Impact Area Review Team
(Note: the above list includes those who attended the "Information Session on the Monument Beach Wellfield Investigation," which preceded the IART meeting. Some of the listed attendees might not have remained for the IART meeting.)
Future Agenda Items:
Handouts Distributed at Information Session/IART Meeting:
Agenda Item #1. Welcome
Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and the IART members introduced themselves.
Agenda Item #2. Monument Beach Wellfield Investigation
Mr. Gregson stated that at the April 16, 2002 meeting at the Peebles School in Bourne, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) came out with interim drinking water advice for perchlorate. He said that DEP recommends that pregnant women, infants, children up to the age of 12, and individuals with hypothyroidism should not consume drinking water containing perchlorate concentrations that exceed 1 part per billion (ppb). Mr. Gregson noted that DEPís Office of Research and Standards developed this interim advisory level specifically to address the perchlorate situation in Bourne.
Mr. Gregson noted that the first detection of perchlorate in the area of the Bourne wells occurred in October in MW-80, which is located on the base boundary. At that time the detection limit for perchlorate was 1.5 ppb, and the concentration there was just above that detection limit. A repeat detection at MW-80 in December led to the collection of samples from Bourneís production wells and sentinel wells, or early warning wells. In February, perchlorate was detected in three of the four sentinel wells, at levels ranging from 0.45 ppb to .74 ppb. Mr. Gregson also noted that as the study progressed over the past few months, the detection limit for perchlorate was lowered from 1.5 ppb to 0.35 ppb.
Mr. Gregson stated that Bourne Water Districtís Monument Beach wells 3 and 4 had been shut down prior to the 0.48 ppb perchlorate detection in well 4 on March 13, 2002 and the 0.5 ppb perchlorate detection in well 3 on March 2, 2002. Well 6, which had a 0.4 ppb perchlorate detection, also has been shut down. Mr. Gregson reported that all three of these wells were nondetect for perchlorate in the last two sampling rounds, on April 3, 2002 and April 10, 2002. He also noted that there have been repeat perchlorate detections in MW-80 and in two of the sentinel wells, 97-5 and 97-2. However, only MW-80 has had validated detections above 1 ppb.
Mr. Gregson noted that production well 1, which is the westernmost well, has been consistently nondetect for perchlorate through the April 10, 2002 sampling round, and results from the April 17, 2002 round are expected to be available tomorrow. Well 4 has been nondetect for perchlorate for the past four sampling rounds, and wells 3 and 6 have been nondetect for perchlorate for the past two sampling rounds.
An audience member inquired about the depth of the wells. Mr. Gregson replied that depths vary, and explained that permanent wells are set based on the results of profile samples that are collected every 10 feet from the water table down to bedrock as the wells are being drilled. Well screens are set at levels where profile sampling results showed detections, and if there are no detections, screens are set at levels in the aquifer that correspond to levels in nearby production wells. The audience member asked if the perchlorate contamination is affecting the Four Ponds conservation area. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesnít believe that it is, and noted that a spring that feeds the northern end of the ponds has tested nondetect for perchlorate.
Mr. Gregson continued by reporting that in response to the perchlorate detections in the Monument Beach wellfield, the IAGWSP has installed 26 new monitoring wells at nine locations throughout that area, and has collected over 225 groundwater samples from new and previously existing wells. He noted that profile sampling results show perchlorate detections in new wells 02-2, 02-3, 02-5, 02-8, 02-9, and 02-7. He also clarified that profile samples are groundwater samples that are collected while a well is being drilled. Profile samples are sent to a laboratory for test results on a quick turnaround time of one to two days, and permanent wells are set based on those results.
Mr. Curtis, a resident of Bourne, inquired about any possible relationship between the ZOC for WS-4 and the recent perchlorate detections. Mr. Gregson referred to the map and pointed out WS-4, north of the wellfield. He noted that WS-4 and the monitoring wells right next to it have tested nondetect for perchlorate, as has MW-81, which is south of WS-4. He also said that there are very few wells in WS-4ís ZOC, which extends from the well up toward the Impact Area boundary. However, there is a plan to install sentinel wells upgradient of WS-4, in the ZOC, with a travel time of 5 to 7 years to the well itself.
Mr. Gregson then showed a slide that summarized the various levels and detection limits for perchlorate that the IAGWSP has been using. He noted that the program has been working with a level of 1.5 ppb for perchlorate, which was recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to evaluate remedial options. He also noted that the new laboratory reporting limit, as well as DEPís drinking water advisory level, is 1 ppb. He then explained that between the laboratory reporting limit and the method detection limit lies an area of estimated values, which are known as J values. While a J value indicates that the compound has been detected, there is some uncertainty about the exact detection level because itís below the calibration standard.
Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP has been sampling Bourne Water Districtís monitoring wells, and perchlorate detections have been seen in several of those wells. In wells 01-2 and well 97-2C, perchlorate was detected at 0.36 ppb, and in well M-3, it was detected at 1.24 ppb. Also, well 00-6 had a detection at 0.56 ppb, well 00-7 had a detection at 0.54 ppb, and well 1088 had a detection at 0.39 ppb. Mr. Gregson noted that a pattern of detections appears to be developing in the center part of the wellfield.
Mr. Gregson discussed the extent of contamination by pointing out on the map the lines of clean wells to the north, south, and east. He also said that right now little is known about how far upgradient from "this point here on the base boundary" perchlorate will be found Ė whether it will extend all the way to a source area, or whether the contamination has become detached from its source. Mr. Gregson reported that a well was just drilled between MW-81 and MW-80. The next well to be drilled is 02-15, and based on the results from that well, the following wells would be 02-14 and 02-6. He noted that itís important to remember that actual well data will come after the profile data thatís currently available.
Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP is working with the Bourne Water District, meeting with representatives every Thursday to discuss results and next steps. In addition, the IAGWSP communicates with the Bourne Water District throughout the week, providing information and working toward determining next steps.
Mr. Gregson also reported that at the meeting at the Peebles School last week, COL Murphy, the Director of Environmental Programs for the National Guard Bureau (NGB), gave a brief presentation and resolved to do the following: continue the ongoing aggressive sampling and monitoring program, sample the Bourne Water Districtís distribution system and known private wells in the area, and assure the provision of resources to provide safe drinking water to the Bourne Water District and its consumers. Mr. Gregson asked that anyone who has or knows of someone who has a private well west of County Road in Bourne contact his office so that sampling can be arranged. He also noted that the Pentagon is looking at different avenues to reimburse the Bourne Water District and work with the town financially to continue to provide safe drinking water to consumers.
Ms. Pepin asked if itís correct that MW-80 was the only well with a perchlorate detection that exceeded 1 ppb. Mr. Gregson clarified that MW-80 is the only well thatís had validated repeat detections above 1 ppb. Some other wells also have had detections above 1 ppb; however, those detections havenít yet been validated. Ms. Pepin also inquired about the history of perchlorate detections at sentinel well 97-5. Mr. Gregson replied that well 97-5 has had repeat detections of perchlorate below 1 ppb, and the first perchlorate detection in that well occurred in February 2002.
Dr. Stahl inquired about the travel time between wells 02-7 and 02-8, where there are unvalidated perchlorate detections above 1 ppb, and the Bourne Water District production wells 3 and 4. Mr. Gregson replied that thereís a distance of about 500 feet between those locations, and given the two-foot-per-day travel time, he would estimate the distance in travel to be about 250 days. He also noted that those production wells are shut down and thereís no plan to pump them at this time.
Dr. Stahl then asked whether particle tracks from the profile detections would intersect the supply wells. Mr. Gregson replied that some would and some would not, and noted that this is being worked as part of the modeling effort. Dr. Stahl also asked whether there have been repeat perchlorate detections at well M-3. Mr. Gregson replied that he believes that the IAGWSP collected the first samples for perchlorate from the M series of wells that includes M-3. Dr. Stahl suggested that it would be reasonable to assume that perchlorate contamination will upwell into the spring thatís downgradient of M-3. Mr. Gregson agreed that M-3 is upgradient of the spring, and added that depending on the validated data, more well locations might be drilled in the conservation land south of the town forest.
Mr. Hugus informed the Bourne citizens in the audience that IART members were the ones who first asked the Guard to add perchlorate to the list of chemicals for which groundwater samples were analyzed. He noted that it took a long time for perchlorate testing to be implemented, but EPA did respond to this request, which was first made by the IART back in 1998.
Mr. Hugus also noted that he asked the IART facilitator to invite a representative from MDPH to this meeting to comment on past exposure of Bourne residents to perchlorate from the water supply wells. He said that he thinks it would be a miracle if perchlorate hadnít been distributed through the Bourne Water District system and he believes that itís MDPHís responsibility to inform the public about implications of such exposure and to look into health problems associated with perchlorate. Mr. Hugus also said that he would like to hear NGBís comments on how long the perchlorate had been in the supply wells.
Mr. Hugus further noted that he asked the IART facilitator to invite a spokesman from the Department of Defense (DoD) to this meeting to explain why itís considered appropriate to be asking Congress to exempt the DoD from environmental regulations, especially at a time when the people of Cape Cod "are suffering the consequences of military training." He added that heís also concerned that the Pentagon is closing down the Joint Program Office (JPO), which he believes has a great deal of clout in Washington and plenty of resources to make up for lost water supplies.
Mr. Murphy stated that LTC Brian Rogers declined an invitation to this meeting; however, itís possible that later this evening other military representatives will respond to Mr. Hugusís request to discuss the proposed DoD legislation. Mr. Murphy also noted that LTC Rogers would be discussing the proposed legislation at tomorrow nightís Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting at the Falmouth Holiday Inn. Mr. Murphy then asked Mr. Williams of MDPH to come to the microphone.
Mr. Williams, an environmental analyst with MDPH, stated that staff from his office, which is located on base, attend all the meetings, read the reports, and evaluate the data. He noted that Bourne Water District wells 3 and 4 were shut down two weeks prior to the perchlorate detections that occurred there in March and well 6 was shut down right upon the discovery of contamination there. Also, the levels of perchlorate that were measured were below the DEPís drinking water advice level of 1 ppb. Mr. Williams stated that, based on its evaluation of the available data, at this point MDPH doesnít foresee any health issues from perchlorate.
Mr. Hugus reiterated that he thinks it would be a "miracle" if perchlorate hadnít reached the Bourne wells. He also said that he believes that MDPHís responsibility is not to find reasons why the contamination hadnít reached those wells, but to look in the Town of Bourne for health indicators that would have resulted from exposure to perchlorate. He added that he thinks MDPHís job is to err on the side of caution, which, to him, means looking into these problems.
Mr. Williams assured Mr. Hugus that MDPH is working alongside the military and the regulatory agencies, and is very concerned about the situation. He also said that he thinks modeling should be done and that he is supportive of the effort to sample Bourne Water Districtís distribution system. However, based on what is known today, there isnít reason to believe that perchlorate was taken into the system to the extent that adverse health effects would be anticipated.
Mr. Hugus commented that for the past 15 years there have been "near misses" all over the Upper Cape Ė for example, "plumes that came right next to public water supplies, but miraculously missed them." He added that thereís never been any cause-and-effect proof to relate health problems with exposure to contaminated groundwater from the base, and therefore he thinks that health studies that assume exposure are important. He questioned whether it wouldnít be possible in this case for MDPH to at least look into doctor and hospital records having to do with thyroid problems. Mr. Hugus also remarked that itís a matter of common sense to many residents that the health problems on Cape Cod would be connected to the large source of contamination here.
Mr. Williams replied that he would convey these concerns to his superiors at MDPH.
Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the level of error associated with the sample concentrations. Mr. Gregson replied that he is not sure what the error bars are, but will get back to the team with a specific answer.
Mr. Schlesinger also inquired about the likely source of the 2,6-dinitrotoluene (2,6-DNT) that was detected in a profile sample from well 02-13. Mr. Gregson explained that 2,6-DNT is one of the compounds occasionally seen in profile samples that generally turn out to be the result of interference with other compounds or silts and clays in the sample. Once a permanent well is sampled, itís likely that that detection wonít be seen again. Mr. Gregson noted that results from well 02-13 would be reported at a future IART meeting.
Mr. Judge said that he thinks that the two-foot-per-day flow rate should be reexamined, given that perchlorate contamination detected in the sentinel wells reached the Bourne water supply in two to three weeks, rather than two to three years, as predicted. He also suggested that a high-ranking official from MDPH, such as Suzanne Condon or Dr. Koh, should come to the IART to discuss the perchlorate issue in Bourne. He remarked that itís not good enough to say that there are no data that indicate that thereís a problem, and therefore everythingís okay. He added that he thinks that "lack of data" reasoning no longer holds, and members of the public are insisting on data gathering to ensure a clean supply of water and to determine whether their families need to be compensated for any harm that might have occurred.
Mr. Judge again said that heíd like a high-ranking MDPH official to come to an IART meeting. He added that he thinks the IART is a more appropriate forum than the SMB, which he described as a sparsely attended meeting where "little gets accomplished in regards to these issues." He said that he thinks that MDPH should insist that the military pay for a program to collect information from area hospitals so that the damage done, or lack thereof, can be assessed.
Ms. Crocker stated that she agrees with the editors of the Cape Cod Times who wrote "perchlorate was barely on the radar screen a year ago." She also said that she thinks that the Army Guard, the Pentagon, and DoD should be commended for their quick response to the perchlorate situation in Bourne, as should the E&RC, which has worked cooperatively with the Upper Cape Water Cooperative and the Town of Bourne.
Ms. Crocker said that she has learned that perchlorate is notably absent from the University of Oxfordís studies of carcinogens; although two weeks ago there was talk about perchlorate being carcinogenic. She also said that sheís learned of "an actual decrease in thyroid" in areas where perchlorate levels in local drinking water are in the 8-to-18 ppb range. Therefore, she is asking EPAís Region I to explain why itís proposing a 1 ppb standard for perchlorate in drinking water on Cape Cod, when EPAís national recommendation is "4-to-18 ppb, with peer review recommendations at 32 ppb as a standard." Ms. Crocker said that she thinks the new standard is "an overly-reactive and out-of-control measure" that establishes "fear standards" among the residents of Cape Cod.
Mr. Borci stated that the current EPA guidance is to use a specific reference dose. The 4-to-18 ppb standard for perchlorate in drinking water is based on an equation that involves that specific reference dose, a standard adult weight, and adult consumption. However, there are now new data that support a new reference dose. The new reference dose is under review at this time and, it is hoped, might be approved by this fall at the earliest. Mr. Borci explained that for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), which has a sole source aquifer, EPA calculated a recommended standard of 1.5 ppb for perchlorate in drinking water. The 1.5 ppb number, which is based on the current reference dose, is protective of the most sensitive population Ė that is, a child exposure. Until a new reference dose is approved, EPA is recommending that the IAGWSP evaluate its treatment systems based on the 1.5 ppb number. Once a new reference dose is approved, EPA will revisit that recommendation.
Ms. Stanley, a Bourne resident, inquired about the difference between validated and unvalidated data, and the difference between profile data and "particle data." Mr. Gregson explained that the validation process is an independent check of data to ensure that the proper procedures were followed in sample collection, analysis, and the reporting process. He noted that validation can take anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks, and in most cases the levels that were detected are maintained in the validation process.
Mr. Gregson then explained that profile samples are groundwater samples that are taken from the water table down to bedrock, as a well is being drilled. Once the profile data become available, a permanent monitoring well, with set screens, is constructed and developed to remove silt and other compounds or components that could interfere with a clean representative sample of the groundwater. He noted that sample results from the permanent wells become available about three weeks after profile results. Mr. Gregson also explained that particle tracking involves running a model backwards, or reversing the groundwater flow, in order to try to determine the source of contamination.
Ms. Stanley then asked whether EPA expects that the drinking water standard for perchlorate will be lowered. Mr. Borci replied that he honestly canít say at this time; however, he does know that itís believed that the new recommended reference dose is based on a very good data set.
Ms. Hayes inquired about the status of the effort to find the source of the perchlorate. Mr. Gregson replied that there are no results to report at this point; however, the effort is ongoing and includes examining historic records and conducting geophysical surveys and field reconnaissance of the area where itís believed the source might be located. Mr. Borci added that EPA is working with the Guard to identify any and all items from which perchlorate could be originating. He reported that, as far as can be determined, under EPAís administrative order the use of all of those items currently is banned at MMR. Therefore, itís believed that there isnít a continuing source of perchlorate, and an effort is being made to confirm that.
Mr. Kinney remarked that it seems to him that throughout the history of plumes emanating from the base, there have been on-again/off-again detections of VOCs, Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), and other contaminants. And so he thinks it would be amazing if perchlorate at some level or another hadnít polluted Bourneís municipal wells in the past. Therefore, he believes that itís very important that MDPH, the local boards of health, EPA, and DEP, ensure the start of a health investigation and the delineation of perchlorate contamination on an expedited timeframe, without "nickel-and-diming us for one monitoring well here and one monitoring well there, from meeting after meeting." He said that he thinks that there isnít enough information to really know whether or not Bourneís wells have been exposed to perchlorate contamination for years, and he believes that it only makes sense, given the possible effects on human health, to err on the side of caution.
Mr. Kinney also stated that in light of the current situation in Bourne, he thinks that the DoD should reaffirm its commitment to provide clean water Ė not treated previously polluted water Ė to all the Cape Cod towns that have lost water supplies to contamination from the base. He said that this should be a long-term commitment that promises to take care of both the current and future needs of Bourne and other towns that have lost water to base pollution. He also said that he thinks there needs to be a commitment to beat the two-foot-per-day advance of the perchlorate plume before the Monument Beach wells are "definitely knocked out."
Mr. Kinney also commented that he thinks perchlorate is like ethylene dibromide (EDB) in that if it can be detected, itís too much. He said that although it might not be a carcinogen, perchlorate is dangerous to human health, and people should not have to drink it. Nor does he believe that people should have to drink water that contains a combination of various chemicals that have been treated down to MCLs, given that itís unknown what the synergistic effect might be. Mr. Kinney stated that he thinks the DoD needs to make the Cape community whole again by providing a clean supply of drinking water.
Dr. Feigenbaum asked Mr. Williams if MDPH has had conversations about drafting a protocol for a health survey of physicians that looks at possible thyroid problems, particularly in young people who reside in Bourne. Mr. Williams replied that while heís not aware of such conversations at this point, he does intend to take the concerns of the IART back to his superiors, Martha Steele and Suzanne Condon. Dr. Feigenbaum inquired about Bob Knorr of MDPH. Mr. Williams replied that Dr. Knorr is the epidemiology director of MDPHís Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment (BEHA). Dr. Feigenbaum said that he believes that an epidemiological problem exists, and Mr. Williams again assured him that he would convey the IARTís concerns.
Dr. Feigenbaum said that while heís sure that everyone fervently hopes that recent perchlorate detections in Bourneís wells, sentry wells, and far-field wells, are an indication of the first time the production wells experienced perchlorate contamination, he thinks that that would "be a really lucky break." Mr. Williams noted that perchlorate sampling at MMR only started in April 2000, at which time MW-80 tested nondetect for perchlorate, when the detection limit was 1.5 ppb. He added that the team, which includes MDPH, the military, EPA, and DEP, is reviewing every piece of available data and trying to evaluate the source and a timeline for the perchlorate contamination. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that itís not MDPHís job to find the source, and he clarified that his request is for a survey of area physicians, which could confirm that thereís no evidence of health effects on children from perchlorate.
Dr. Feigenbaum also noted that perchlorate has been detected at 17 ppb in the Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume, and that could potentially impact Bourne wells 2 and 5, which are pumping at partial rates at this time. Mr. Williams replied that MDPH is aware of the perchlorate detection in LF-1. Dr. Feigenbaum further noted that at Pew Road there was a recent detection of perchlorate at 11 ppb, which he called "another dagger of perchlorate pointed at Bourne." In addition, perchlorate was detected at 311 ppb just a few hundred yards from Snake Pond in Sandwich. He commented that perchlorate is a pervasive problem that he believes might also pose a risk of airborne exposure.
An audience member questioned whether there was anyone at the meeting who could talk about the error bars associated with the perchlorate detections. Mr. Borci stated that he has a brief report on the method, which states that at 2 ppb, the error bars would be approximately plus or minus 0.33 ppb. He added that the tentatively quantified values, or J values, could be plus or minus 0.33 ppb. The audience member asked if itís correct that the error bars would become wider as the level of perchlorate becomes lower. Mr. Borci replied that he cannot speak to that; however, he can say that EPA analysts who have reviewed some of the chromatograms and have been following the analytical methods have said that it would be appropriate to apply a plus or minus 0.33 ppb error bar to values of 2 ppb or lower, down to the detection limit of 0.35 ppb.
Ms. Bresnahan, a resident of Bourne, asked if the rate at which perchlorate would flow as it comes closer to sea level would increase because of its specific gravity, which is lower than that of saltwater. Mr. Gregson replied that the levels of perchlorate being detected are so low that they wouldnít have any significant effect on the specific gravity of a particular water sample. Therefore, there wouldnít be any differences in density that would cause the perchlorate-contaminated water to move differently relative to seawater. Ms. Bresnahan also mentioned that she has hypothyroidism and her medication was increased since last March for the first time in 10 years.
Mr. Crow, also a Bourne resident, inquired about any possible connection between previously identified plumes and the recent perchlorate detections in Bourne. Mr. Gregson replied that the recent perchlorate contamination identified in Bourne is separate from all the other plumes, including those being addressed under the IRP, and those being addressed under the IAGWSP.
Ms. Frye, who noted that she lives in Connecticut but owns a second home in Bourne, said that she only recently became aware of the perchlorate problems when she received a postcard stating that the National Guard would be holding a meeting to discuss the situation. She said that she doesnít know who sent her the postcard, but itís disturbing to her that she otherwise would have been completely unaware of the water problem in Bourne. Ms. Frye suggested that more information needs to be disseminated to individuals who own homes on the Upper Cape but do not live here full-time. Ms. Grillo recommended that Ms. Frye add her name to the mailing list binder, available on the handout table at tonightís meeting. Ms. Frye replied that she added her name to that list, but is concerned about others who are not here tonight to do the same. Mr. Gregson said that Ms. Frye has made an important point about the need to ensure that notices are mailed out to the many summer residents in the area.
Ms. Oliver, a Bourne resident, said that from the April 16, 2002 meeting at the Peebles School, it was her understanding that thyroid cancer from exposure to perchlorate was a possibility. She also inquired about the general length of time it takes for a carcinogen to cause cancer in an individual. Mr. Borci stated that for a compound suspected to be a carcinogen, EPA takes an overprotective approach and develops an MCL or health advisory thatís based on drinking it over the course of 70 years, such that an individual would have a less than one-in-a-million chance of contracting cancer.
Mr. Murphy said that he would provide Ms. Oliver with contact information for Sarah Levinson of EPA and Carol Rowan-West of DEP, both of whom were at the April 16, 2002 meeting and could answer Ms. Oliverís questions about the possibility of thyroid cancer. Dr. Feigenbaum stated that although he is not an expert, to the best of his knowledge the shortest latency period for cancer in adults is five years, for leukemia, and the longest is considered to be 20 years, for lung cancer.
Mr. Dow suggested that a more meaningful error bar could be calculated by considering not only the analytical variability, as Mr. Borci mentioned, but also by increasing the sample size and taking into consideration changes over time. Mr. Dow also said that he thinks that the water should be nondetect for perchlorate, and talking about the error bars is "talking about the noise and missing the signal."
Dr. Stahl stated that he applauds EPAís actions to set the drinking water standard for perchlorate at 1 ppb to protect children. He also said that with respect to error bars, the important question is "how much below 1 ppb is likely to be above 1 ppb." He then said that the rule of thumb for error bars is two standard deviations. And with a standard deviation of 0.33 ppb, given the detection limit of 0.35 ppb, any detection would have to be considered suspect with 1 ppb as the drinking water standard.
Dr. Stahl also said that while heís not questioning the two-foot-per-day travel time, he is concerned that there are many years of "potential plume out there" and itís not yet known how long it will take for that contamination to travel past Bourneís supply wells so they can become operational again. Dr. Stahl further noted that he agrees with Dr. Feigenbaum, Mr. Hugus, and others that just because something wasnít sampled doesnít mean that it wasnít there. He said that he wants to be sure that the request for an epidemiological study is noted as an action item from this meeting and that itís reported back to MDPH.
Mr. Cambareri expressed his frustration at the IAGWSPís failure to provide geologic cross-sections of the Monument Beach wellfield area, as he had requested at the last IART meeting. He said that he thinks that the IAGWSP isnít providing the full benefit of its investigation, and is missing an opportunity to educate the public about this complex problem. Mr. Gregson stated that some draft cross-sections have been developed, comments on them have been received, revisions are ongoing, and they will be distributed as soon as theyíre available. Mr. Cambareri replied that the draft cross-sections should have been shared at this and other meetings, as they are public information and not "information for the technical elite." He added that he hopes that they will be provided at tomorrow nightís SMB meeting.
Mr. Borci agreed with Mr. Gregson that the draft cross-sections he saw this past Thursday were not ready to be presented because they were missing information on wells. He said that he too wishes that the cross-sections were available tonight; however, missing data can be misleading in and of itself, and so itís important that all the wells are included to ensure that the information is as accurate as possible. Mr. Borci assured Mr. Cambareri that everything possible will be done to have the cross-sections available by the next IART meeting, if not before. Mr. Cambareri noted that the cross-sections would illustrate some generic information, such as the water table and bedrock, that puts everything into a hydrogeologic context, and this information must be shared.
Mr. Zanis said that he hadnít seen any copies of the base-wide plume map at this meeting, and he thinks itís important that the citizens of Bourne have the opportunity to see where their homes are in relation to plumes emanating from the base. Mr. Murphy noted that the base-wide plume map is generally available at IRP meetings, and he will note it as an action item to have copies of the map available at future IART meetings. He also said that in response to a request made earlier, another action item will be to have an update on the progress of the IAGWSPís web site. Mr. Minior stated that the IRP would be happy to provide the IART with a poster-sized version of the base-wide plume map as well as an electronic file of the map for use with the computer projector.
Ms. Dolen stated that the IAGWSPís web site has been revamped, and should be ready to go back up in about two weeks. She said that the site will include IART meeting minutes, technical data, maps, and the like, and a notice will be published in the newspaper to announce when the site will be launched.
Agenda Item #3. Status of Water Quality in the Northeast Corner of Camp Edwards
Mr. Grant showed a figure entitled "Contributing Areas Ė WS-1, WS-2, WS-3" and noted that the presentation handout includes a data table that lists detections above MCLs or health advisories in monitoring wells associated with the contributing areas for WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3, which were recently installed by the DoD. Mr. Grant pointed out that the series of monitoring wells, or sentinel wells (MW-11, MW-18, MW-54, MW-55, MW-57, MW-63, and RW-3), is located toward the northeast, as groundwater will flow into the future water supply wells in a northerly direction.
Mr. Grant then showed a figure entitled "Fish Hatchery Contributing Area" and said that his presentation will also cover the quality of groundwater thatís going into the Sandwich Fish Hatchery wells, which are off-post production wells used for the hatchery. He noted that the figure also shows the Sandwich Town Hall spring well, and the Boiling Springs wells, which provide public water supply.
Results for Wells Associated with Contributing Areas for WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3
Mr. Grant reported that with the exception of RW-3 and MW-63, all of the wells associated with the contributing areas have had a detection of at least one compound that exceeds a drinking water standard (health advisory, health guidance, or MCL). These exceedances were either for metals or for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP). There were no exceedances for other analytes, which included pesticides, herbicides, explosives, perchlorate, and VOCs. Mr. Grant also noted that no exceedances have been detected recently; in fact, in 2001 there was only one exceedance, which was BEHP in MW-55.
Mr. Grant mentioned that results for the "C" series of chemical monitoring wells, which were installed by another DoD contractor as sentinel wells for WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3, are not yet in the database and will not be discussed until a future IART meeting.
Mr. Grant then reported that the three metal compounds that were detected above drinking water standard levels are molybdenum, thallium, and sodium. The metal concentrations have decreased over time and itís believed that this is because the violent process of drilling through sandy material that contains naturally-occurring metals "stirs things up," thereby causing higher concentrations of metals in early samples. As the wells are sampled over a longer period of time, the metal concentrations tend to decrease overall. Mr. Grant also noted that the original analytical method used for two of the metals, thallium and antimony, had an "instrument noise level" that was very close to the drinking water criteria. Therefore, there were occasional thallium detections above MCL, but a lack of confidence that they actually existed. Consequently, the IAGWSP switched to a new analytical method for these metals to get a lower detection limit, although samples also continue to be analyzed using the old method as well. With the new method, there were no thallium detections in samples analyzed last year. Mr. Grant stated that the installation process and the improved analytical method explain why thereís been a decrease in metals concentrations. He also noted that there were no detections of metals above drinking water criteria for the 2001 data.
Mr. Grant then began discussing organic compounds in contributing areas to the base water supply wells, WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3. He noted that there have been consistent below-MCL perchloroethylene (PCE) detections in MW-57, which are believed to be related to a contaminant release at some point in the aquifer. He reminded the group that the contributing areas donít show the natural direction of groundwater flow, but the direction of flow with the supply wells pumping. He also reported that monitoring well J2P16 currently is being installed in an effort to determine whether the PCE concentrations observed in MW-57 "are coming from this area to the west, which would be on MMR" or from an area off post. Mr. Grant stated that the MCL for PCE is 5 ppb.
Mr. Judge asked if Mr. Grant has in mind the J. Braden Thompson plume as the potential off post area. Mr. Grant replied that he does not. He then pointed out the area, which he described as a residential development, and said that he knows of no obvious industrial or commercial development there that would create the PCE source.
Mr. Grant continued his presentation by reporting that since 1998 there have been six above-MCL BEHP detections in the monitoring wells. Repeat detections occurred in MW-55, but not in consecutive sampling rounds Ė one detection occurred there early on and the other occurred recently. Mr. Grant stated that the BEHP detections in this area, and across the site, are characterized as sporadic. There is no observable trend and the detections are not thought to be related to a plume. He also noted that itís not unusual to see BEHP detections in this type of investigation because itís a compound found in plasticizers, a material in gloves and plastic bottles for collecting samples, and in laboratory equipment for analyzing the samples. Mr. Grant stated that precautions have been taken to avoid these kinds of false positives, although they do occur occasionally.
Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the relationship between the metals detections and background concentrations for metals. Mr. Grant replied that metals do occur naturally in groundwater; however, the levels that were detected are higher than what are believed to be background levels. He explained that itís thought that the drilling process disturbs the sand, which mixes with the water thatís sampled, thereby yielding higher metals concentrations. Once the sand particles move away, samples from the well are more representative of what really occurs in water flowing through the sand. Mr. Grant noted that there would be cause for concern if the higher metals concentrations were sustained or if a trend was seen that indicated a plume of metal contamination moving through the area. However, neither is the case. Mr. Schlesinger asked if the wells have been tested repeatedly throughout the study. Mr. Grant replied that some of the wells continue to be sampled for metals, and some were sampled up to the point when concentrations seemed to have stabilized at levels below drinking water criteria.
Mr. Schlesinger then asked whether groundwater samples being analyzed using the original analytical method are yielding thallium detections. Mr. Grant replied that the original method is showing some thallium detections in the same samples being analyzed using the new method, which makes it even more convincing that the original method had a noise problem. He also noted that the new method is approved by EPA and is known to have a lower detection limit than the original method. He said that the IAGWSPís name for the original method is ILM4.0, and the new method is called 78-41.
Mr. Schlesinger then inquired whether an investigation is planned to determine the source of the PCE being detected in MW-57. Mr. Grant replied that a well is being installed to the west of MW-57; if PCE is detected in that well, the conclusion would be that the PCE is coming from the base. However, a lack of PCE there would point to an off-base source. He also said that drilling isnít planned to the east or the south of MW-57, given the natural direction of groundwater flow. Mr. Schlesinger asked if PCE has been detected elsewhere. Mr. Grant replied that to his knowledge, there havenít been other PCE detections in that area, although trichloroethylene (TCE) was detected in MW-18. Mr. Borci added that he believes that TCE was also detected recently at the end of the J-1 Range.
Mr. Schlesinger asked Mr. Grant to discuss why itís thought that the BEHP detections arenít related to a plume. Mr. Grant explained that BEHP is a problematic compound for many investigators Ė and is recognized by regulatory agencies as a problem Ė because it is used in many plasticizers. He said that if there were an observable trend associated with the BEHP detections or the levels were increasing, "we would be a lot more convinced that it was actually there." However, that is not the case, plus BEHP levels have dropped since the sampling teams and the laboratory were asked to take precautions regarding the BEHP problem. Mr. Grant also noted that while itís thought that these are the sources of the BEHP, itís not possible to be 100% sure.
Mr. Hugus explained to the Bourne residents in the audience that the type of map being shown is a zone of contribution (ZOC) map, and he noted that he supports the recommendation that the IAGWSP also provide a ZOC map of the Monument Beach wellfield area. Mr. Hugus also said that, as a matter of policy, he thinks that summaries Ė especially those pertaining to water supply well areas Ė should report on not only detections above MCL, but detections below MCL, all past detections, and detections found by other agencies, such as the TCE detection at MW-18. Mr. Grant clarified that MW-18 is in the contributing area for the fish hatchery. He also noted that the TCE detection there is not reported in the data table included in the presentation handout, as that table only includes above-MCL detections; however, tables that detail all detections are routinely provided to the IART.
Mr. Dow asked whether a potential change in reducing conditions might be the reason why thallium concentrations had decreased, as the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) previously had suggested to him. Mr. Grant said that changes over time werenít really looked at because of the lack of confidence in the original data, and because there have been zero thallium detections with the new analytical method. He also noted, however, that although the IAGWSP deals with explosives and perchlorate plumes, he would look into whether the pattern of thallium bears a resemblance to any known VOCs in the area.
Ms. Pepin said that sheís noticed that ZOCs seem to change a little bit in maps thatís sheís collected over the years. Mr. Grant agreed, and explained that several different models can be used, and it depends on how the models are run and who actually runs the model. Ms. Pepin then asked Mr. Grant to point to the location on the map where the petroleum-like material was detected. Mr. Grant pointed to the location and said that he thinks it was detected in MW-187. Ms. Pepin also inquired about the chlordane detection at MW-52, which is east of WS-3. Mr. Grant said that he doesnít have information on that well with him tonight, but will look into providing a response to Ms. Pepinís inquiry.
Mr. Judge stated that the contributing areas shown on the map are based on a pumping rate of 1 mgd per well, but the system is capable of pumping 6 to 7 mgd. He then asked what the overall pumping rate is expected to be once the Bourne Water District comes on line. Mr. Minior replied that Falmouth canít draw more than 1 mgd, the base will draw 300,000 gallons per day on average, and Bourne will be able to draw 1.7 mgd, which brings the total up to about 3 mgd. Mr. Judge inquired about the Sandwich supply being routed to the Bourne Water District via the Sagamore Water District. Mr. Minior replied that that supply will be drawn from Sandwichís existing wellfield, not from the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system. He also noted that Sandwichís connection to the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system wonít be up and running by this summer, nor is it likely to be needed this fall, when the demand will be down.
Mr. Judge stated that his point is that the ZOCs are based on a rate of 1 mgd per well, but the system is capable of greater rates, and it seems likely that the system will have to be pushed to its limit fairly quickly, given the perchlorate situation in Bourne. He also noted that the 3-mgd system is in fact just a down payment on the 10 mgd that initially was promised. Mr. Judge said that heís concerned about the potential effect that the pumping of these wells could have on the Shawme Ponds, which already flush slowly, and heís convinced that Bourneís use of the Water Cooperative system cannot be the solution to its problem. Rather, the solution must be new sources for the Bourne Water District.
Mr. Pinaud told Mr. Judge that the military has asked DEP to approve a maximum pumping rate of 1.5 mgd per well, which would be a total of 4.5 mgd, and itís correct that these higher rates would change the Zone 2 delineations that are depicted on the map shown tonight.
Ms. Bresnahan asked what Bourne and Sandwich could expect to be able to offer in terms of building over the next 5 to 10 years, especially with respect to large water industries, such as golf courses. Mr. Murphy noted that while this isnít typically the purview of the IART, Mr. Judge has offered to respond. Mr. Judge remarked that projections about build-out and water usage should be thrown out completely "when you talk about new plumes." He also said that he thinks that Cape Codís lost water supplies should be replaced as soon as possible.
Dr. Feigenbaum requested that by the next IART meeting the IAGWSP provide a map with ZOCs based on 1.5 mgd per well. Mr. Gregson replied that he would see whether this has been modeled or will look into having it modeled. Mr. Pinaud added that heís not certain whether the 4.5-mgd rate has been approved. However, if it has been, the ZOC map thatís used should be based on that rate.
Mr. Cambareri stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the water supply project indicated that with the wells pumping at 4.5 mgd there would be a 20% stream flow depletion rate in the Shawme Ponds. He also noted that although the new water supply system involves plenty of monitoring, until very recently it was thought that pumping rates would increase very gradually. However, now it appears that "theyíre gonna hit the ground running with this, and be pumping at their max rates."
Mr. Judge noted that in addition to the Shawme Ponds, he is concerned about potential adverse effects on the gristmill and the artesian well in downtown Sandwich. Therefore, he strongly believes that an aggressive monitoring plan needs to be put in place immediately. He said that the Town of Sandwich is willing to help resolve the water problems on the other side of the Cape, but its willingness to do so is limited by any adverse effects on the town.
Mr. Cambareri noted that he has always thought that some far-field wells should be installed in the northwest corner of the base to evaluate water quality conditions there and see whether contaminants that were introduced into the Impact Area are emanating and migrating in that direction.
Mr. Kinney asked that the request for the reaffirmation of DoDís commitment to provide clean drinking water for all the towns on Cape Cod be noted as an action item. Mr. Murphy said that he thinks it would make sense for Mr. Gregson to pursue a response to this request through the NGB.
Dr. Feigenbaum said that he presumes that Mr. Cambareri is recommending the installation of far-field wells in the northwest corner of the base as a step toward possibly installing production wells there. Mr. Cambareri indicated that this is correct. Dr. Feigenbaum then stated that itís clear to him that water provided by the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system canít be the permanent solution to Bourneís problems. He questioned whom the party might be to take up the issue of investigating additional sources in the northwest corner of the base. Mr. Cambareri suggested that perhaps this issue could be offered as a challenge to the new Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Dr. Feigenbaum asked whether it would be possible for EPA to issue another order under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated that EPAís current order is expandable in some respects. He also said, however, that at the last IART meeting, LTC Rogers seemed to be saying that DoDís commitment basically had been handed off to the E&RC office at MMR. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski recommended inviting E&RC and NGB representatives to speak at the next IART meeting about who is responsible, after which the IART, as a team, should determine next steps in terms of an investigation and how to proceed with the technical issues.
Ms. Grillo said that she thinks that Mr. Gregson, as the IAGWSP project manager, should raise these issues through his chain of command.
Results for Wells Associated with the Contributing Area to the Sandwich Fish Hatchery
Mr. Grant showed a figure that depicts the contributing area to the fish hatchery, and pointed out the four production wells, labeled FH-1, FH-2, FH-3, and FH-4. He noted that the ZOC extends through an off-post area that includes the Sandwich landfill, and up onto the post, where wells RW-3 and MW-18 are located. He reported that there has been a single detection of thallium at a level above drinking water criteria, and several sporadic BEHP detections at levels above drinking water criteria. Recent BEHP detections, however, have been at very low levels. Mr. Grant said that the thallium and BEHP detections are not thought to be a problem.
Mr. Grant stated that at MW-18 Ė and to a lesser extent, at LRWS 3-1 Ė there have been detections of chlorinated solvents and RDX, which are considered to be more of a problem. He noted that over the past three years repeat TCE detections at a level of 4 ppb have been seen in MW-18, and the MCL for TCE is 5 ppb. Lower level detections of TCE, between 0.8 and 2 ppb, have been seen in well LRWS 3-1. Also, RDX recently starting showing up in MW-18 at levels slightly less than 1 ppb, and the health advisory for RDX is 2 ppb.
Mr. Grant reported that particle backtrack modeling indicates that a suspected source area for the chlorinated solvents is in the vicinity of the Coast Guard antenna station and the former K Range. Recent interview information also provided anecdotal evidence of a solvent release at the antenna station.
Mr. Grant stated that the hatchery supply wells have been nondetect for explosives, perchlorate, and TCE. The low-level detection of chloroform there, which was in the 0.6 to 0.7 range, is thought to represent a naturally occurring level of chloroform. Mr. Grant also pointed out the location of an artesian well in the vicinity of FH-3. He said that this well is considered a potable supply well, as Massachusetts Division of Fishery and Wildlife (MDFW) employees at the hatchery have used or could use the well for drinking water on the site. He noted that the potable well has seen detections of chlorinated solvents 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), which are not breakdown products of TCE and donít appear to be related to the TCE detections at MW-18. Mr. Grant said that the IAGWSP is in the process of obtaining test results from fish hatchery monitoring wells that were installed for the purpose of determining whether contamination from the landfill is entering that area, and will consider whether those wells should be sampled again. He also clarified that TCA and DCA were detected in the potable well, not in the fish hatchery production wells.
Mr. Schlesinger inquired about plans to investigate the source of RDX detected in MW-18. Mr. Grant replied that at his time itís believed that the former K Range, which is very close to the Coast Guard antenna station, is the probable source of RDX. Mr. Borci added that a monitoring well, MW-170, has been installed at the northern extent of the K Range, which formerly was used as a 3.5-inch rocket range. He said that the entire area is being viewed as a potential source area. Mr. Borci also noted that as follow-up a monitoring well is going to be installed northeast of MW-18 in an effort to track the RDX contamination.
Mr. Schlesinger then asked whether thereís a concern that water levels at Doughnut Pond, which is part of the state forest and a home for wildlife, might be affected by nearby pumping. Mr. Cambareri replied that itís his understanding that flux through a pond system, such as the Shawme Ponds, is the greater concern, rather than water levels per se. He also noted, however, that Doughnut Pond will be monitored. Mr. Schlesinger questioned whether DEP would be the party responsible for monitoring the ponds once the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system begins operating. Mr. Pinaud said that he would look into an answer to this question and report back to the team.
Mr. Pinaud then asked that AFCEE speak to the issue of the Coast Guard transmitter station, which he believes is a former IRP site, as a potential source of the TCE detected at MW-18. Mr. Minior stated that two IRP sites are associated with the Coast Guard transmitter station. One is CS-1 (CG), for which a record of decision (ROD) was signed that calls for long-term groundwater monitoring in response to reports of disposal at the site. An additional report of a release in materials in that area was classified as CS-8 (CG). The investigation there found some soil contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from an old radio cabinet. That soil is going to be excavated and removed within the next few months. Mr. Minior stated that other than that, the site got a clean bill of health and no other work was required. He also noted that groundwater monitoring there will continue into the foreseeable future.
Mr. Borci added that the two most downgradient wells installed as part of AFCEEís CS-8 (CG) investigation are located on Jefferson Road. He said that although those wells tested clean for solvents, that does not preclude the possibility of a detached area of "contamination downgradient that has not yet flushed through the system."
Mr. Pinaud asked if itís been confirmed that the employees there have used the potable well at the fish hatchery for drinking water. Mr. Grant replied that he doesnít have confirmation in writing, but when he visited the site he got the impression that one or two people had used the well, but for the most part, the preference was not to use it.
Mr. Pinaud also reported that heís learned that the monitoring wells for the Sandwich landfill, which are located in the ZOC for the fish hatchery production wells, have not yielded any detections of the contaminants that Mr. Grant mentioned Ė only some typical low concentrations of iron, manganese, and chloroform. He noted that the data he reviewed were from May and November of 2000, and from November of 2001. Therefore, he thinks that at this point the landfill probably could be ruled out as a source.
Mr. Hugus said that he would be interested in a presentation about monitoring associated with the ZOC for WS-4. Mr. Gregson replied that a sampling plan is in place, which he believes includes some monitoring wells in that ZOC. He also noted that within the next few weeks, two new monitoring wells are going to be installed upgradient of WS-4. Mr. Gregson said that an update on the ZOC for WS-4 could be included on a future IART meeting agenda.
Mr. Judge expressed his concern that 1.5-mgd pumping rates at WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3 could have an adverse effect on the fish hatchery ZOC. He said that he thinks that additional sentinel wells and investigation are needed to ensure that contamination doesnít reach the fish hatchery.
Sandwich Water Supply Wells
Mr. Grant reported that the 11 Town of Sandwich supply wells are tested for explosives on a quarterly basis, and the most recent sampling round included testing for perchlorate. So far the supply wells have been nondetect for these compounds. He also noted that about a month ago the IAGWSP tested the artesian well in downtown Sandwich for the first time, and it too was nondetect for explosives and perchlorate.
Mr. Schlesinger asked how frequently the IAGWSP plans to test the artesian well. Mr. Grant replied that it hasnít been determined how often testing there will be repeated.
Ms. Pepin asked if the 11 supply wells were tested for anything other than explosives and perchlorate. Mr. Grant replied that the IAGWSP tested only for those compounds. However, under the SDWA, Sandwichís water department is required to test for other compounds, such as VOCs. Ms. Pepin asked if that would include testing for pesticides. Mr. Grant replied that he believes it would.
Ms. Pepin also asked if any gross alpha detections occurred anywhere near the ZOCs for WS-2 and WS-3. Mr. Grant pointed out on the map the wells in the J Range that were tested for gross alpha and explained that thereís been some concern about a potential radiation source there. He said that some of those wells are within the ZOCs for WS-2 and WS-3; however, no gross alpha levels above drinking water criteria have been detected there. Ms. Pepin questioned whether it would be possible "to get a list of everything that is in that zone, whether itís above or belowÖ" Mr. Grant said that it seems that Ms. Pepin is looking for a presentation on the groundwater quality in the J Ranges. He noted that this would involve a great deal of information, which probably would have to be divided up into several presentations.
Mr. Zanis asked whether all the rocket ranges are being investigated for perchlorate. Mr. Grant replied that the IAGWSP is in the process of developing and executing a perchlorate sampling plan. He said that the point is being reached where plans are being developed to look back at the source areas, which might include the rocket ranges. He added that EPA has requested that the IAGWSP look at a more site-wide perchlorate sampling plan as part of its long-term groundwater monitoring plan. This plan will look at all the wells on post and determine which of them will be analyzed for which compounds.
Mr. Zanis then asked whether smoke grenades, such as those heíd observed in the past in the Range Control area, contain perchlorate. Mr. Borci stated that some of them would have contained perchlorate, but it depends on the type of grenade. He added that there are many different types of munitions, and perhaps about half of them have perchlorate in them. Mr. Zanis said that it seems that the potential for perchlorate in the groundwater seems high. Mr. Borci replied that that possibility is being investigated.
Mr. Schlesinger asked if the "C" wells were sited based on 1-mgd rates for WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3. Mr. Pinaud agreed to look into the answer to this question and report back to the team.
Agenda Item #4. Other Issues
Proposed DoD Legislation
Mr. Hugus said that heíd like the record to show that in spite of his request for a DoD representative to come to this meeting and speak about the proposed DoD legislation, "nobody came tonight." Mr. Murphy explained that although LTC Rogers declined the invitation to come to tonightís meeting, LTC Cunha has agreed to respond to Mr. Hugusís request.
LTC Cunha stated that Mr. Murphy contacted him late this afternoon regarding Mr. Hugusís request. He then clarified that he is not a DoD spokesman, but he did gather as much information as he could to present to the IART tonight. He also noted that the proposed DoD legislation will be discussed early in the agenda at tomorrow nightís SMB meeting.
LTC Cunha then stated the DoD legislation is proposed at the national level and the current understanding is that it would not have any impact on current or future cleanup and investigations conducted at MMR. He noted that EPAís administrative orders and the work of the IAGWSP come under the SDWA, an act that is not addressed at all in the proposed legislation. This means that everything that governs the IARTís activities "is not covered or modified at all in the proposed legislation."
LTC Cunha then read two quotes. The first was, "This DoD initiative will not affect ongoing cleanup operations and programs under way at bases and facilities across the nation." The second, which quotes the Adjutant General, was "The Massachusetts Military Reservation will continue to operate within the environmental performance standards agreed to in the Memorandum of Agreement between the Mass National Guard, the Army, and the Governor of Massachusetts." LTC Cunha said that he thinks the first quote is important because it addresses the history of base cleanup activities and assures that ongoing efforts wonít be affected by the proposed legislation. Also, he thinks the second one is important because it says that adherence to the environmental performance standards that have been established will continue no matter what future legislation is proposed or passed.
LTC Cunha also said that while he understands Mr. Judgeís frustration, he disagrees with Mr. Judgeís assessment that the SMB is not a viable venue. LTC Cunha said that he believes that the SMB is a viable venue and the members of that board work just as hard as the IART members do. He also encouraged anyone who has concerns about the proposed DoD legislation to come to tomorrow nightís SMB meeting where individuals who have flown in from Washington will be speaking about this issue. He further noted that he hopes that the information he provided tonight will help alleviate some of the fears that the legislation would affect the work of the IART.
Mr. Judge noted that he is a member of the SMB, realizes both the good and the bad aspects of that board, and has concerns about the way decisions regarding SMB meeting agendas are made in the "pre-meetings." He said, "there is a major challenge with the SMBís ability to function without direct influence from outside agenciesÖ" LTC Cunha explained that his point simply is that an IART meeting is not an appropriate place to comment on the productiveness of another board. Mr. Judge noted that the comment he had made earlier about the SMB pertained to whether or not it was the most appropriate group for particular presentations.
Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that because the proposed DoD legislation deals with the impact of environmental legislation on operational ranges, it seems to him that an IART meeting would be a more appropriate venue for a briefing on the legislation Ė given that the IART deals with range issues while the SMB deals with non-range issues at MMR. He asked if LTC Cunha has any insight as to why the SMB was chosen for the presentation on the proposed legislation. LTC Cunha replied that he has no information on how that decision was made.
Mr. Walsh-Rogalski also said that he has read the proposed legislation and his interpretation is that it could potentially have a significant impact on natural resource damage claims that might be asserted, by the state in particular. LTC Cunha suggested that perhaps that is why the SMB was chosen as the venue for the presentation, although he couldnít say for sure.
Ms. Hayes reminded Mr. Murphy that she previously had asked him to address the topic of civility at IART meetings. Mr. Murphy said that after the last IART meeting, Ms. Hayes, as well as several others in attendance, told him that they perceived a great deal of discomfort at that meeting. He noted that he had disagreed, but acknowledged that different people have different opinions about what happens at the meetings. Mr. Murphy also apologized to Ms. Hayes for not having mentioned this earlier.
Pew Road Detection
Mr. Gregson stated that profile results from well D1P10, which was recently drilled south of the southernmost well on Pew Road, became available late yesterday and showed a perchlorate detection at 11 ppb. He noted that the IAGWSP is working with the regulators to identify additional well locations Ė one to the south of D1P10 and one on Frank Perkins Road Ė to define the width of contamination. Also, a field visit is being conducted tomorrow to look at other potential downgradient well locations. Mr. Gregson said that if the profile result at D1P10 is borne out in the actual monitoring well, it could increase the extent of contamination for perchlorate at the Demo Area 1 plume.
Dr. Feigenbaum said that he wants to be sure that this topic Ė including the significance of the recent perchlorate detection and plans for remediation Ė is an early and major agenda item at the next IART meeting. He noted that "the clock is ticking" and it appears that the problem of the toe of the Demo Area 1 plume is no closer to being resolved than it was two months ago, when the team was told that the remedial design process would begin in four months. Mr. Borci stated that, as heíd said at previous meetings, the approach to address this plume would be reexamined pending results from well D1P10, and the plan is to do just that, given the recent perchlorate detection.
Mr. Schlesinger said that it appears that the flow rate of groundwater is much faster than had been thought and he believes that some consideration should be given to how that might be affecting all of the tracking efforts. Mr. Gregson said that this could be discussed in detail at a future meeting. He also noted, however, that the rate of flow in groundwater doesnít change. Rather, the uncertainty has to do with the flow rate variability once it enters the water table.
Agenda Item #5. Adjourn
Mr. Murphy announced that the next IART meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at the Quashnet Valley Country Club in Mashpee. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.