, it’s mainly just a data distribution tool, with a little bit more organization wrapped around it, and really not a way of producing anything new for this team.

Mr. Rust: Well, I think that we’ve tried to develop this to make a lot of different types of people happy. And our thinking was that most of the public is not experts and they’re not experts in GIS, so therefore, we’ve tried to provide a variety of tools. First and foremost, we’ve tried to provide the information and the data, so people can actually get to it. The simplest tool that we’ve provided, which really isn’t a GIS tool, it’s just a map viewer, and that’s the easiest way to view something, like a canned map. And, if you stay afterwards, I’ll show you in the back, that we have a few tools built into this, that will automatically generate reports, using ARCHIMS and some software that requires an internet connection, so.

Mr. Murphy: Does that answer your question Peter?

Mr. Schlesinger: Not exactly. I mean, who’s defining the questions that ARCHIMS is going to display? Nobody’s asked us. Maybe this form that we’re about to fill out will be asking some of those questions, but I think the team should have a bunch of questions we want to ask of the Archive Report for itself. We should know more about what’s in it, so we can help you decide how to design the system. Because we can’t fill out this form without having seen what’s in it to be able to ask appropriate questions. It’s cart before the horse.

Mr. Murphy: Todd and then Richard and then Millie.

Mr. Borci: I mean, I think some of what’s being looked for is exactly what you’re saying. What Tom had displayed earlier with the firing fan analysis, that’s something that takes the text in the ASR and takes historical information over 60 plus years and puts it out into a single map that we didn’t have access to when we were reviewing the Archive Search Report. And that’s that next step that helps us with the investigation. As far as, you know, what’s available, what’s available is basically everything that we have out there. You have data, we have pictures, we have, you know, you want to be able to select Demo Area 1, and know historically all the data, get it in one spot, get any photos that are available. It’s all of the information condensed in that one spot and you can take your, when you think of what you want the database to answer, think of what’s out there and what you’d want to be able to do with it. We’ve had lots of questions from you folks about, ‘you couldn’t find it in one spot, you couldn’t find a certain set of monitoring well data from a certain year.’ It’s all out there and it’s all stuff that we can build into this system and that’s kind of what we’re looking for.

Mr. Schlesinger: Are we going to be able to ask, for example, show us the geographic representation of the 24 individuals interviewed, so we know geographically, where is their experience and then therefore, where is our lapses in knowledge?

Mr. Rust: Honestly, I really hadn’t thought of that, but, if that type of thing would be very useful for us to know, we’d appreciate it if you would add it to the questionnaire.

Mr. Borci: You will be able to select on the J-Range and you will be able to pull up all the interviews where the person mentions, you can select, maybe, can you tie in queries?

Mr. Rust: Maybe I didn’t understand the question….

Mr. Borci: Could you do J-1 and disposal and that would pull up all interviews that had J-1 and disposal mentioned?

Mr. Rust: Right, I think I misunderstood your question. Yes, you will be able to do that. So.

Mr. Schlesinger: This is going to come up in a draft that we can explore a little bit, so we can help develop questions for it or should we go back to our paper materials and help you develop questions from the paper materials that we have? Usually, one looks a little bit at the data and develops questions about what they want to see from it, rather than developing questions without having looked at it.

Mr. Borci: Right and that was part of the purpose of having it here at 5:30, a little bit before the meeting and we’re also going to have it prior to the next meeting set up I believe, and that’s April 27^th, is that, 24^th. So it’s going to be available at that point too. It’s an ongoing process, it’s draft from now until whenever, so, whenever you have time, we can walk you through. Prior to the next meeting, would probably be the best time.

Mr. Schlesinger: Is there a URL that you’ll be able to give team members to look at?

Mr. Rust: At this point, there’s not. This is all behind our firewall. We’re still developing it and we don’t have a URL now.

Mr. Murphy: Millie, can I just ask, can the people in the back hear all the speakers up here? Pretty much? Yes, okay, I just want to remind people to maybe pick up the mic, because they seem to be at somewhat different levels. Millie.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I just quickly want to say, I echo and support everything that Todd articulated with respect to this tool and I just have a question, and that is, with respect to the permanent status, so we can ensure that we have a consistent place where people can look up information and create their own maps. I think that definitely my heart went out to Paul Zanis, he was telling us the last time, a couple of months ago, how he’s pulling together these maps, his home, and trying to piece everything together, so I think, being sensitive to that, I think that we definitely need some place, a permanent place, where people can create their maps and customize them and have the latest and greatest readily available. So, I’m just wondering if that is the goal of this tool, to have something permanent and readily available via internet.

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

Ms. Dolen: Yes, I know, electronically and architecturally you have your goal and also as place for that to be housed and a place for the public to come as a community center for information exactly like this with terminals set up, will be the new Community Center, which will be next our new trailers. It’s a very old building right now, but it will be rehabbed and turned into a place where people can come, one place, to try to answer many of their needs, in terms of information about the program.

Mr. Murphy: Richard.

Mr. Hugus: I would like to call everybody’s attention to the summary of interviews (inaudible) was a handout on the back table, about this, and I was critical of a couple of aspects of the Archive Search Report, but this is one, which I think deserves praise, as I understand it, a private investigator was hired to go out and actually seek out people to interview and that some of these witnesses are those people? Is that right?

Mr. Gregson: That’s correct.

Mr. Hugus: So, I read through these interviews, and I found what I thought to be a pretty important statement on page four from a witness, and that witness, there’s one sentence in the middle of page four discussing depleted uranium rounds, which may have been fired on the J-3 Range by Textron in the 1980s, and it says "the witness was involved in the firing of approximately six rounds of depleted uranium." We had Textron at the table, maybe a year and a half ago, I’m not sure how long ago, and Textron categorically denied that there was any firing of depleted uranium. The Guard has said to its knowledge, depleted uranium was never fired at the J-Ranges or anywhere on Camp Edwards, so I’d like to know if, one, if we can get, you said earlier that these witness accounts are summaries, I’d like to know if we can get the full interview? And, two, I’d like to know what the Guard has to say about this statement and what follow-up is being done on it?

Mr. Gregson: First question on, can we provide more detail, is there a more detailed transcript of this interview or not? We’ll check that out and see if, and we’ll specifically focus on the DU portion and see if there’s additional information that didn’t show up in the summary and get that to you folks. The reason we’re conducting these interviews is to obtain information on the activities at Camp Edwards, and as you said Richard, this is a good way to go about it, using the private investigator. We’re in the process of following up. We too, are extremely concerned about this statement by this witness and we’re following up to verify what he said and see if we need to do any additional interviews or investigations, because of this.

Mr. Hugus: I wonder if you could also update us Ben, on the litigation between the Guard and Textron.

Mr. Gregson: Even if I could, I wouldn’t be able to because that’s in litigation and it’s a legal issue, so I can’t comment on that.

Mr. Murphy: Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: Are we going to be able to hunt on specific munition types and display them in map form? The distribution of the points? Where things are purported to have been?

Mr. Rust: So incident locations?

Mr. Schlesinger: So we can figure out if there’s any correlation between the interviewers on a particular type of munition or a particular report?

Mr. Rust: We have a number of data layers that contain that information. We don’t have, currently, a built in search function.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, any additional questions? Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I don’t think we can let this question of the DU testing just fall so lightly. I think everyone knows that the J-Ranges very approximate to the Sandwich boundary of the base, a lot living there and there were a lot of people living there in the 1980s. And, we often hear statements, ‘well in the bad old days, people didn’t know very much’ and they did a lot of things that were bad environmental practice. But, certainly, by the 1980s, it was well known that depleted uranium, particularly after it’s fired at a steel plate and the way it decomposes, it’s a, environmentally, a very ugly thing. So, I’m really kind of deeply concerned about that. But also that, in their report, in which Textron did say that they assembled DU rounds, they said without any hesitation or any qualification, that those rounds were not fired, and that was in a written report. So, I’m just concerned, apart from whatever litigation, in order to, I would assume the litigation is to get Textron to pay for the clean-up of the mess they made, but what recourse is there, concerning their essentially lying to the public about the DU issue. I guess I would direct that to Bill, whether they’re under any constraints about honesty and accuracy under the Safe Water Drinking Act or any other act.

Mr. Murphy: Bill.

Mr. Walsh-Rozalski: Yes, they are and there will be follow-up investigation on this issue.

Dr. Feigenbaum: What penalties or what forums are there that can address the question of what appears to be a deliberate lie?

Mr. Walsh-Rozalski: There are a variety. And I couldn’t tell you which one’s going to be followed up on, but I can assure you that the issue will be followed up on.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: A number of these, I’m looking in a summary of interviews that we had touched on today, quite a number of these in the ‘planned action,’ it says ‘information shared with AFCEE or being under investigation by Installation Restoration Program (IRP), managed by AFCEE,’ is there a linkage within these GIS data sets with those held by AFCEE, is somebody from Jacobs helping provide some of the materials, so there’s some, or are we just have these reports, they’re point locations on a map and we have to somehow get the data from Jacobs, so we can mix the two, or how are we going to be able to ask appropriate questions? For example, the thousands of gallons of fuel dumped each year from 1956 to 1973 in the rear of Building 1369, okay, that’s great, but do we, if that’s being investigated by the IRP, but it’s in our Archive Search Report, are we getting access to any data from the other program to be able to find anything out about that, or ask questions about it?

Mr. Borci: Because of the type of waste and the year of disposal, it’s passed on to the Air Force to make sure it is in one of their currently defined source areas and I believe that that interview does refer to a currently defined source area. We took the description of where buildings were, and I believe that is a source area that’s been addressed by the IRP program.

Mr. Schlesinger: There are a whole bunch though here. There’s the American Fireworks/Atlantic Research that says ‘shared with AFCEE,’ does that mean that AFCEE knows about it or does this mean we’re looking into it and they’re looking into it?

Mr. Borci: It means that it’s been given to the Air Force to look into. It’s not something that the Groundwater Study would continue to follow.

Mr. Schlesinger: So therefore, the items that say "Planned Action, this information will be shared with AFCEE," are not going to be included in our…

Mr. Borci: Unless they deal with the Impact Area and training ranges and/or ordnance, no.

Mr. Murphy: Richard and then Ray Taylor and then we’ll try to move onto the next item.

Mr. Hugus: I just wondered, if I called upon this archive web site to find out, to look up this interview, that had to do with the depleted uranium, would I be able to find the full interview?

Mr. Rust: Not yet, in the future that’s possible, yes.

Mr. Hugus: Why are summaries made of these interviews anyway? Why don’t we get the whole interview?

Mr. Murphy: Are we going to answer on that?

Mr. Hugus: Well let me just put it this way, can we make it, may I request a copy of the full interview about the depleted uranium? And finally, I’d just like to underscore the importance of this, Joel mentioned it, and I agree, one speck of depleted uranium is capable of causing cancer in human beings, it aerosolizes when it’s fired and that means it gets carried through wind and very easily picked up by people nearby. The effects of depleted uranium have been proven in places where it’s been fired, in Iraq and in the Balkans. So, the idea that it was fired near a residential neighborhood is very shocking for one thing and I urge the EPA to follow-up on this information as aggressively as possible.

Mr. Murphy: Todd.

Mr. Borci: Yes, to reiterate what Bill said, we’re trying to follow-up with additional folks, finding additional people that were out there, but also in the mean time, the Guard has collected some soil samples out at the J-Ranges in the areas identified in the interviews. And we’re waiting for that data. It’s not going to be the end of everything, but it’ll at least, it’s what we can do in the meantime. So, we’re doing everything we can.

Mr. Murphy: We’ll make that an action item about getting a full interview. Ray.

Mr. Taylor: It seems to me that timeframes would be important. Can we reference the timeframes of interviewees reports as to what period in time they’re talking about?

Ms. Buriks: In terms of the interviews, where that information is provided by the interviewees, that could be made available. And also, just to reiterate, the interview information is shared on a monthly basis, with EPA and the rest of the Archive Search Report team and it’s also incorporated into the ongoing investigation. So, in terms of the witness that spoke about potential DU range firing, that was followed-up immediately, they went out to the range and described the area. That was incorporated to ongoing investigations in that area. So, it is being followed-up immediately. Because the witness says it, doesn’t always mean it happened, so there’s a lot of follow-up that needs to occur. But it definitely gets forwarded to the right people and forwarded internally with all the contractors and EPA on a monthly basis. In terms of providing the full interview summary, that can be looked into on that one. I know in that case, they actually take the interviewee out and try to identify a point on the range where it might have been used. I believe his statement later, in going back was, that he was basing that on what he saw in terms of penetration in the metal and not necessarily on actually seeing DU firing rounds. So there’s follow-up ongoing. And that would be provided in the interview summaries as they come in.

Mr. Hugus: The statement says though, that he fired it himself.

Ms. Buriks: Yes, and this is before they went back and followed-up on it. So they do follow up and try to clarify where information like that is provided. Just so you know, that it is being incorporated.

Mr. Taylor: That’s not exactly what I asked. I was curious, will we be able to get a time, search the GIS by time, the events described occurred?

Mr. Rust: Yes, later that’ll be possible. Since all this data is being collected now, we have not integrated it into this at this point, but that type of search will definitely be possible when this is done.

Agenda Item #4. Review of Action Items

Mr. Murphy: Okay thanks Tom. If we could move onto the Action Items, just to remind people that this presentation and the computers will be available before the next meeting for an hour, beginning at 5:00. Quickly, on to the Action Items. We have six of them. First one, 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. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski.

Mr. Walsh Rogalski: Yes, I wish Richard would get off my back on this one. I still haven’t completed it. We do have a ASP inspection scheduled for April 19^th. Todd will be going out there and looking at the ASP, so we are making some progress on this issue. I apologize for not having any more definitive statement on what the legal requirements are at this point.

Mr. Hugus: Just for the sake of the audience, who might not be aware of what this is about. This originally came up when we were discussing a place the Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) at Camp Edwards and the Massachusetts National Guard, the word from them, coming down from AG Keefe was that basically, ‘that the community doesn’t have a right to know what the contents of the National Guard Ammunition Supply Point are.’ And that was a concern to us, because about two years ago, there was a case of artillery simulators, I think they were called, which had to be taken out of that Ammo Supply Point and disposed of. And, we’re concerned about what’s in there and what potential there is for contamination. But, the Guard felt that it was a security issue for them. And so we’re at a point of disagreement. I am very interested to hear what EPA’s inspection of the Ammo Supply Point turns up. I would like to put on indefinite postponement an account of what our rights are through the Community Right to Know Act, because I have a feeling that that Act is not going to pertain to citizens’ requests about information about explosives. However, I would like the public to know, that we are trying to find what’s in this Ammo Supply Point and we’re not being, the Guard is not divulging that information. So, basically it’s an issue of democracy happening here. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: So you’re saying that you are putting on indefinite postponement. Let that go, that Action Item go. Ray do you have a comment? David.

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. I’m a member of the Community Working Group (CWG) that’s making comments on area-wide impact, or area-wide Master Plan Environmental Report. And, we have been seeking information similarly, on what kinds of hazardous chemicals are stored on the base, including the Ammunition Supply Point, and the Army National Guard hasn’t been forthcoming to us either, so, we’re all waiting for them to ‘talk to the talk’ as well as ‘walk the walk.’

Mr. Murphy: Thanks David. The second Action Item, Mr. Cambareri requested that the Joint Program Office (JPO) provide a profiling report on chemical monitoring wells associated with the Three Million Gallons per Day (3MGD) Water Supply Project. Have a several line response there, does that answer your question Tom?

Mr. Cambareri: No. I guess it doesn’t say what the status is. ‘Planning for the wells that may impact the monitoring wells.’ So there’s discussions still going on between the regulatory agencies and JPO about these wells?

Mr. Murphy: Todd, do you have something additional?

Mr. Borci: Yes, let me try and translate, I guess. They haven’t said no and they haven’t said yes. They have not decided on the locations of the chemical monitoring wells that are going in around Water Supply 1. And they haven’t decided if they want to profile those or not yet. So, discussions are ongoing.

Mr. Cambareri: So then I’m curious about Water Supply 2 and 3. Anything there, are they going forward with their locations?

Mr. Borci: EPA had only asked that the chemical monitoring wells around Water Supply 1 be profiled for VOCs, due to the number of detections of VOCs in the surrounding area.

Mr. Cambareri: Okay, well I would certainly support EPA’s request again and that is why I’m curious what the hold-up is with something that seems to be relatively straightforward.

Mr. Murphy: Millie, yes.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I just wanted to, perhaps I believe, it’s my understanding, but again I’m not sure, it’s a different bureau, but the hold-up is associated with the Zone 2 modeling. I think that’s the issue at hand. So, once that piece is resolved, I think, that’s what the deal is, as far as I understand it, the hold-up.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks, Millie. The next Action Item, the Guard will bring the request to the Joint Program Office that the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members to review and comment on the Base-wide map. JPO has delivered their map to the meeting tonight along with the note and we’ll just distribute it now. It’s just asking for, there’s two pages of notes on here that the JPO attached, asking for comments from the team by April 13^th, sending them to Patrick Field, CBI, it gives his mailing address and email address. And there’s a few additional notes on the map, so. Yes, Richard.

Mr. Hugus: I’d like to discuss this map issue at the fact sheet part of the agenda.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. Alright, we’ll have some discussion of the map under the fact sheet spot on the agenda. And the next two Action Items are also on the agenda tonight, so we’ll just skip over those and Number 6, asking for items on the next agenda. The last one is the map again, it’s kind of like a little circle here. That brings us to the 7:00 item, the new groundwater detections and Ben is ready to go.

Ben is almost ready to go.

Agenda Item #5. New Groundwater Detections

Mr. Gregson: Okay, at the last meeting, we provided a handout of information on samples collected, number of wells sampled, groundwater detections. Based on Paul’s request from the last meeting, we’ve broken out information from that handout, specifically on groundwater detections, just to provide folks with an updated, recent groundwater sampling and get any input you might have on the direction we’re headed in response to these results.

If you look at the map on the right hand side, we have explosives detected in and downgradient of the J-3 and L Ranges. The compounds TNT and HMX were detected in profile samples collected from a water table boring at the melt/pour facility on the J-1 Range, that would be up in this location here on the map, near the top of the map. A well is planned to be installed at this location to investigate the detection in the boring. We’ve been installing a series of borings or monitoring wells along Greenway Road, as part of our work on the J-3 and L Range. We had a detection in Monitoring Well 147 (MW 147), which is up in this location of Greenway Road. This is a well where we previously had a (inaudible) detection in a profile sample. We have received data back from the monitoring well itself. The Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) detection is also occurring in that groundwater sample. The result though, is somewhat low. The unvalidated result is below the health advisory in that particular sample.

Additionally, we have installed a well as part of our response plan, here to the South of the J-3 wetland. This is Monitoring Well 157 (MW 157), also know as JP38. It’s downgradient of the J-3 Range. This well here really replaces a well that we’ve previously sampled that belonged to the AFCEE/IRP Program. We also had a couple of drive points in this location, DP8 and 9 that were installed about a year and a half ago, where we had detections of explosives in the groundwater. This well in profile samples, also had detections of explosives in the three part per billion (PPB) range.

Mr. Schlesinger: Could you zoom in on that area, so we could see it better?

Mr. Gregson: That is all I’ve got. That’s an overhead. It should be in the handouts.

Mr. Schlesinger: Can I ask one more question? We used to say that three points was a plume. We had a lot of hits up there, why is that not drawn on a map we have?

Mr. Gregson: We’re looking at that data. Again, it’s not as easy as Demo-1. There appear to be a number of different sources in the J-Ranges and a number of different contaminants. We have one spot where it looks like where it looks like we have just an HMX plume, if you will, coming from the J-3 Range. The technical team is looking at the data and we’ll be mapping it as soon as we can.

Mr. Schlesinger: I hope that those plumes are included on this map. Because the public is not, this is not satisfactory. This does not show the public the status of the knowledge that thus far.

Mr. Gregson: Okay.

Mr. Borci: That was one of our comments and we’ve been told that the map is going to be updated every six months. Part of the reason, hold on now, part of the reason that we don’t have plumes drawn up there and we can’t draw them right now, is because we’re still out there collecting all the data, so we need to install all the wells that we had planned for that area, see where we might need some additional wells to fill in the gaps, and at that point, it is going to be a challenge, it’s not a matter of source area and there’s a clear extent of contamination coming off of that. It’s going to take some additional monitoring wells in addition to the ones we have planned, so, all of that in the process right now. So that’s why, in the middle of the investigation, wouldn’t be the time that we start drawing the plumes. But, hopefully, by, we’ve been here a year ago, I think, at this time, I was asking patience, so that by the time we get to the summer, we could finally put some contours around it. And I think it’s the same type of situation, that by summertime, we might be able to contour some of this.

Mr. Murphy: Richard, if we could wait until he’s done, but go ahead.

Mr. Hugus: Well, I just wanted to say that there’s a number of plumes that we’ve been studying at the IRP. Some of those plumes have been known about for ten years, yet we’re still mapping them. The Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume, for instance, changes shape all the time. That didn’t prevent anybody from putting a good guess on the map. So, I guess I would have to offer a dissent about the idea that a plume can’t be put on a map until total and certain knowledge is found about it.

Mr. Murphy: Millie.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I just have a quick question. In looking at the perchlorate 9.something ppb that was detected, I guess, just looking again, that was a good (inaudible) from Richard in terms of the IRP work, and what other programs have captured. And I know, for example for Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) , that perhaps the treatment that is ready to go on-line the last week of May, first week of June, the idea is the basically, to treat FS-12. So my question is, if the capture zone is going to reach to that perchlorate 9.9 ppb detect and the treatment plant is basically set up to treat ethyl dibromide (EDB), my question is, how are we going to handle the perchlorate hit, if the carbon treatment is perhaps, not set up to deal with perchlorates? I don’t know if there’s any kind of response from the IRP side. That’s just my question, just gleaning from the information that I have.

Mr. Gregson: I didn’t quite get to that point yet in my presentation, to talk about that perchlorate hit, so let me just go over where we detected it. It was in one of the IRP wells 90MW0054, which is located in this location right here, about half-way between Snake Pond and the Base boundary. This is a well we previously had, or recently had, a low-level of RDX, about .5 ppb. And we detected perchlorate in a recent sampling of that well. This particular location is problematic and my understanding, and Marty correct me if I’m wrong, is that the new capture zone for the revised treatment system extends to the edge of this location, but doesn’t include that location. We’re going to work with AFCEE to see one, if there are other perchlorate detections. We haven’t detected perchlorate in other areas that will go into the system, but we need to work with them to see if it that’s going to be a concern for this system. At this point, we don’t know. We’re working on including perchlorate samples in wells to be sampled in this location here, to see if we have any detections downgradient of this particular spot.

Mr. Murphy: So Millie, your question was not only whether it could capture, but whether it could deal with it?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: That’s right. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP), just for the record, wants to say that I think it’s important for us to incorporate that piece. And given that start-up is projected by early June, I want to make sure that we can have assurances that indeed we are going to be able to deal with draw down and perchlorate capturing, that that is basically the job of the FS-12 plant. I’d like to know, just to have assurances that we're going to be dealing with that.

Mr. Borci: It’s an issue and it’s being discussed on both sides on how to handle this. That’s all I can say. I know that that Remedial Program Managers (RPMs) on the IRP side are trying to get their arms around what to do about this.

Mr. Murphy: Can we let Ben finish up Paul? Ben.

Mr. Gregson: The final thing that I would like to talk about is the last bulleted item there and that is we have, in recent sampling detected, perchlorate in the Central Impact Area. This detection was at a level of 5ppb in well MW91S, it’s the reporting levels limit for the analytical method . It’s at the low end of the range that the EPA has set for 4 to 18ppb range for their work on developing drinking water criteria. This well is located in this location here, just about in the Central Impact Area. It’s immediately downgradient, or near, the High-Use Target Area (HUTA) excavation. Perchlorate was not detected in wells to the north and south of this spot.

Just briefly, our next steps, and then we can open up for questions. As I mentioned, we’re updating the Response Plan for the J Range in the FS-12 area and looking at additional monitoring for perchlorate for that hit in the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Ben. Paul, first question.

Mr. Zanis: This is sort of a comment. I’m just concerned, because I think these perchlorate releases took place a long time ago, and that the contamination could have been out there for a long time, and it’s off-base. There were a lot homes around there on private wells and I know that some of the well testing that we did of the private homes, we assured the people that the wells were clean and now come to find they might not have been. So I hope we’re taking steps to rectify this problem as quickly as possible. I hope this is on a fast track, to find out how far this perchlorate has moved, if it’s made its way over by the Weeks Pond well, when it was in use, or if was even in the well when it was being used a few years back. I’d like to have an answer to that.

Mr. Murphy: Joe, maybe we can – unless somebody has an answer to that right now, we can make it an action item.

Mr. Gregson: I’d just like to comment, so everybody’s clear, that the homes in the Raccoon Lane, Arnold Road area, that were previously on private wells, are currently on town water. So, there’s not an immediate concern with the water quality for those folks.

Mr. Zanis: I’m just saying, it could have been a concern if I was living there and drinking it, five years ago, or if little kids were living there, drinking it five years ago. Or if the Weeks Pond well was contaminated all along and it was pumping into Sandwich and we never knew it. I’d like to know the past history. We should sample some wells around there, more of them in the residential areas, to find out if the perchlorates are over there or not. Since they are so persistent in the environment.

Mr. Murphy: We’re going to have Joel, then David, then Peter. So you’re asking for some kind of response on what kind of sampling is going to happen out in residential areas, in response to that Paul?

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m looking, still, for some response for what the method of treatment is. I mean, if the FS-12 system is not going to touch it, in fact, you’re going to be giving it a free ride downgradient if you pump it in and pipe it to the treatment system, and then discharge it, you’re just furthering the spread of the stuff. So, what’s the method of treatment then?

Mr. Gregson: The method of treatment is as important as how AFCEE is going to respond to this. We’ll provide them with the data and I can’t comment on how they’ll use this in their assessment of the FS-12 treatment system and whether it’s appropriate for any detections of perchlorate. As it stands now, we have no detections in wells that would go into the treatment system, as it stands now.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Then why do we need AFCEE’s response?

Mr. Gregson: We’re giving them the opportunity to respond to the detections that we’ve had and I can’t speak for them on that front. But, your point is well taken that the treatment system that’s currently in place for FS-12 is a carbon-treatment system, if I understand correctly, and that’s going to adequately address perchlorate, if it were to show up in that treatment (inaudible).

Dr. Feigenbaum: In fact, we want to keep it away from – we want to get it before it goes into the treatment system.

Mr. Murphy: David, then Peter, the Richard.

Mr. Dow: I had a similar concern to what Joel just mentioned, which is the opposite of Millie’s concern, is it seems to me, since perchlorate is a strong oxidizing agent, if you actually get an activated carbon system, that could cause you a lot of problems. So, you could be compounding your difficulties and it could possibly disrupt the activated carbon system and it wouldn’t trap it. You might be lucky if it doesn’t go in there.

Mr. Murphy: Millie do you want to respond?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Yes, I guess my point, to clarify my two points mainly, is one, I’m concerned about the capturing perhaps drawing the perchlorate towards the actual treatment plant for FS-12, that’s number one. Number two, if it does get in there, you’re right, I’m not an engineer, I don’t understand the dynamics associated with what the correct treatment is, all I know that carbon, as far as I know, is not the appropriate treatment for perchlorate. So whether it impacts the first (inaudible), or the actual technology, or doesn’t do anything, I think that’s just a concern that needs to be raised, and I know the RPMs are working on that. So, I just, for the record, needed to say that that is an issue of concern to the MA DEP.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Millie. Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: A couple of questions. One is, to make these maps more useful, it would be great - there are only about six colors used – it would be great if you put the groundwater contours on them, as well as some kind of overlay that shows you the outline of that area that is served by the FS-12 fence. The second comment is, it’s a question really…

Mr. Gregson: Excuse me Peter, could you repeat that last comment?

Mr. Schlesinger: For example, when you look at the big map, which you gave us for comment, you have an area in red associated with FS-12, that I’m assuming is the area served by that fence, it would be useful to the team, when we’re looking at this in relation to the perchlorate hits and other hits, what things will actually get into the fence and what won’t. Then the second issue is, does AFCEE test for perchlorate, and if so, how many wells are we looking at on this very busy page here on inset ‘A’, have been tested for perchlorate?

Mr. Aker: Yes, we have plans on – perchlorate’s kind of a new thing for us – we have plans to sample Chemical Spill 19 (CS-19) and Landfill 1 (LF-1), I believe and Chemical Spill 10 (CS-10) also, for perchlorates, and evaluate the effects that we think it could possibly have on our system and systems, and determine the extent of it, if it’s a problem out there. So, we’re looking into it further.

Mr. Schlesinger: Does that mean that each one of these well points are likely to be tested?

Mr. Aker: I’m not sure which ones now, I’m not working on LF-1 or CS-10, but I know that they are looking at wells to be sampled. I’m not sure how many or which ones they are right now. I’m looking at CS-19. We’re going to come up with a number of CS-19 right now, but I’m not sure of the overall program, but we are progressing to sample additional wells out there.

Mr. Murphy: Todd do you want to respond?

Mr. Borci: All of the, any wells that have been sampled for perchlorate in the area of FS-12, has been done by the Guard. A significant number of the wells are pictured there, have been sampled for perchlorate and to my knowledge, 54 is the only one off-base that has come up with a detection so far.

Mr. Schlesinger: Can you point to 54? Okay, thanks.

Mr. Murphy: Richard then Millie.

Mr. Hugus: Ben can you point out all the places on the inset map there where RDX has been found?

Mr. Gregson: The places where RDX have been found, are you talking about off-post, or do you want to focus….

Mr. Hugus: Anywhere on this map.

Mr. Gregson: We’ve had it in two locations here, MW101 and 102, those were wells that AFCEE installed. We have it detected in a level below the health advisory in MW54, located right here.

Mr. Hugus: The same one with the perchlorate?

Mr. Gregson: That’s correct. We had RDX detected previously in temporary drive points that were installed in this location, Drive Point 8 and 9 (DP8 and DP9). We now have a new well installed there and we have RDX detected in the profile samples from that particular well. We also have RDX detected in several of the wells, RDX and HMX , detected in several of the wells along the Greenway Road fence that was put in. Up on the J-3 Range, Marc, help me out on that. Well 132 is right there in the center of the J-3 Range.

Mr. Hugus: You said earlier that you didn’t think that there was pattern that you could ascribe to all these hits and therefore you weren’t able to put a plume shell around them, but, as Peter just said, it looks like it to me. It looks like there’s a pattern. We have a problem here on the team comprehending all the information. David Dow said earlier, that reports were data rich but information poor. We have a map here up on the screen that must have 200 well locations shown to us, but we don’t even know where the contamination is. FS-12 isn’t shown and the RDX hits aren’t apparent to us and that’s why we need to have plume shells written in. If there’s uncertainty, tell us, but there’s just no way we can stay on top of this information without some kind of indication of the information we need to know. We don’t need to know where each and every monitoring well in this area is; we need to know where the contamination is. And what you just pointed out to us here, it looks like a line and it looks like you have a source area in the J-Ranges. So I ask that you show us the plume. Put an outline around all these detections, so that we’ll have some way of comprehending what this study is telling us.

Mr. Murphy: A picture is worth a thousand wells, or something.

Mr. Gregson: It’s a deal, for a thousand wells.

Dr. Stahl: Yes, I kind of agree with what Richard just said. I had a question. What is the correlation between the RDX detections and the FS-12 plume? Has anybody looked at, are they correlated together, are they mutually exclusive and how does the perchlorate look in that? What I’m kind of wondering is, you might expect that the high carbon that used to be in this fuel spill to have aided in the degradation of the munitions that might have been underneath that, so you might find a mutually exclusive zone, where you’d either find RDX or the fuel, but not both, and I’m wondering how it correlates.

Mr. Murphy: Do you want to jump in there?

Mr. Borci: Yes, I’ll take a shot at that. I think that we are finding explosives in and around and downgradient of the FS-12 source area, so we’re not finding that where we have FS-12 constituents, we don’t have explosives or vice versa. Like I tried to say, it’s a little too early to start making some connections between some of what we’re seeing, but, essentially you have the J-3 Range, L-Range, which is a Guard 40-milimeter high explosive range, to the north of J-3, and then another contractor range to the north of that, and it appears that we have explosives in groundwater from each of those areas. So, we’re trying, I wish it was as easy as just drawing a line between the dots. But we have, if you look at it in plan view, they’ll be multiple detections, multiple wells with detections, but then you need to look at the depth, and especially in this area, where you’re so close to the top of the mound, differences of a few feet could mean completely different ranges on which the source areas reside.

Dr. Stahl: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Millie and then back to Jean.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I guess I’m sensitive to the fact that the news release that was issued on 27^th March, identifies that it was a non-validated detection of perchlorate. So, assuming that it was a fully validated hit of perchlorate, my question to the group is, how confident are we that we have indeed delineated fully the extent of this, call it a plume, maybe not? I just wanted to make sure, that, we’ve seen this happen in the past, where we find a hit, and then we go back and there’s something else there. So, I just, for the record, want to say that we should feel comfortable with the nature and extent of contamination.

Mr. Murphy: Jean.

Ms. Crocker: Thank you Jim. Yes, I’d like to actually start with what had been intended to be my last comment, and that is, as Todd’s says, when it’s too early, it’s too early. So, let us continue to say it’s too early and use scientific methods, before we conclude. My commentary is made both as an introduction and a conclusion because introductorily, I would like to share and stress that we need to be careful and consider more than presumption. We need to consider when we make presumptions, that we consider the community fear factor. We shouldn’t be in the business as scientists to throw out presumptions and ideas before we know our facts. So that’s one dynamic of thought I would like to share with you.

Secondly, I heard someone say ‘our definition of a plume, now, is three points.’ That is certainly not what I’ve understood, as I’ve tried very hard to understand what a plume is, and I’ve spoken on it sometimes. I’m not looking for exact measurements, for either one of these, but I think a plume should involve the number of points tested, the density of the contamination, the proximity to each other, the content in terms of its toxicity. There’s a whole lot of data that should go into making a plume. I think it’s oversimplifying for the public understanding, to say here that we have a plume, does not seem to make good scientific sense to me. So, and Todd mentioned also something that was clarifying there, he said that we’re still collecting data, it’s going to be a challenge. I complement you Todd for continuing to emphasize that type of thing. And so, that’s my second point.

My third point, has to do with getting base-wide maps, which are really AFCEE and IRP work. And since the I.A.R.T. or the IART as you seem to call yourselves, that’s a new one to me, since you’re asking about other than your IART focus, is there any reason why you EPA people and you IART people are continuing to step back from the continued requests to include yourselves in the MMR-wide scheduling and telling the public and getting into multi-approaches, because I spent a half an hour looking for you all tonight. And between the darkness and the many, many Quashnet roads and areas and housing areas and schools being busy, I would also then ask, as far as public access, that you consider meeting on base, because it’s so much easier to find. And in conclusion, I would ask that this public process dynamic, be thoroughly reviewed by your new top officials of Region 1 EPA Director’s Office. I think it’s a real problem with public access to EPA dynamics and I would like to see the public know in simple forms, what it’s all about and not have to go searching into detail. We should be informing the public with simple statements that are true and scientific and not fearing. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Jean. I’m sorry you had trouble getting here. I hope there’s not a lot of other people wandering around out there tonight. I’ll get to you in a second Joel. As far as the meeting notices, it’s my understanding that this meeting is advertised by the calendar that comes out of the IRP office as well as the one that comes out of the JPO office. And, I suggest that you speak with Tina from the …

Ms. Crocker: Thank you, could you make that an EPA project, because I don’t know all of the people that do all of the calendars. I’m on the PIT and I did not receive word with their information.

Mr. Murphy: Okay. Additionally, it would probably be helpful to talk to Tina Dolen, who’s right next to you, just about, it’s the Groundwater Study Office that’s essentially responsible for getting the word out about the meeting.

Ms. Crocker: Well she did tell me about it, the only thing is, I didn’t have a map and I didn’t know how to get here. I used my geographical tuning, it didn’t work. But, I’m only one of the public Jim. We should be having a lot of people coming to these meetings, but they’re too non-accessible. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you Jean. Joel.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I always enjoy hearing from Ms. Crocker, but I would just suggest that, just as we all try to speak to an agenda item and speak to a particular subject, that members of the audience try to do the same thing, because we have just been taken for quite a ride away from the discussion at hand. I think it’s incumbent on all of us to stick to the agenda as much as we can.

Mr. Murphy: I think we also want to encourage people from the public to speak, so, your point’s well taken, but I think Jean’s point about being lost is a good one. If you can’t get to the meeting, you can’t speak to anything.

Dr. Feigenbaum: That’s true, but I think maybe we could do that at the beginning. We had a procedural discussion at the beginning, and at this point, we are talking about the RDX detections and we certainly want to encourage Ms. Crocker to speak as much and as often as possible, as long as we stay a little bit focused.

Could you just repeat, then, how many of those hits were above the 2ppb? Can we just look at the ones now that are 2ppb?

Mr. Gregson: Okay. I’m just going to mix sample types a little bit just to answer your question. One of these wells here that AFCEE installed, had a profile sample that was above health advisory. The profile samples from the recently installed well south of the J-3 wetland was above the health advisory. I think those are the only ones off-post. Is that right? Okay.

We have several of the wells on the fence along Greenway Road, that are above health advisories and MW132 is close.

Dr. Feigenbaum: So there’s more than three wells, obviously. And they do seem to be located, I think the previous speaker didn’t mention another criteria is the relationship to the flow of groundwater that’s certainly an important factor. So, I would say, at the very least, the data that you’ve got there, supports in the plume-wide map that JPO, I guess, is putting out, it deserves the same treatment, anyway, as the diagonal lines in the Central Impact Area, as the designation not a plume, although people may disagree that it really is a plume, but at least it deserves to be demarcated as an area of RDX detections above the health advisory. So I would like to see that as a formal recommendation to whoever is putting together this map from the team. Can I get any support for that?

Mr. Murphy: Peter and then Tom.

Mr. Schlesinger: Definitely, as a matter of fact, I wanted to bring up the same thing. If you look at ‘Explosive Detections, Figure1, All Data as of March 2^nd, 2001, Analytic Group 1 of 6,’ which has 2 micrograms per liter (mgl) RDX concentration contours, you’ll notice, in the upper left hand corner of the Impact Area inset boundary, we have a 2 mgl RDX concentration contour that only has a single well in that area, that’s all I’m seeing here. If that’s the case, then we ought to have a similar contour for every point, where we have information that we have 2 mgl RDX in the area, near the edge of the base, north of Snake Pond. Correct?

Mr. Borci: I think several of the hits above the health advisory are depicted. Those are the green dots in and around the FS-12. Are you talking about the base-wide map?

Mr. Schlesinger: It came in our packet today. It’s dated March 22nd, ‘Figure 1, Explosive Detections, All Data as of March 2, 2001.’

Mr. Borci: We can take a look at what we have in for validated data from a monitoring well. Maybe at the next meeting, we can put up some working cross-sections of that area across Greenway Road, that well fence, and that will give you a better idea of what we mean by multiple areas of contamination coming off the base, that we really can’t even draw a cross-hatched area. We can’t any type of boundaries on it yet, because we’re in the middle of the investigation and still installing wells to try and bound where this contamination is.

Mr. Schlesinger: But Todd, you only have a single point on the area to the north…

Mr. Borci: We have at least two rounds of data from a monitoring well that’s been validated from that well.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have Tom and then Paul and then Janet and then we’ll see if we can move off this topic onto the Small Arms Range.

Mr. Cambareri: I think there’s been a lot of good comments about what the extent of the contamination is, as we’re trying to figure out, scratch our heads, from the tons of data that’s been presented. I think Todd had a good point about having some cross-sections to look at. I think that need for this kind of data goes back to the days of the TEAC, when we sat around and said, ‘we’d like some cross-sections.’ So, I think that we need some better graphics. So, if you’re going to up to the task of this, I hope your budget gets some better graphics and that kind of thing, because I think we need that. I think also, that it is complex, because this J-Range and all that, is right on top of the mound, and as Peter, you said, if we had some water table information, we’d see that you’d almost have some radial flow there. That really complicates things. So, anyway, those are my two comments, I’m dissatisfied with this level of graphical presentation.

Mr. Murphy: Paul.

Mr. Zanis: I see we have a dilemma here. We have multiple sources and we have multiple layers of contamination in the aquifer. So, maybe we should make a note. We should draw it out for sure, but we should make a note and say that there are multiple sources here with multiple layers in the aquifer and we’re still researching it. The JPO map should definitely have that drawn in with a note, specifically telling the people of what’s in the Impact Area and what’s around Snake Pond. I’m not an alarmist, but I sure think there’s going to be some serious problems around Snake Pond when it comes to this contamination as we define it. I hope that should be our priority right now, because it’s off-base.

Mr. Murphy: Do you want to respond Ben and then we’ll go to Janet?

Ms. Pepin: This is Janet Pepin, Falmouth citizen. I just want to remind the team members that the maps that they’re referencing with explosives, validated and unvalidated detects, are not available to the members of the public in the audience. Thank you.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I just passed the extra ones around in the audience.

Ms. Pepin: Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Ben.

Mr. Gregson: This is really a question for you Jim. Do we want to have an agenda item next meeting where we look in detail at where these detections are, cross-sections, and talk about some of the questions we have on source areas and groundwater flow and how to define or what are we up against in trying to map plumes here?

Dr. Stahl: I definitely think that’s a good idea to look at that in-depth and then we’ll understand it better. We’ll see what Todd’s been talking about and what you’re talking about, why we maybe can’t draw a plume or maybe it should be a source area. Bring it next time and we’ll take a look at it.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, so make that an agenda item for the next meeting. Joel and then if we can move on to the next topic.

Dr. Feigenbaum: The off-base detections of RDX, were those found sampling AFCEE wells, or have we put in any of our own wells here?

Mr. Gregson: We put in one of our own wells off-base, this is well 157J3P8, that’s one of the J-Range response wells. The rest of the detections were obtained by sampling existing AFCEE wells. We are planning within the next month or so to put in two additional wells…

Dr. Feigenbaum: Sort of for AFCEE?

Mr. Gregson: They’re going to use data from the wells as well, but we need them for explosives assessment. One on this spit here and one on the shore of Snake Pond.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Can I suggest that as a part of the agenda item that’s coming up next time on this RDX area, that we start thinking about putting in another well south of the perchlorate detection well over there, I mean there’s a big empty space there. Is there a reason why we can’t get a well or two in there to fill in that space and see what’s going on? Is it clear what I’m talking about? A little further to the right, to the right, that feels good, like when someone scratches your back. It looks like it needs it there, you know?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Just quickly, again, what’s the schedule for the validated report and I just want to underscore perhaps the need to put this back in the agenda, as you said, an Action Item, to kind of resolve the issues regarding further delineation, or nature and extent, just getting our arms around the issue. Just wondering, when you should expect to have the validation process completed, so you can determine whether is a real hit or what it may be?

Mr. Gregson: For the perchlorate detections specifically?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Correct.

Mr. Gregson: Marc, what’s the schedule look like for that sample?

Mr. Murphy: Marc, if you have to look things up, I don’t know if you’re going to be getting back to the table.

Mr. Grant: That wasn’t my goal actually Jim.

Dr. Feigenbaum: We know you want to be here.

Mr. Grant: There are 54 perchlorate detections not validated, as you assumed. Typically, the validation process will take a couple months, unless we, for some reason, decide to push it ahead. So, we don’t have any particular doubts that the perchlorate is there, or we would push it ahead.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I think the RPMs, in combination with the EPA, Impact Area, and DEP review technical table, we should talk about this, talk to the IART members as well.

Mr. Murphy: Are we set on this item? Ben.

Mr. Gregson: ‘Talk about this’ meaning?

Ms. Garcia-Surette: Perhaps fast-tracking the effort, so that doesn’t, again, I just want to underscore the piece regarding the FS-12 start-up. I think I just don’t want to miss the point on that.

Mr. Schlesinger: I agree.

Mr. Murphy: Moving on to the Small Arm Range data, it’s now about 8:10, so we’re a little bit behind. We could be doing worse though. We could be doing better also, that’s correct. There is a handout for this presentation also.

Agenda Item #6. Small Arms Range Data

Mr. Gregson: Brought to you finally after I think, two attempts, is the Small Arms Range air and soil sampling update. The purpose of this briefing is to provide an update of data that we provided to the team over the last couple of months on the status of sampling at the Small Arms Ranges.

The purpose of the sampling was to answer a couple of questions. One was to collect air samples during the current firing event primarily to see if there was any connection between the firing of munitions from the weapons – and concentrations of compounds in soils. Ultimately one of the primary concerns, of course on this study, is whether this is a potential impact to groundwater beneath Camp Edwards.

Just briefly to refresh people’s memory on the sampling procedures, air sampling was done at two ranges. The SE range which is depicted here on the figure on the right – was sampled on September, 00. Approximately twenty–three thousand rounds were fired during that event. Also prior to that, there was a sampling of a much smaller event at C Range. I think there were just several hundred rounds that were fired at that particular range.

The soil samples were collected at the SE Ranges the G or Golf Range and India Range. In accordance with the work plan in the pattern that we show here – and this is the pattern that we worked out with the review team showing the nine discrete sample locations. We also overlaid a sampling grid consistent with what is typically used on the studies for the Impact Area Groundwater Study.

Just a brief discussion on results. The concentrations of up to five metals: copper, lead, manganese, zinc, and nickel were detected in soil at concentrations which may be above background levels. These are the phase one background levels. We have yet to compare this data to the new background levels we are developing for the base. This comparison will be done when we compile the report from Small Arms Range sampling.

We provided a preliminary report for the SE Range to the IART. This is a report we put out in November. This report indicated that the average copper, manganese and nickel levels were greater than background. At G Range average copper, lead and manganese levels were above background. At I Range average copper, lead, manganese and zinc levels were above background.

We have also detected propellants in soil. Five propellant related compounds: 2,6 DNT, 2,4 DNT, and n–nitrosodiphenylamine, ethylcentralite, and di–n–butylphthalate as well as eight other semi volatile organic compounds. 2,6 DNT was detected only, but was only detected at the G Range. The other four propellant related compounds were detected at all three ranges.

This highest levels of propellants were found at the G Range. At that particular location we had the compound 2,4 DNT at levels which exceed the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, S–1 clean up standards. The other eight SVOC’s – semi volatile organic compounds that I mentioned, are mainly phthalates and PAH’s. Downwind air samples had elevated levels of five metals: antimony, barium, copper, lead and zinc; when you compare it to the detections that we had in the upwind sample.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Could I just ask him how many rounds are we talking about?

Mr. Gregson: At the SE Range there was a total of about twenty three thousand rounds fired using the squad assault weapon, basically a machine gun.

Dr. Feigenbaum: A machine gun? Not M–16’s?

Mr. Gregson: What’s the difference Shaun?

Mr. Cody: A little different than a machine gun

Dr. Feigenbaum: Did you say that you are representing the Guard? Even I know the difference between an M–16 and a machine gun.

Mr. Gregson: It’s a machine gun.

Mr. Schlesinger: Don’t pick on him.

Mr. Gregson: The next steps is we are preparing a report of the finding for the Small Arms Range investigation. We’re also in the process of conduction investigations of other Small Arms Ranges as part of the phase 2b investigation. We’re looking at GA, GB Range and the former B, C, and D Ranges. We’re with EPA to look – that’s a sampling plan that was already in place and approved before we started getting these results on the other Small Arms Ranges. We’re going to work with EPA and MA DEP to see if we can expand the sampling program to include other firing points at these ranges that are being investigated and part of phase 2b. At that point I’ll open up to questions Jim.

Mr. Murphy: OK, so we have Paul first, then Bill, then Peter, and then David and it looks like it’s everybody. So we’ll start out with Paul.

Mr. Zanis: My first point is that soil sampling that we’re going to do, where there is a three and a five it’s a point at the end of a gun barrel, I’d like to see another three and a five right next to the six on the way out.

Mr. Gregson: Let me make sure I understand what you’re talking about. You are talking about sampling right there, and right there. Okay.

Mr. Zanis: And seven and eight could just be moved over to where the six is, actually, if you didn’t want to add more grids. If money is tight you can just take the seven and just move it closer. Do you understand?

Mr. Borci: Can I just jump in Paul? I need to double check on where we had the hits; but I don’t know if you want to move those because I think they might have had some of the higher detections.

Mr. Zanis: Oh, Okay. Well, we can add them then. But we found 2,4 DNT’s in the groundwater, haven’t we? It does leach into the groundwater.

Mr. Gregson: We’ve had detections. I’m sure Todd will correct me if I’m wrong, We’ve had a detection at one well at Demo area 1 and how many times has that been repeated, Marc?

Mr. Grant: I think it’s there.

Mr. Gregson: Okay, so we have one detection at Demo 1.

Mr. Zanis: That’s consistent. So it does leach into groundwater, and I think there’s a leaching process that’s taking place at these ranges because the detections just aren’t high enough for the cumulative effect of years of firing these weapons. So, I feel that our groundwater is being contaminated by the Small Arms Ranges, and our air with the air emissions. I think these activities are going to have to cease while the study goes on until we find out what’s happening to these DNT’s.

Mr. Gregson: As part of the process of putting this report together we’ll look at groundwater samples that have been collected at wells that exist downgradient of these ranges. We have several wells – appear to be good spots to assess this. And to date we haven’t detected any DNT’s in that. An additional point as part of the CS–18 process that AFCEE is undertaking — CS–18, just for people’s information is a former gun position – as part of their process they are also going to be collecting groundwater samples to see if they are detecting 2,4 DNT’s.

Mr. Zanis: I hope our existing wells are screened at the right level to catch these detections.

Mr. Gregson: Right, we’ll look at those.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Ben, I wanted to ask whether the National Guard Bureau had provided the information on the Small Arms Ranges to the Community Working Group?

Mr. Cody: The Mass Guard was provided the information. Actually, I saw it for the first time today. So, no, it wasn’t provided to the Community Working Group.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Given the connection between this data and soil and groundwater impacts relating the activity of small arms firing to those various impacts — I think it is important — and I would request that you do provide all of this information to the Community Working Group and that this team be copied on whatever transmittal memo accompanies the report.

Mr. Gregson: I’ll pass that along.

Mr. Zanis: I got this information last week.

Mr. Schlesinger: Yeah, same here.

Mr. Zanis: Before any Community Working Group meeting.

Mr. Murphy: Peter.

Mr. Schlesinger: I think the ranges have to be shut down. We brought up a detonation chamber to take care of the problem of exploding munitions in place because the explosives presented potential damage to the groundwater just by the act of getting rid of them. Here we know, now, that we’ve found an activity that we tentatively plan to continue, damages the soil. I believe we know it damages the groundwater. We need to make a very good decision here and that means until we know more, stop the activity.

Mr. Hugus: We know enough.

Mr. Schlesinger: Excuse me?

Mr. Hugus: We know enough already.

Mr. Schlesinger Yes, we do. We know enough already. And if we find out in fact that the DNT is not causing harm to our groundwater, and that it can be cleaned up from our soils and the heavy metals and so on in an adequate fashion after each time the guard uses a range, fine, let then continue. But until then I say we shut it down.

Mr. Murphy: Joel and then Jean.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’d like to point out that if it is in the soil, in the surface soils, it is subject to being transmitted through the air when the weather is dry and the wind is blowing, as often happens on the Cape. It would be, there would be a complete exposure route to people in the area and most of these ranges are obviously not in the vicinity of the impact area, they are towards the edges of the base in proximity to where people live. There’s one right off of Greenway road as we all know.

What about the total phthalates. If we were to sum the phthalates, how many of them are there, and would – there are five different ones and each one is just somewhat under the states overly liberal reportable concentrations. Would we – maybe Millie can…

Ms. Garcia–Surette: Pardon me, could you repeat the question?

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m just worried about the phthalates. They come in a bunch of forms. And they are all pretty bad, right?

Ms. Garcia–Surette: Is that part of the SVOC suite that you said was detected so you have phthalates and PAH’s or anything on that. Can you expand on the list just quickly if you know? I’ll get back to your question.

Mr. Gregson: I don’t think I have available with me the specific phthalates that were detected. Marc, can you or do you have that with you?

Mr. Grant: It’s in one of the handouts. Tonight there is a handout called G and I Range soil results validated data. I’m just skimming through it. It looks like aside from the di–n–butyl, which is a propellant ingredient bis–2–ethylhexylphthalate is the other one that is picked up a lot. And that is not something that we think is associated with munitions. I’m not sure if there is a Mass cleanup standard for that.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, I’m looking through this that I got off the internet that Richard sent me because I – if I could get the stuff that goes out on the email attachments I’d appreciate it. Marc or whoever does it.

But I am looking at the G and I Range soil results. And the 2,4–dinitrotoluene the reportable concentration is 700ppb and what was found was 3400. So that is five times the reportable concentrations. This is not just a trivial finding.

Mr. Gregson: I have to agree. There were several detections of 2,4 DNT which exceed the MCP reportable concentration and also there is a level in the MCP set of cleanup standards for 2,4 DNT and it also exceeds the most conservative or the lowest cleanup standard for 2,4 DNT as well.

Ms. Garcia–Surette: So the decision would be that, to my knowledge, we have not received any kind of notification. That’s number one. If this is data that is stemming from a study that was geared at for example, a site investigation and we do in fact trigger any kind of notification requirement the expectation would be that the MA DEP would be receiving that information. I don’t believe that we’ve got a notification on this. So, it is an action item for us to follow up on.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, considering that the practice has resulted in concentrations of 2,4 DNT that’s five times the reportable concentration, I don’t see how any conclusion is escapable that this is not a compatible use. It’s not compatible with environmental safety. And that’s even neglecting all of the materials that go in the air and are widely dispersed. We’re not even talking about the hundred fold increase upwind and downwind of lead and copper and five heavy metals as much as a hundred fold increase from downstream to upstream.

So, I think now the burden of the argument has shifted to the users in this case that this isn’t even a matter of applying reasonable precaution. This is just a matter of it has been proven that the practice pollutes the ground. What else can you say? And it should be stopped. If there was one compound that we were looking for in this study it’s 2,4 DNT and that’s the compound that we found – as well as all the related sister compounds that that famous paper that Paul found somewhere out in the internet or something and we all looked down the list of these compounds or pyrenes and phthalates and the DNT’s and so on and so forth. They are here.

So, I think that it is really time to shut it down. I’m sorry that there isn’t anybody from the training side here to hear this discussion. Maybe that’s why there isn’t anybody here.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have Jean and then Richard.

Ms. Crocker: Is there somebody here from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health?

Good. Fine. Thank you. Regarding the third item on the sampling results slide. What was the quality of the detections of both upwind and downwind and how far is the distance of this measurement from the public? What would be the measured air content considering dispersal by the time it would reach the public? And is the DPH looking at this? Or is it trivial?

Mr. Mierz: Justin Mierz from DPH. We’ve recently reviewed a memo from Kerry LeBlanc to Heather Sullivan. I’m not sure if the IART members have received the same memo. There are some conclusions made that point out that there may be potential exposures for people off–site. The actual conclusion, I quote, "there would appear to be some potential non–carcinogenic risk for an adult at the site and a child off–site."

So, I found that somewhat surprising and I looked at the risk models Mr. LeBlanc – I’m assuming – used and there was a couple of questions that I had. Some of the assumptions that he used in his risk models – one of the questions was the actual number of firing events per year. If I’m remembering correctly, he assumed that there were 200 eighty–hour firing events. The question I have is how close is that to the actual number, because I think that’s a significant variable that he uses in his risk calculations. I don’t know if there is anyone here that could possibly answer that.

Mr. Gregson: We can get that information. We don’t know.

Mr. Mierz: He bases the conclusion on – obviously that is an important variable used, so I think that’s an important piece of information. And to answer your question, he also uses an air dispersion model and the dispersion factors that he used seemed somewhat conservative to me. More specifically, he used a factor of ten – I believe – so to explain this quickly, from the firing line or where the sampling equipment was set up, fifteen hundred feet or meters, but anyway, the solution factor of ten – and I thought that was somewhat very conservative. So I was just wondering if the Guard could also get information on the actual dilution model that he used. I believe it’s screen three. I think that’s also an important piece of information to actually determine whether people off–base are exposed.

Mr. Murphy: Shaun.

Mr. Cody: The people within the MA Guard and National Guard Bureau have the same questions you have raised and have asked him to come to the next IART and provide a detailed presentation on exactly what his methodology was and how he came up with these results.

Mr. Murphy: Go ahead Justin.

Mr. Mierz: I just want to clarify it was fifteen hundred meters not feet.

Mr. Murphy: I have Richard and David, then Paul and Bill.

Mr. Hugus: We are talking about two different media here, air and soil. I just wanted to go back to the soil discussion for a minute and then finish with a comment about air at the air sampling at the Small Arms Ranges.

Most of what I had to say about the concentrations found in soil samples had to do with the detections at sample ID number HDGA8AAA where, as Joel mentioned, 2,4–dinitrotoluene was found at 3400 parts per billion. The fact is that we found out this tells us that Small Arms Range sampling contaminates the soil. How else did it get there? Is there any indication that there was improper disposal of propellants at that range? Is there any history of that? Was Artillery fired here? Were propellant bags dumped here? Was there some other explanation besides the Small Arms Range firing?

Mr. Gregson: Those are all good questions. That’s something we will be assessing as we put the report together, is whether there’s a direct connection between the small arms and what we’re seeing in the soil or whether there are other sources that might explain the 2,4 DNT. Because we see it at a high concentration at one range and at lower concentrations or non–detect at other ranges.

Mr. Hugus: Well it actually showed up at a few different ranges other levels were like 550 parts per billion if I remember. Anyway, I think it’s time that we ask for a response from the regulators for enforcement. Because this is harmful to the environment and it’s an ongoing activity. It can easily be stopped. A lot has been said about the use of green munitions. I don’t believe that green munitions have dealt with – taken out dinitrotoluene, have they?

Mr. Gregson: No. These are propellant related compounds. The green ammo is just referring to the projectile.

Mr. Hugus: So the green munitions still contain dinitrotoluene. As far as the air sampling goes, we’ve had some critique from Department of Public Health. I guess that’s just been what you have just said or is this in writing?

Mr. Mierz: It’s just what I’ve said tonight.

Mr. Hugus: Representing the Department of Public Health?

Mr. Mierz: Yes.

Mr. Hugus: Because the Industrial Hygienist who wrote this report – was that person hired by the guard as a consultant? Who was this report written for? Well, it says for Heather Sullivan, but I don’t know who she’s with.

Mr. Gregson: She’s with the Corps of Engineers. As part of looking at these results we asked the Army Corps of Engineers to take a look at the data, have their industrial hygienist look at it, because none of us at the groundwater study office fit that description. And see what information they could obtain from an evaluation of the results.

Mr. Hugus: All right. So as it stands now we have a report that was contracted by the Army Corps of Engineers that says that there is a potential non–carcinogenic risk for an adult at the site and a child off–site based on what they found at the SE range air emissions testing. That is in direct contradiction of what the Department of Public Health has published about air emissions at these sites. DPH said that there was no risk from air emissions.

I’d like to call everybody’s attention to this report because there are other things contained in it. There are exceedences in arsenic, possibly hexavalent chromium, copper and manganese found in the air samples. Well, let me just finish, it says "site air lead concentrations also exceeded Massachusetts TEL/AAL values by five and ten times respectively."

I won’t get into what TEL and AAL mean, it says "cumulative hazard index for the onsite receptor, the adult was 1.94 which exceeds the generally recognized acceptable risk hazard index at 1.1. The hazard index was driven primarily by manganese, additional carcinogenic and non–carcinogenic risk were calculated for an off–site receptor." It says, "that copper lead and manganese appear to be the most incredible contaminants. These risks do exceed screening values and established regulatory risk guidelines which indicates that non–carcinogenic affects could occur and can not be ruled out".

So, I want that to be on the record. These were people hired by the Army Corps of Engineers and to me this indicates that besides the soil contamination air emissions are a problem that are associated with the small arms firing.

Mr. Murphy: Justin.

Mr. Mierz: Okay. Getting back to the arsenic, hexavalent chromium and manganese. The arsenic and the hexavalent chromium weren’t detected. What the industrial hygienist did was he took half of the detection limit and put that into his model, his risk–based model. So we really don’t know if arsenic and chromium are present. Also, hexavalent chromium wasn’t sampled for. Total chromium was sampled for. He used hexavalent chromium as a worst case scenario. In getting to the risk figures

In getting to the risk figures that you were talking about. As I mentioned before we have questions regarding the air dispersion model that he used because we believe that the dilution factors are, they seem very conservative. It seems 1500 meters from the air sampling set up, it seems that a concentration of a chemical would dilute more than ten times. That is something that we need to find out because that’s obviously a very important issue. That’s why I brought it up earlier.

Also, you talked about some of the conclusions he made and I recited the main conclusion that there would appear to be some potential non–carcinogenic risk for an adult at the site and a child off–site. If could just read some of the other parts of the conclusion that follow that.

I think it is important to add that to what you said, Richard. What you said I think is very important, but this is a strong conclusion that he made and we realize that we really want to find out for sure the variables – how he derived the variables in his risk calculations.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we have about six or seven people waiting to talk so if David can take the next…

Mr. Dow: This is David Dow. I would request that EPA provide Administrative Order number Four to the Community Working Group as well as having the Army National Guard provide the results from air and soil samplings studies at the firing ranges. Because at least found the Administrative Order number Four overview past military activities and their consequences quite illuminating and think the other members of the Community Working Group would find that informative as well.

Mr. Zanis: When I first came up with the M–16 study, it says that you could quantify the amount of contaminants produced and I just did a common sense thought. If you did a few million rounds a year fired out there, it is all quantifiable in the grains that are contained in the bullet, so you could come up with how much contamination is pulsed. If you remember these firings – it’s a pulse of contamination. That’s why I came up with moving the two ranges that are so close to the Forestdale School and the playgrounds. They are within hundreds of feet, not a mile away. You can see the guys across the road shooting. So, it wasn’t a game or just a reason to hassle the military to ask them to move the ranges and they refuse to. So now I think it is time to close the ranges completely until we find out what the impacts really are to the small arms firing with such quantities of ammunition. And these pulses that take place, the thousands of rounds in an afternoon.

Mr. Murphy: Bill, you’re next.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: I had a question for the gentleman from DPH and then a question for the National Guard Bureau…who appears to be leaving. For the gentleman from DPH, apparently somebody requested that you review this report. Could you tell us who that was?

Mr. Mierz: My supervisor, Dave Williams.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Do you know who requested him to review the report? The report came from somebody at the base and presumably, I’m just wondering who asked him to have it reviewed by DPH. Do you know?

Mr. Mierz: I honestly don’t know for sure but my supervisor regularly attends the IART technical meetings so he might have gotten it there. I really don’t know for sure.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Shaun, do you know who asked DPH to do it?

Mr. Cody: No, I don’t.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Well my second question’s for Ben so I’ll wait until he comes back. Ben?

Mr. Murphy: Okay, Peter, why don’t you go.

Mr. Schlesinger: It’s very nice that we’re all so concerned about our health, but it is also our responsibility to care for the ecological health of Cape Cod. And we therefore ought to make sure that the national heritage program is aware of these findings and perhaps they should be sent AO#4 as well.

I’d like to ask a question to the regulators here, especially those concerned with ecological health as to: who should be addressing this problem? To whom should we send this information? And I really think we should have a report back from a biologist who’s charged in the state regulatory area to tell us what are the ramifications or risks to flora and fauna in the region of these ranges? Thanks.

Mr. Murphy: Bill, did you want to ask your question to Ben?

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Ben, I have two questions. One was do you know who asked DPH to review the industrial hygienist report?

Mr. Gregson: Correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the DPH received the industrial hygienist report as part of our distribution. It went to MA DEP and then it went to DPH as well. The question is who asked?

Mr. Walsh Rogalski: Do they receive every report that is generated by you?

Mr. Gregson: They are on the mailing list and receive this as part of the distribution.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: And some they review and some they don’t review?

Mr. Gregson: This particular one they were particularly interested in.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Can you just explain why they would be particularly interested in this and not in another.

Mr. Gregson: They received this industrial hygienist report. Prior to that they had been asked by the Joint Program Office, Major Ruscio to assess the data and had provided their assessment of it prior to this report going out. So it is germane to something that they had been previously asked to comment on.

Mr. Walsh–Rogalski: Do you know if JPO asked them to review this report?

Mr. Gregson: I don’t know that.

Mr. Walsh Rogalski: The second question is, this clearly raises the issue again of ranges on Greenway Road, and I’m wondering if the Guard has any plans to change practices with respect to those ranges.

Mr. Cody: I actually talked with the Leadership today before we came to the meeting on this specific issue. They told me there is no one scheduled to use the ranges and until further gets done on this and more is found out – that no one is going to be scheduled to use those ranges.

Mr. Murphy: Peter, you had a follow–up?

Mr. Schlesinger: Not on this. Bill (inaudible) asked his previous question. I’d like an answer to my question and I’d like to make it an action item that we find out who in the state regulatory real should review these findings in light of potential to hurting flora and fauna in the region.

Mr. Murphy: You want to respond, Millie?

Ms. Garcia–Surette: Perhaps I can attempt to respond to that. I believe that it all comes back to the question that needs to be answered per the sampling program. So, if the sampling program is looking at the evaluation of risks associated with exposures to humans that is one issue. I don’t know how – I have not seen the report – but I’m wondering whether the ecological assessment piece is in there. If it is, we can definitely identify an ecological risk assessment person from the Department of Environmental Protection to assist you with that.

From the Natural Heritage program, it would be Ms. Hanni Dinkeloo who is very active and works with us extremely well in articulating points and positions associated with protection of – for example – inaudible – and rare species and all that, so I think we have a great team there. I’d like to – an action item for MA DEP being reviewing – identifying the scope of the report was and finding the resource to review ecological findings.

I had my tent up for a while and I just wanted to make this comment quickly. To me it is a little troubling that we have a discrepancy regarding methodology associated with risk characterization. I am a risk assessment person by trade and basically did risk assessment for over 12 years, and I think it is extremely important that we really identify what type of modeling was chosen here, what assumptions went into that, because if we have a result that is based on a lot of over conservatism or uncertainty, I don’t think it does any service and I think I need to go back and all of us collectively look at the methodology and try to arrive at assumptions that basically are based on the reality at this particular site whether the firing happens once a year or every day of the year I think it is important to address this issue regarding the ambient air. So we have the soil piece we need to address as well as the air and I would like to make that an agenda item for the next meeting so that we can collectively look at the methods that were employed to see if we have comparison of apples to apples here.

Mr. Murphy: Joel, you were next.

Dr. Feigenbaum: I’m glad Bill asked the question of who asked the Public Health Center or whatever it is called at the base, the official request for their evaluation here. Because it should be – I think everybody knows that the public health unit there is actually funded by the air force and is not an independent creature of the state but is a specifically federally funded unit. I think that is an important fact to note.

In responding to the gentleman’s comments, I think 1500 meters is a mile almost, and we’ve got receptors both on the base and in the community that are a lot less than that. Including, as Paul said, the Forestdale School and certainly from the Greenway road range. Secondly I am not sure that each of these substances – in fact I am sure that each of these substances is evaluated separately. A cumulative impact is not discussed in this finding. The accumulation of all of the materials coming from the ranges should be addressed. Finally, I did want to ask if it would be possible to include as the numbers come out in an addendum to administrative order number four. Because at the present time that is the most comprehensive and –inaudible– listing of the findings of the studies that we have and think that these ought to get added so that people can see the whole picture.

Now, the question of a factor of ten dilution in 1500 meters – remember it’s not 1500 meters – it’s not the concentration at the barrel of the gun that were talking about, it’s some 30 feet away from the firing line. Sure a factor of ten from the barrel of the gun dilution would be expected. And we’re not even talking about distance from a point source, we’re talking about distance from a lining source. Anybody who knows anything about dispersion modeling knows that the rate at which dispersion occurs from a line source is much slower than from a point source.

Roughly speaking a point source falls off as one over a distance squared, but averaged overall with directions. But from a lined source falls off as one over distance or even less than that. So, if anybody who has – just think of a plume of groundwater. Concentrations are not appreciatively affected two miles or three miles even from the source. Or think of a plume coming from the stack of Canal Electric which most of us has an opportunity to see, you wouldn’t expect 1500 yards from that source for the concentration to fall off by a factor of ten. You wouldn’t even expect it to fall off by a factor of two.

I think that the gentlemen from the center out there is just blowing smoke – if you pardon the expression – I don’t think he has any idea whether a factor of ten is conservative or liberal or anything else. I have to tell you I have seen this before. Every time that people from the center come address any body they always say don’t worry, there is no risk. We’ve seen it over and over again from the air force side.

Mr. Murphy: Justin, you wanted to reply?

Mr. Mierz: Firstly, I just wanted to correct you. Cumulative effects are talked about in this report. Secondly, I wanted to ask you if you are familiar with the EPA Screen three dispersion model?

Dr. Feigenbaum: No.

Mr. Mierz: Okay. The way you were talking seemed like you knew and I was going to get together with you maybe after to talk about it.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, why don’t you talk about it now?

Mr. Mierz: I would rather wait for the industrial hygienist to se the presentation because I don’t think I would – I might not accurately describe the whole model.

Dr. Feigenbaum: Well, do you agree with my analogy to other kinds of plumes?

Mr. Mierz: I’d rather stick to this issue than to talk about Canal Electric plume."

Dr. Feigenbaum: What about –inaudible– you don’t want to talk about it?

Mr. Murphy: Joel, one sec, I don’t know if we’re going to be able to cover all this tonight. We still have a bunch of cards, we have to be out of here – where it’s nine now – we have to be out of here in a half hour and we have a number of things left, so there’s going to be a presentation on the next agenda. If we could leave that part of the discussion until then. We can just finish this round of cards here – you want to say something Todd?

Mr. Borci: Yes. I just want to try and wrap it up. I had EPA’s risk assessor take a look at the industrial hygienists assessment and the way these things usually work, you do a conservative screen first. That tells you if you need to take a closer look. I think everyone here would agree that we need to take a closer look. So therefore, it is an agenda item for the next meeting. I think that our risk assessor said it looked like a good conservative screen. So with that said, it looks like we need to take a look. If we can get the folks that wrote some of these reports into the room, and then we can have a more productive discussion. I think we all agree there are some issues that we need to address, not just the air data but I think the soil data that we see causes some concern among everyone including the Guard. And we are talking about it in the Technical meeting, about how to address it. We are trying to fold it into work that is ongoing. That is the quickest most efficient way to address it. So, it’s going to be a topic during this week’s tech meeting and I’m sure in more to come.

Ms. Garcia–Surette: Just quickly, who would provide that presentation, just so that the members of this table can get a heads up regarding who you believe that should be the appropriate party providing the presentation on the risk characterization.

Mr. Borci: It will be the Guard and they should have their Army Corps industrial hygienist.

Mr. Murphy: Richard and then Paul.

Mr. Hugus: First of all I just want to remind everybody we have asked for a regulatory response to the detections of contaminants of air and soil connected to these ranges. The job of EPA and MA DEP is to prevent contamination that might have an effect of public health. Also I am very surprised that the Department of Public Health would show so much energy and so quickly critique the Small Arms Range Study in response to the Joint Program Office. Now they have already done that with a written report and now they are critiquing a report that again came from the Army Corps of Engineers consultant. I just don’t understand why we get this kind of responsiveness from the Department of Public Health when we’ve been waiting for DPH for years to come up with some solid study of Upper Cape Cancer Rates and have gotten nowhere. Nothing but delay. So, I know that we have solid data here about site air concentrations which exceed screening levels but it’s up to the state to do something about that. And we have concentrations in soil of dinitrotoluene that also exceed state limits and I’m sure federal limits. These things are clear, they are not disputed and something has to be done about it.

Mr. Murphy: Justin and then Shaun

Mr. Mierz: I just want to say that you use the word ‘critique’ but I think what we’re trying to do is to understand the assumptions made in this report. It is very important for us to understand and for the IART members to understand. If we don’t understand the assumptions and as Ms. Surette said, if they are overly conservative, then that doesn’t help us at all. We need assumptions that are based on fact and we need to use the best air dispersion model for this type of situation. I am simply questioning the assumptions. That’s all. If you take it as a critique, that’s fine.

Mr. Hugus: Of course it’s a critique…

Mr. Mierz: All right…

Mr. Hugus: You’ve criticized this study, right?

Mr. Mierz: If that’s what it takes…

Mr. Hugus: As it turns out the Army Corps of Engineers has hired a consultant who is more conservative than the Department of Public Health and their assumptions. I think that is a sad state of affairs.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we’re going to have this on the agenda for next time, but Shaun, if you want to reply.

Mr. Cody: Well, two things. First of all we definitely have to get out of here. I got the ‘we have to leave now’. And also Public Health, someone asked if someone was here from Public Health and he got up and responded. So, I don’t think it is fair that you keep critiquing what opinion that you ask him. Someone asked if Public Health had a representative and he stood up and responded. So he gave his honest opinion. We are all concerned with the results. We’re asking the industrial hygienist to come down. Many of the same concerns that DPH just expressed I heard around the table today, the exact same concerns.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, we’re going to go with Jean and maybe we can wrap this up because we…"

Ms. Crocker: I’ll be very quick.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, Paul.

Mr. Zanis: All right. I’ve made this request before to have the study to pack up the request and that is it’s time to study – I want the plants studied around these ranges. I’d like to see the plants studied around the impact berms where the bullets hit, and the plants that are around the firing points. And I can have the study to back it up of what they found. So, we might as well do it here so we really know what is going on, that there is a pathway to the food chain.

Ms. Garcia-Surette: I think you articulated that.

Mr. Zanis: Yeah, I know, you sit out there in the ranges eating the grass. I’m making that request to the EPA or whoever, the Guard, so lets sample some of the plants. I have the studies so you could use even the same machinery that they used to find out what’s in the plants.

Mr. Murphy: Jean.

Ms. Crocker: Regarding page 3 of 49 in your minutes, I would request that you give attention once more to paragraph two, as you opened the meeting last time. You referenced revisions to the team, needing to replace some of the people who don’t come as well as inviting other stakeholders – mentioning you have included the Indians. That’s great and I approve of that a whole lot. My high school speech was on Indians in my region in Pembroke. However, I think I heard cultural heritage discussed tonight, and I would like to emphasize that the people of Cape Cod are in the unique historical perspective of including decisions made by the congregation of the people – not of a very few members. So, if you are going to address cultural heritage, I wish you would represent also, the broader public. And the cultural heritage is included in one aspect of the pride and Cape Cod’s contribution to National Defense and state security and that is amongst the historical society that we are living with and I would ask you to address that. Thank you.

Mr. Murphy: Thanks Jean. We’re going to move on to the fact sheet. We really have to stop here at nine thirty. So I don’t know if we want to move on to the fact sheet or if we want to get to the other issues. All right, we have to be out by nine thirty, I thought we have to be out by ten. All right, go ahead.

Mr. Borci: In the blue folder in front of everyone, there is a general groundwater study office fact sheet. If you have any comments, that is fine. That is not the fact sheet that was the focus of the topic. If we can get from you consensus that what we are going to try and do is take the June of 1999 fact sheet and take AO4 and the findings of fact and fold all the updated information that’s contained in AO4 and use that to update the format that we use for the June 99 fact sheet, if that’s the way to go then we can work on that and provide you a draft. Does that work for everyone?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, I think that’s a good idea.

Ms. Dolen: Could I?

Mr. Zanis: Yes, me too and I’d like to and I’d like to try to get the last minute information in there too because sometimes the other fact sheet came out, we had all that new information appear that we couldn’t include.

Mr. Borci: Understood.

Mr. Murphy: Yes, if we could just get Tina a moment to – she wants to sum anything up before we break…

Ms. Dolen: Yes, as Todd said, the short fact sheet is just that…people are getting a little saturated with information from MMR and I think we have a particular responsibility to reach out and really try to make contact with people who sort of glaze over when they hear of MMR. Furthermore they don’t really distinguish what our program is with respect to the rest of the base. So, the short fact sheet is a colorful sheet, it is quick, each time we put it out we can have a new topic, it’s really more looked on as a newsletter. And that’s how we’re going to use it. It will include information on everything from what it has in it – Admin Orders, rapid response, areas of concern and etcetera.

Then based on what Richard put together, and some other conversations, I put together an outline pulling from AO4 from Richard’s contents and also from the old fact sheet. That’s the outline that you can work from in making your decisions as to what you want to put in it. But understand that once you make those broader decisions as who you want to reach, how you want to reach them, what you want to put in it, then we’ll take it back and put it into an attractive form that is readable, factual and then get it back to you. You can take another look at it. Does that make sense?

Mr. Zanis: No.

Mr. Murphy: Paul and Ellie and then we’re going to have to wrap it up for the evening.

Mr. Zanis: Out here at the MMR they always take the people as being stupid. And you put out these simplified fact sheets. No, I think they need the complete information, and leave it laying around the house…

Ms. Dolen: I don’t think you heard me. There are two fact sheets. The second fact sheet is the absolute in depth complete one.

Mr. Zanis: I don’t want to simplify, I don’t think a simple fact sheet does it.

Ms. Dolen: No, no,

Mr. Zanis: You could just throw those away because there is no information in them. You don’t say anything.

Ms. Dolen: I hear what you are saying.

Ms. Grillo: I’d just like to say once we get this fact sheet out, if you have recommendations for other types of information that you would like presented, that is what I’d like to hear, so that we can work on getting the information that you want out.

Ms. Dolen: And we also want to put detailed maps, color maps, detects, photos. Illustrations, every single section that is an area of content will have those qualities within it. The history, the info, the map, the illustration, the investigations to date and then timeline and where we are going from here.

Mr. Murphy: Okay, Peter and then Paul.

Mr. Schlesinger: Tina, the map is really the thing that people are going to look at. And this is a good example of what you and Paul were talking about. If you look at the Impact Area here, you see this tiny squiggly line that is shaded so faintly that you might not be able to capture it if you were looking for it.

Ms. Dolen: Right.

Mr. Schlesinger: So, obviously you are – not you personally – but obviously somebody in the agency for whom you represent is trying not to show the information that is held in that spot and you are using a health advisory. It should be a non-detect boundary. In fact there are places on here that exist on our maps that don’t exist on your maps.

Mr. Murphy: I think that’s the JPO map.

Ms. Dolen: That’s the JPO map.

Mr. Murphy: And they’re asking for comments on that.

Mr. Schlesinger: But this is exactly the situation is – yes it is totally related to the fact sheet and presenting information.

Mr. Murphy: Okay.

Ms. Dolen: We want more detailed information and specifically related to Impact Area Groundwater area. That’s what we want.

Mr. Murphy: Obviously And I think we’re going to have to call it an evening. So thank everybody for coming. The next meeting is scheduled we need more discussion on this, we’re going to have to move the remaining items to the next meeting for Tuesday April 24. And it’s a six o’clock meeting but there’s going to be an hour open house before hand starting at five. And there will be a Community Involvement Plan, there will be a GIS demonstration and a couple of other items.

Mr. Schlesinger: It says at the top of this Archive Search Report, "Data archive input request" that somebody will be taking these sheets from us. Who do we give those to? Thank you very much.

Agenda Item #10. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy: Meeting adjourned.

Action items:

1. Mr. Hugus requested that a full copy of the Archive Search Report Interview on Depleted Uranium be provided to the Impact Area Review Team.
2. The following items will be included on the next IART agenda:

• Southeast corner of Ranges data update
• The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) will clarify soil and air effect of shooting on Small Arms Ranges