1. Greg Miller of the Environmental and Readiness Center (E&RC) will forward the Impact Area Review Team (IART) request to the Department of Defense (DoD) to address the issue of "making the Cape whole."
   
2. The Project Managers will consider the request to have a monitoring well installed downgradient of the Monument Beach wellfield, and will report back to the IART.
   
3. The Groundwater Study Program office will provide an explanation as to why monitoring wells 00-1 and 00-2, which are located downgradient of the Monument Beach wellfield, have not been tested for perchlorate.
   
4. In response to requests made by Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) adviser Dr. Dahmani, the Groundwater Study Program will:

1. provide information on the effects on particle track path lines that result from varying hydraulic conductivity in modeling,
2. provide Dr. Dahmani with J-Range plume cross-sections,
3. consider distributing presentation handouts to IART members in advance of meetings,
4. indicate whether the J-2 Range plume modeling was done using a steady-state or a transient model, and
5. have AMEC look at pumping stresses near the Schooner Pass well.

5. Mr. Cambareri recommends that the Sandwich landfill be depicted on Figure 2: "Perchlorate in Groundwater Monitoring Well SDW261160."
   
6. The IART requests an answer to questions about how much the mound shifts seasonally, in terms of distance, direction, and location.
   
7. Mr. Schlesinger asks that groundwater contours shown on maps be extended.
   
8. The IART requests that the drawing of the particle track from the Schooner Pass community drinking water well be superimposed over historic aerial photos in an effort to help determine possible sources of the Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX) detected in that well.
   
9. Mr. Schlesinger asks that consideration be given to forming a second IART group that focuses strictly on plume remediation, rather than investigation.
   
10. EPA will e-mail to IART members information on the upcoming Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) workshop on the effects of contaminants on the thyroid, to be lead by Professor Zoeller of the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology at UMASS Amherst.

Fate and Transport Presentation
Gun and Mortar Firing Positions Workplans
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

1. Information Repository Update
2. Responses to Action Items from the August 27, 2002 Impact Area Review Team Meeting
3. Presentation handout: Investigation Update (Handout A)
4. Data tables: Recent Validated and Unvalidated Detections for Groundwater (Handout A)
5. Presentation handout: Six Month Outlook (Handout A)
6. Data tables: Screening Values and Standards for Detected Compounds in Soil
7. Map: Groundwater Findings, Massachusetts Military Reservation, July 2002
8. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Update, September 2002
9. Fact sheet: Chemical Fact Sheet – RDX
10. MMR fact sheet: Environmental Matters – Perchlorate, September 2002
11. Fact sheet: Impact Area Groundwater Study Program – Overview and Update

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. and the IART members introduced themselves. He asked if there were any changes or additions to the August 27, 2002 IART meeting minutes. No comments were offered and the minutes were approved as written. Mr. Murphy then reviewed the agenda.

Mr. Murphy invited team members to make comments on any of the responses to action items from the August 27, 2002 IART meeting.

Ms. Hayes referred to the action item that read: Mr. Walsh-Rogalski requests that LTC Rogers arrange for a briefing from Pentagon officials regarding future water supply and what it means to "make the Cape whole." She then asked what is meant by the term "make the Cape whole."

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated that "to make whole" is a legal term that was used by Sherri Goodman (then Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security), who is a lawyer. He explained that in a lawsuit the term generally refers to making the plaintiff whole; that is, to putting the person who’s been injured in the place where he was before the harm occurred. He said that he believes that Ms. Goodman meant that the Cape could be "made whole" by finding adequate replacement wells to meet the same demand that existed before any contamination occurred.

Ms. Hayes asked for confirmation that the phrase was used as a legal term in this context. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski replied that the term was used by a lawyer and so he would assume that it was used in its legal sense.

Mr. Hugus noted that prior to Ms. Goodman using the term, he had heard it used by Tad McCall (Assistant Secretary of the Air Force). Mr. Hugus said that in addition to its being a legal term, he believes that Mr. McCall meant it "in the everyday sense" and so it probably carries both meanings.

Mr. Hugus also stated that the response to this action item, which he considers to be very vague and lacking in content, doesn’t indicate what DoD plans to do about the loss of the Monument Beach supply wells, or the 10 million gallons per day (mgd) that was promised, of which 3 mgd have been delivered. He said that although the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system that was put in place a couple years ago made up for the "crisis in the Monument Beach wellfield," other shortages could occur. He also noted that the Town of Sandwich is "is paying a heavy toll for the loss of water in the other towns." Mr. Hugus stated that he wants to know what the DoD intends to do about these issues.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that he would like to state for the record that "This is probably the fourth time that we’ve asked for a specific response in this question, and DoD has not provided us with any specifics as to what their plan is." Mr. Hugus observed that DoD doesn’t mind being criticized for not providing an answer, and he thinks that a mechanism for obtaining a meaningful response is needed.

Mr. Murphy suggested asking LTC Brian Rogers to come to a future IART meeting to discuss this issue. Mr. Hugus replied that he thinks that the team should be addressed by someone with authority equal to that once held by Ms. Goodman. He then questioned whether a representative of the Environmental and Readiness Center (ER&C) was at the table. He said that he believes that the E&RC was tasked to take over responsibilities previously undertaken by the former Joint Program Office (JPO).

Mr. Miller, who introduced himself as the Operations Manager for the E&RC, confirmed that the E&RC has assumed the role of the former JPO. He also noted that he’s seen the request for an answer to this question in previous IART minutes, and he then agreed to take the question back to DoD and try to determine the entity that can deliver an answer.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he echoes the sentiments expressed by Mr. Hugus on this issue.

Dr. Feigenbaum stated that the construction of the three Upper Cape Water Cooperative production wells, which was overseen by the JPO, was a good faith effort toward compensating the Upper Cape for the loss of groundwater due to a number of contaminant plumes. He noted that while those plumes still exist, more groundwater now has been lost due to contamination at the Monument Beach wellfield. Dr. Feigenbaum then stated that the water being pumped from the Upper Cape Water Cooperative system to the Bourne Water District "represents a net loss against the sum of water that DoD had agreed to pay the Upper Cape" and he believes that "DoD has to make good on that." He also said that he would advocate EPA taking legal action under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as a last resort should DoD fail to replace that lost water. Dr. Feigenbaum further noted that no DoD representatives are at the table, which he considers a loss associated with the closing of the JPO.

LTC Cunha, who described himself as an employee but not a representative of DoD, clarified that COL Bleakley of JPO had never sat at the table at IART meetings. Rather, he sat in the audience. He also noted that the E&RC does have a direct tie to the Pentagon, and does not have to go through the Guard. He said that he believes that Mr. Miller of E&RC will get a response to the "making the Cape whole" action item.

LTC Cunha also commented that despite the three or four attempts that were made to answer this action item, the team hasn’t gotten the answer that it wants. He said that he thinks it might then be a good idea to have a DoD representative come to an IART meeting and engage in some direct dialogue with the team, and then see "where we can go from there." Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that the more significant issue is not that the right answer hasn’t been provided, but that there’s been no meaningful response in terms of a concrete plan.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to Action Item #5, which was a request that the Groundwater Study Program pursue data that verify whether or not perchlorate contamination extends beyond the Monument Beach wellfield. He said that he doesn’t think that the response to this item is sufficient and asked how long it would take to make a decision on whether or not to install a downgradient monitoring well.

Mr. Gregson replied that the Groundwater Study Program’s focus all along has been to protect public health in its investigations. With respect to the perchlorate situation in Bourne, that effort has involved additional investigation at and upgradient of the Monument Beach wellfield, and testing private drinking water wells downgradient of the Monument Beach wellfield. He noted that free well sampling was offered to that community and all of the wells that were tested came back nondetect for perchlorate. Mr. Gregson also said that the Groundwater Study Program is continuing to take steps to define the extent of contamination.

Mr. Cambareri stated that Mr. Gregson’s remarks seem to be a "measured response" to a concern about the level of the public’s exposure to perchlorate contamination. He said that he thinks that hard evidence is needed to answer the question of whether perchlorate had passed through the area historically, and that evidence could only come from a monitoring well or wells located farther downgradient from the Monument Beach wellfield. Mr. Cambareri also noted that testing of private drinking water wells, which typically are screened above contamination areas, might address the question of whether those particular private wells have been affected, but it does not address the question of whether perchlorate had passed through that area – which is something that public health people will want to know.

Mr. Gregson said that he doesn’t disagree that it’s important to have a total picture of the extent of contamination at, upgradient, and downgradient of the Monument Beach wellfield. He explained that the priority right now is to look at and immediately upgradient of the wellfield, and beyond that another important consideration will be to see what, if anything, has passed by the Monument Beach wellfield.

Mr. Cambareri noted that because the Bourne Water District shut down three supply wells in the Monument Beach wellfield, it’s known that at this point public health is not being jeopardized by any potential risk. He also said, however, that he believes that the public is owed a very base level of knowledge regarding how far contamination has migrated from areas on base.

Dr. Feigenbaum asked the Project Managers to take up the question of installing a downgradient monitoring well and then provide an answer to the IART. Mr. Gregson agreed to this request and said that he would report back at the next IART meeting.

Mr. Borci noted that EPA already has asked the Guard to look at all available wells and consider installing a downgradient well, if needed. He said that EPA is still waiting for a final answer to the question of whether all existing well options have been exhausted. He also noted that he’d expected to have an answer by this meeting, and is certain that an answer will be available in the next couple of weeks.

Dr. Feigenbaum suggested that Mr. Gregson seems to be "dragging his feet" on this issue. Mr. Borci indicated that he hadn’t meant to give that impression. He then explained that EPA had asked for at least three rounds of sampling with actual monitoring well data – not just profile data – from wells that the Guard already had installed. Once those data are evaluated, the Groundwater Study Program is expected to provide an answer as to whether or not an additional well is needed.

Dr. Feigenbaum noted that contamination sometimes travels through the aquifer in pulses. Therefore, it might be inconclusive to say that there’s no perchlorate beyond the Monument Beach wellfield, even if no perchlorate is found in that area. Mr. Borci replied that there are enough data upgradient to determine whether or not such pulses would be seen. He also said that various considerations, such as seasonal variations in concentrations and/or gaps where there’s clean water in between contaminated water, are all part of the evaluation, which is not an easy process. Mr. Borci clarified that he doesn’t think the Guard is "dragging its feet," but he does expect that the Guard would be providing an answer by the next IART meeting.

Mr. Pinaud stated that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) opinion is that the full nature and extent of contamination needs to be delineated at some point in time. In terms of priority, however, he agrees with the Guard that it makes sense to first test private wells and fully investigate within the Monument Beach wellfield, and then look upgradient to see what might be coming toward the wellfield. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the full nature and extent of contamination definitely needs to be determined.

Mr. Cambareri suggested that the decision-makers at the table should "think outside the box and get out of the site-discovery phase." He said that the situation at the Monument Beach wellfield pertains to public water supply and because there are no wells downgradient, some elementary evidence is lacking. He also said that he agrees with finding and remediating the source of perchlorate in order to restore the wellfield, although there’s some question as to how that would work in conjunction with the Bourne Water District’s request to look at wellhead treatment. Mr. Cambareri then stated that determining the source wouldn’t answer the question of how long the public potentially has been exposed to perchlorate.

Ms. Grillo asked to be updated on the status of Mr. Mullenix’s request for IART membership. Mr. Murphy replied that yesterday he e-mailed to all IART members copies of individuals’ comments regarding Mr. Mullenix’s request to join the team. He also said that he hopes to have an answer about Mr. Mullenix’s membership by the next IART meeting.

Mr. Mullenix thanked everyone who responded to his request to join the team. He also said that he made an error in judgment at the last IART meeting when he was questioned about his place of work, which, at the time, he didn’t think was pertinent. He then stated that he has worked for Ocean Spray for over ten years and is proud of its environmental compliance record. Mr. Mullenix also noted that there were some comments that the team already is large enough. He said that although it is large, he believes that he could make a positive contribution. He also noted that the team currently lacks a member from the Town of Bourne, which certainly is affected by occurrences at the base.

Mr. Gregson stated that sporadic detections continue to occur in the wells within the Monument Beach wellfield. He also noted that the yellow and red dots on the map represent results from the most recent sampling event and, as a new feature, boxes were drawn around well locations that have had detections in more than three consecutive sampling rounds.

Mr. Gregson reported that since last month, there have been no first-time detections of perchlorate in any of the monitoring wells that were sampled. However, in the September 4, 2002 sampling event, perchlorate was detected in Bourne supply well #4 at a level of 0.39 ppb, which was the first perchlorate detection there since June 2002. In the August 28, 2002 sampling event, a perchlorate detection occurred in Bourne supply well #6, which was the first detection in that well since March 2002. Mr. Gregson noted that even though supply wells #3 #4, and #6 have been shut down, they continue to be sampled on a weekly basis in order to build historical information.

Mr. Gregson also reported that perchlorate was detected at levels ranging from 1.4 to 1.9 ppb at three intervals in profile sampling at monitoring well 233 (MW-233), which is located upgradient of proposed water supply well 4 (WS-4). He said that actual monitoring well sampling results from MW-233 are expected to be available in about seven to ten days.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to the black circle in the map’s legend and asked Mr. Gregson to explain what is meant by "existing monitoring well, no validated data" as opposed to other data that are unvalidated. Mr. Gregson replied that it’s his understanding that a solid black circle depicts a monitoring well that, for some reason, wasn’t selected to be sampled for perchlorate – possibly because the screens are in the wrong location.

Mr. Gregson then stated that an additional well is proposed to be located between MW-233 and WS-4, which the Bourne Water District is actively pursuing as a new water supply. He also noted that all samples collected from WS-4 and well 219, which is directly to the east, came back nondetect for perchlorate.

Mr. Cambareri inquired about the modeled capture zone for WS-4, and whether it extends as far as MW-233. Mr. Gregson replied that he believes that the preliminary model shows MW-233 to be right on the southern edge of the zone of contribution (ZOC) for WS-4. He also noted that the proposed well would be closer to WS-4 and would provide more information on what’s immediately upgradient of that location.

Mr. Hugus asked why wells 00-1 and 00-2, which are west of Bourne supply well #4, haven’t been tested for perchlorate. Mr. Gregson replied that he would find the answer to this question and report back to the team.

Dr. Dahmani asked whether the effect on the path line from changing hydraulic conductivity was examined when conducting particle tracking from MW-233. He said that he thinks that if this hasn’t been done, it should be. Mr. Gregson said that he would have to research the answer to this question and report back.

Mr. Gregson stated that the Groundwater Study Program is conducting a sampling program across Camp Edwards to test existing wells, using the lower 0.35-ppb detection limit. He reported that, as part of this effort, perchlorate was detected at 0.86 ppb in well SDW261160, which is an old well that was installed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) near the boundary on the Sandwich side of the base. Mr. Gregson noted that the detection was below the EPA Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) relevant standard for perchlorate, which is 1.5 ppb.

Mr. Gregson referred to the map of the area and pointed out the ZOCs for the Town of Sandwich Boiling Spring Pond wells, the Sandwich fish hatchery wells, and Upper Cape Water Cooperative production wells WS-1, WS-2, and WS-3. He also pointed out well SDW261160 and the particle track lines extending from that location. He noted that the screen in the well is relatively shallow, just below the water table, and the backward particle track only extends a few hundred feet back from that location.

Mr. Gregson stated that the Sandwich water superintendent has asked to have the well resampled, which the Guard has agreed to do. He noted that the IART would be updated on future sampling results, as they become available.

Mr. Hugus stated that a long time ago SDW261160 had an approximately 4-ppb detection of vinyl chloride, which is a likely breakdown product of trichloroethylene (TCE). He then said that the detections at this well don’t "make it look good" for WS-1.

Mr. Gregson noted that the detection and the backward particle track both are downgradient of the ZOC for WS-1, but acknowledged that the Guard also is concerned and will continue to monitor the well. He also said that he thinks that there’s a confirmed disposal site at that location.

Mr. Pinaud confirmed that the parcel where the well is located is a Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) site because of the vinyl chloride that was detected there. He said that the detections, which occurred during the 1993 to 1995 timeframe, ranged from about 2.5 to 9 ppb and averaged out over time to be about 5 ppb, which is the MCL for vinyl chloride. He also noted that the USGS installed the well as a result of some Town of Sandwich wastewater treatment beds north of that area.

Mr. Schlesinger asked whether a monitoring well system exists upgradient of WS-1, and if so, whether it is has been tested for perchlorate. Mr. Gregson replied that an upgradient chemical monitoring well system does exist, and the wells tested nondetect for perchlorate.

Mr. Pinaud stated that he believes that the correct MCL for vinyl chloride is 2 ppb, not 5 ppb as he’d said before.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about any plans to look for more contamination downgradient of well SDW261160. Mr. Gregson replied that it’s too early to say; however, another test will be run at the well in order to determine what is warranted for additional investigation.

Dr. Dahmani said that he’d like to see some evidence, based on sensitivity analysis, that the forward particle track shown on the map is accurate. He noted that the track could change dramatically, depending on various input parameters. Therefore, he thinks it’s important to do sensitivity analysis, especially for parameters that are key to the tracking – in this case, hydraulic conductivity. Mr. Gregson replied that he would talk to the modelers about Dr. Dahmani’s concerns and obtain some information on the effect of their sensitivity analysis assessment on the position of the particle track. He also observed that Dr. Dahmani is concerned primarily with variations in hydraulic conductivity. Dr. Dahmani agreed and said that he thinks that is the number one parameter that needs to be varied to see what the effect would be on the path lines.

Dr. Feigenbaum inquired about activities that occurred at the L-1 Range, which appears to him to be a possible source of the perchlorate detected at well SDW261160. Mr. Gallagher of the Groundwater Study Program office replied that the L-1 Range was a small arms range that might have been used occasionally as a helicopter landing zone. Dr. Feigenbaum questioned whether anything at the L-1 Range would have generated perchlorate, such as flares or smoke grenades. Mr. Gallagher replied that only small arms bullets were observed at that range – no flares or the like were seen.

Ms. Grillo asked whether the detection at well SDW261160 is validated or unvalidated. Mr. Gregson replied that it is validated.

Mr. Hugus asked if Mr. Pinaud could explain why perchlorate was found at this well, given that it’s located on an MCP site. Mr. Pinaud replied that there’s nothing in the file that would lead DEP to believe that perchlorate would be found there. Mr. Hugus said that since perchlorate comes from propellants, he thinks it’s likely that the contamination at that well came from the base.

Dr. Feigenbaum asked Mr. Gregson to identify the party responsible for operating WS-1. Mr. Gregson replied that at this point WS-1 is in the hands of the Upper Cape Water Cooperative.

Mr. Cambareri inquired about proposed well KP-2. Mr. Gregson replied that well KP-2 was proposed as an offset to MW-18, where there have been historic detections of RDX. Mr. Cambareri also asked whether the Upper Cape Water Cooperative’s chemical monitoring wells are incorporated into the map being shown. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn’t believe that they are. Mr. Cambareri suggested that at some point those wells should be added to the map.

Mr. Borci noted that in addition to multiple RDX detections at MW-18 over the last year, for almost four years TCE has been detected in that well at levels just below MCL. He also made a point of noting that the Upper Cape Water Cooperative’s chemical monitoring wells have larger screens than those used in the Groundwater Study Program’s monitoring wells – therefore, the data from those wells are of somewhat limited use to the program.

Mr. Schlesinger asked why well KP-2 is proposed to be located "more east than north" of MW-18, and at the edge of the fish hatchery wells’ ZOC as opposed to the center of that zone. Mr. Borci explained that KP-2 was located such that it would be within the ZOC, but also within an accessible cleared area that exists there. Also, it was located northeast of MW-18 in order to be able to get some "different timeframe data." Mr. Schlesinger asked if it’s correct that MW-18 would be downgradient of KP-2. Mr. Borci replied that it would be a little to the side, but downgradient.

Dr. Stahl asked when well SDW261160 is scheduled to be resampled. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn’t know for certain, but he thinks that "soon" would be a good answer.

Mr. Hugus asked whether it’s correct that a contaminant other than perchlorate was detected in the fish hatchery wells. Mr. Gregson replied that a contaminant related to chlorinated compounds was detected there. Mr. Hugus questioned whether the contaminant was TCE. Mr. Gregson replied that it was not TCE, but a compound such as 1,2-DCA.

Mr. Cambareri suggested that the old Sandwich landfill, which was directly upgradient of the fish hatchery wells, be shown on the map.

Mr. Gregson showed a map entitled "Southeast Ranges Perchlorate Plume Recent Detections" and reported that perchlorate recently was detected at MW-194, MW-191, and MW-227, with concentrations ranging from 0.8 to 1.8 ppb. He also reported that profile sampling results at MW-237 showed perchlorate at less than 1 ppb, and 2,6-DNT between 0.6 ppb and just over 1 ppb. He said that the profile findings at this well are considered significant because they seem to indicate that this is "an upgradient clean well" with respect to perchlorate and RDX contamination originating from the central portion of the J-3 Range. He noted that screens would be installed at that location and groundwater samples taken in order to determine whether that hypothesis holds up.

Mr. Gregson then showed a map entitled "Southeast Ranges RDX Plume Recent Detections" and reported that RDX was not detected in profile samples taken from the two L Range wells that were drilled upgradient of the two small plume areas at the base boundary. He also noted, however, that some 2,6-DNT was detected in profile sampling, but then reminded the group that these detections often aren’t repeated in groundwater samples. He also reported that High Melting Explosive (HMX) was detected at a concentration of 0.39 ppb, which is very low, given that the health advisory for HMX is 400 ppb.

Mr. Hugus referred to the perchlorate map and inquired about the higher levels within the darkest pink contour, labeled as greater than 10 ppb. Mr. Gregson replied that MW-198 had a perchlorate detection at 174 ppb. He also noted that the map is in the process of being updated to include a 100-ppb contour. Mr. Hugus commented that it’s "a pretty serious plume right north of Snake Pond" and he thinks that it’s time to start discussing ways to address it. Mr. Gregson stated that this would be part of the "Six-Month Outlook" presentation later during this meeting.

Dr. Dahmani asked whether it’s thought that there’s a lot of vertical mixing of the contamination at this site. Mr. Gregson replied that the Southeast Ranges are at the top of the mound, making for a very complicated area from a hydrogeologic standpoint. He noted that the mound changes with time – seasonally and over longer time periods – and shifts back and forth in a northwest/southeast type of pattern, which complicates flow direction. Another factor is that near the top of the mound, the particle tracks "dive deeply in a vertical sense before they start to migrate off in a horizontal." Mr. Gregson stated that generally there’s a radial flow of contaminants away from the top of the mound.

Dr. Dahmani asked if the monitoring wells in this area are multi-level wells. Mr. Gregson replied that they are. Dr. Dahmani then asked whether contamination is seen at every level. Mr. Gregson said that contamination is seen at different levels, depending on the location. He also said that the depth of contamination usually is indicative of different source areas in different positions on the mound. Dr. Dahmani questioned whether the team eventually would be provided with cross-sections in order to see the levels of contamination. Mr. Gregson noted that he does have a number of cross-sections with him this evening, and he showed cross-section E-E' for RDX.

Dr. Dahmani said that he’d like to have copies of the cross-sections so he can have a better look at them. Mr. Gregson replied that he could provide Dr. Dahmani with the most recent J-Ranges report, which contains all the cross-sections. Dr. Dahmani also asked whether it would be possible for IART members to receive presentation handouts in advance of the meeting. Mr. Gregson said that he would take this request back for discussion.

Mr. Schlesinger stated that he’s interested in knowing more about the shifting of the mound, including how much it shifts and the amount of time it takes for the shift to occur. Mr. Gregson said that he would get more information from USGS to share with the team. He also noted that the mound generally shifts from northwest to southeast, both seasonally and with longer-term climatic cycles; however, he doesn’t know about the distance that it shifts.

Mr. Schlesinger observed that the "time length" of the plume as it’s depicted is about 8 to 9 years. He then said that he’s wondering "how far could the source area move, given the fact that the mound moved." Mr. Gregson said that near the top of the mound, the flow is a more vertical component, and while the source area stays where it is, what changes is the direction in which the contaminants travel once they hit the water table. Mr. Schlesinger asked whether the 8-to-9-year length of the plume jibes with what’s known about activities that occurred on the J-3 Range or the L Range.

Mr. Borci stated that the current plume picture matches the conceptual site model. However, it’s important to keep in mind that additional data are being collected and the plume shape might change drastically, both in length and width. He said that once the actual shape of the plume has been determined, it could then be compared to the site history.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that it would be helpful if the groundwater contours shown on maps were extended out much farther. Mr. Gregson replied that this could be done. He also noted, however, that it should be kept in mind that groundwater contours are a snapshot in time based on the current condition of the mound.

Ms. Grillo asked why the perchlorate contamination and the RDX contamination are shown in two separate plan views, rather than one. Mr. Gregson explained that they’re shown separately for the purpose of clarity, because the two contaminants virtually overlay one on top of the other.

Dr. Stahl referred to the cross-section depicting perchlorate contamination, which was being shown on the screen at that time, and asked about the date of that figure. Ms. Harriz of AMEC noted that the figure was originally dated August 17, 2001, with a revision date of April 22, 2002. Dr. Stahl noted that the high-concentration perchlorate detection at MW-198 doesn’t appear on the cross-section. Mr. Gregson said that he thinks that this cross-section didn’t go through that particular well. Dr. Stahl then questioned how that high perchlorate detection might affect the contour. Mr. Gregson replied that the continuing investigation program for that entire area would assess that.

Mr. Borci added that MW-198 appears to be in the heart of the plume, and the concentrations match that concept. He also said that additional wells are being installed to ensure that the width of the plume is delineated accurately. He further noted that the first sampling result at MW-198 was 311 ppb for perchlorate, and while the drop to 178 ppb might seem like a big difference, it is consistent with what’s been seen at similar sites, such as Demolition Area I, with a seasonal variation between concentrations. Mr. Borci said that it’s hoped that data from all the proposed wells will have been gathered by mid to late fall of this year, after which the map would be revised – probably fairly significantly.

Mr. Dow asked whether the vertical scale on the RDX cross-section is the same as that for the perchlorate cross-section. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn’t know. Mr. Dow then asked whether the different shapes and lengths of the RDX contamination and the perchlorate contamination would be due to the fact that they emanate from different source areas, or whether the differences would be due to transport characteristics and the relative retardation. Mr. Gregson replied that the difference probably is due to transport characteristics, given that it’s believed that the two contaminants have virtually the same source. Mr. Dow observed that the RDX appears to be out in front of the perchlorate, although the transport of perchlorate is known to be much quicker than that of RDX. Mr. Gregson explained that while the source area might be the same, the timing of the releases probably differed. Mr. Dow asked if both contaminants backtrack to the same source area. Mr. Gregson replied that they both backtrack to the center of the J-3 Range.

Dr. Dahmani noted that when backtracking, the location of a source area could easily be off by a few hundred feet if the vertical location of the contamination is off by only a few feet. Mr. Gregson agreed and noted that in order to address this issue, particle tracks often are depicted from a particular well as two lines – one line begins from the top of the well screen, and the other begins from the bottom of the well screen. Therefore, rather than arriving at one point on the ground surface, the result is two points with a line in between as a potential source area.

Mr. Gregson then showed a map entitled "J-2 Range Recent Detections." He noted that last month he reported explosives results for MW-215 and this month he has perchlorate results, which are a detection at 0.45 ppb in the deeper screen, and a detection at 1.4 ppb in the shallow screen. He also said that last month he reported profile results for MW-228, which is located downgradient of the firing point for the J-2 Range, and this month he has the groundwater results, which are HMX in two intervals, at 0.4 ppb and 1.1 ppb, and RDX in the deeper screen at 1.74 ppb. Mr. Gregson noted that these results are all below the health advisory. He further noted that particle tracking indicates that the source of these detections is somewhere in the middle of the J-2 Range – or, in the case of one of the deeper detections, back on the J-1 Range.

Mr. Borci referred to the earlier discussion about movement of the mound and said that he doesn’t think that these particular particle tracks hold a lot of weight. He said that he thinks that the twin berm area in the J-2 Range, which has very high concentrations of explosives in soil, might be the source area for both of these detections. He noted that it’s important to keep in mind that modeling is just a tool, which sometimes doesn’t work as well as one would like.

Dr. Dahmani asked whether a steady-state or a transient model is used for the mound area, and suggested that a transient model should be used. Mr. Gregson agreed to look into this matter.

Mr. Gregson showed a map entitled "Demo Area 1 Recent Detections" and noted that last month he reported the profile results for MW-231, which is located on the southern edge of what is thought to be the toe of the perchlorate plume. He pointed out the nondetect contour line and the 1.5-ppb contour line for perchlorate, and noted that groundwater sampling results at MW-231 are between 0.5 and 1.5 ppb. Mr. Gregson stated that well D1P-15 will be drilled next, and based on results there, three other wells will be drilled along a power line to the west. He said that it’s hoped that results from those wells will be nondetect.

Mr. Hugus made a point of noting that since the last IART meeting, when profile results for MW-231 were reported, all that’s been accomplished is that the laboratory has sent back groundwater results for that same well. He expressed dissatisfaction that so little progress had been made at Demolition Area 1, and described the situation as "walking up a staircase of 1000 steps – we’re never going to get to the end of it." He said that he thinks that fast action should be taken to address this plume, above all. He also asked when results for the D1P series of wells are expected.

Mr. Gregson replied that those results should be available over the next few months. He also stressed that 99% of the plume is believed to be defined, and based on that, the Groundwater Study Program is moving forward with planning the Rapid Response Actions for groundwater treatment and source area removal. He assured the team that the process has not come to a halt while delineation efforts continue; other activities are ongoing so that time is not wasted.

Dr. Stahl asked why MW-225, which is shown as a black dot on the map, wasn’t sampled. Mr. Gregson explained that this is a mistake, and MW-225 should have been depicted as a red dot to represent a perchlorate detection above 1.5 ppb.

Dr. Dahmani inquired about the difference between the profile results and monitoring well results for MW-231. Mr. Gregson replied that profile results were around 0.4/0.5 ppb, about the same as the monitoring well result for the M1 screen. He also noted that the monitoring well result for the M2 screen was a bit higher.

Dr. Feigenbaum observed that the 1.5-ppb perchlorate detection at MW-241 is right on the nondetect contour. Mr. Gregson agreed and said that while the plume shell hasn’t been updated yet, that detection will cause that contour to shift to the south. Dr. Feigenbaum suggested that it’s conceivable that the nondetect contour actually extends farther west than is currently shown, fairly close to Fredrikson Road. Mr. Gregson replied that he hopes that it would be close to, but not beyond the road.

Dr. Feigenbaum also asked when data from well D1P-15 and the additional three D1P wells are expected to be available. Mr. Gregson replied that profile results for D1P-15 should be available within the next week or so. He also noted that the environmental review of the downgradient locations should be completed in time to move the drill rig right off of D1P-15 to the next location, which will depend on the results from D1P-15.

Mr. Hugus noted that the perchlorate contamination has traveled farther than the RDX contamination in the Demolition Area 1 plume, which is an indication to him that more needs to be done about the perchlorate contamination north of Snake Pond, which probably has traveled farther than the Southeast Ranges map shows. Mr. Gregson said that based on the data, it appears that the two contaminants have traveled about the same distance in that location. He also explained that the two contaminant releases at the Southeast Ranges probably occurred at different times, while the releases at Demolition Area 1 probably occurred around the same time – and, as expected, the perchlorate is moving out faster than the RDX.

Dr. Stahl said that for several years now the Demolition Area 1 plume has been turning out to be farther south than predicted by the model. Therefore, he would recommend drilling the D1P wells in the following order: D1P-15, D1P-16, D1P-18, and then D1P-17. He also noted that it might make sense to drill a well south of MW-231, depending on results from D1P-16 and D1P-18.

Mr. Gregson showed a map entitled "Central Impact Area Recent Detections" and reported that perchlorate was detected recently in MW-222 at 0.6 ppb, in MW-179 at 1.2 ppb, and in MW-223 at 0.62 ppb. He also reported that in a new well, MW-235, profile results showed RDX detections between 15 to 17 ppb, in addition to a little bit of 2,6-DNT and some very low levels of HMX. Mr. Gregson noted that the nondetect contour and the 2-ppb contour on the map will have to be changed, and he mentioned that another greater-than-10-ppb contour also is being mapped.

Mr. Schlesinger asked what, if anything, is being done downgradient of MW-207, given the above-10-ppb detection there. Mr. Borci replied that MW-223 was installed to be downgradient of that high detection. Mr. Schlesinger asked how much greater than 10 ppb that detection was. Mr. Gregson replied that it was not much over 10 ppb. Mr. Schlesinger asked whether the contamination at that well tracks back to the rest of the plume, or to someplace closer to the surface. Mr. Gregson explained that the contamination at the Central Impact Area is made up of multiple plumes with multiple source areas. He said that what the plumes have in common is that they all go back to an approximately 500-acre potential source area, based on particle tracking from different wells.

Mr. Gregson reported that RDX was detected at a level of 0.28 ppb in a community water supply well at the Schooner Pass condominiums. He noted that the health advisory for RDX is 2 ppb, and the detection at Schooner Pass was an order of magnitude less than that. He also stated that his office immediately notified the agencies, the condominium management, and DEP Water Supply about the detection, then resampled the well, and that result was nondetect for explosives.

Mr. Gregson showed a map entitled "Northwest Corner of MMR" and pointed out the base boundary, Canal View Road, and the Schooner Pass well, which, he noted, has a relatively shallow screen. He also pointed out the two particle tracks extending from the well, as depicted on the map, and noted that there isn’t much activity in that location. He further noted that groundwater results from the 95 series of wells and the wells at the gun positions have been nondetect for RDX.

Mr. Gregson stated that the Guard has been working with DEP Water Supply, which recommended a more regular sampling plan for the Schooner Pass well. Based on DEP Water Supply and the Schooner Pass management, the sampling frequency of the well is being increased from annual to quarterly. Mr. Gregson stated that the well would continue to be monitored carefully while potential source areas are sought upgradient.

Mr. Hugus asked how many people are supplied by the Schooner Pass well. Mr. Gregson replied that he believes that about 90 people are supplied during the summer. He also noted that the management has informed the Schooner Pass association of the test results. Mr. Hugus asked if the residents think it’s acceptable to drink water from that well. Mr. Gregson replied that they do, as they’re going on the advice from DEP Water Supply, and the contaminant concentration was below the health advisory. Mr. Hugus noted that the question exists as to whether concentrations were higher in the past. Mr. Gregson replied that there are three years of data from that location and all previous events were nondetect. He also noted, however, that there’s no reason to believe that the 0.28-ppb detection was not valid. He added that increasing the monitoring frequency is expected to show whether that detection holds up or whether it was just a spurious event.

Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the Guard’s response – to increase the sampling frequency to quarterly – is inadequate, and he added, "I think that it’s immoral to even let the people on Schooner Pass be exposed to this water that’s got RDX from the base..." Mr. Gregson clarified that the Guard is implementing the response that DEP Water Supply asked it to implement. Mr. Hugus replied that he is then speaking to DEP as well. He also said that he thinks it was right that the Monument Beach wells were shut down – even though they weren’t legally required to be – and he thinks that the Schooner Pass well also should be shut down if there’s RDX in the water.

Mr. Pinaud stated that DEP Water Supply made its decision based on the health advisory. Mr. Hugus countered that he thinks that it’s not a moral decision to "knowingly let people drink a contaminant." He also noted that, as a more general point, very little is known about the entire northwest area of the base and for some time he and Mr. Cambareri have been asking for more information about this area.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that the particle track from the Schooner Pass well was superimposed over an aerial photo that’s dated 1994. He then suggested that the same particle track be superimposed over more historic aerial photos, which might provide some indication of past activities in that area. Mr. Gregson replied that he thinks that would be a good next step. Mr. Schlesinger also asked whether this area was covered by the air magnetometry survey. Mr. Gregson said that he doesn’t think that the area was covered by the survey, and added that it would be problematic to do so because of the moraine there.

Mr. Borci noted that in the lower left-hand corner of the map is shown the Former A Range, where unexploded ordnance (UXO), RDX, and other explosives are known to be in the soil. He then said that the Guard has agreed to EPA’s request for a synoptic water level round in most of the wells at the Former A Range, to be checked against the model. He also noted that air magnetometry data are available for that area.

Dr. Feigenbaum asked when the follow-up sample, which turned out to be nondetect, was taken from the Schooner Pass well. Mr. Gregson replied that it was taken about two weeks after RDX was detected, and explained that it might be a situation where the level is fluctuating around the detection limit. Dr. Feigenbaum suggested that it’s possible that the overall trend at that well is an increasing trend. Mr. Gregson stated that this wouldn’t be known until more data are collected. Dr. Feigenbaum said that it’s for that reason that he thinks the well should be tested more frequently than once a quarter.

Mr. Borci stated that EPA is requesting that the Guard conduct another sampling round within the next couple weeks or so, after which EPA will review that result and the historical data in order to make a decision in terms of monitoring frequency. He said that if there’s another detection above the reporting limit, he thinks that EPA would want to see more frequent sampling.

Mr. Cambareri noted that a supply line now runs past Schooner Pass, from the Sagamore Water District to the Bourne Water District. He said that it seems logical to him that "what was good for Monument Beach could be good for Schooner Pass too," especially given the proximity of that supply line.

Mr. Cambareri also stated that, in order to better understand the distance that contamination has traveled off base, the Guard could approach the Town of Bourne about splitting samples from Bourne landfill’s monitoring wells, which are located along a longitudinal path that goes out to County Road. Then the Guard could have those samples analyzed for explosive compounds. Mr. Gregson noted that the Guard already has split samples from the Bourne landfill wells and those samples came back nondetect for RDX. He also noted, however, that the Guard is looking into obtaining access to test a well located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recreation area located on Canal View Road, and an irrigation well located at the Upper Cape Regional Technical School. Mr. Cambareri suggested that samples from the Bourne landfill monitoring wells also should be tested for perchlorate.

Mr. Minior of the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) clarified that the project to tie the Bourne Water District into the Upper Cape Water Cooperative and develop the WS-4 site for water supply is being paid for by AFCEE in response to Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume contamination in the vicinity of Bourne wells #2 and #5, not in response to the perchlorate contamination at the Monument Beach wellfield.

Dr. Dahmani asked Mr. Gregson to have AMEC look at whether there were any major changes in pumping stresses in the area near Schooner Pass, which could affect backtracking, and also look at varying hydraulic conductivity values to see if that would have any significant impact on the path lines.

Ms. Hayes asked for confirmation that the residents of Schooner Pass were informed about the detection in the well. Mr. Gregson confirmed that the maintenance person, who is also the water superintendent, met with the condominium association regarding this issue. Ms. Hayes asked if the residents are comfortable with drinking the water from that well. Mr. Gregson replied that he hasn’t heard otherwise.

Mr. Hugus inquired about the kind of presentation that was made to the condominium association. Mr. Pinaud said that the maintenance person/water superintendent made a presentation to the condominium association, in consultation with Jeff Rose from DEP Water Supply. Mr. Hugus asked if Mr. Rose was available at the presentation to answer questions. Mr. Pinaud replied that he does not know. Mr. Hugus indicated that he feels strongly that the residents of Schooner Pass deserve "a full meeting," as they may not know anything about pollution on the base. He said that he thinks they ought to have the opportunity to be informed about the "entire issue." Mr. Hugus also said that he believes that it is up to the regulators to arrange this public meeting, which should involve the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), and which should include a full presentation to the residents of Schooner Pass.

Mr. Mullenix noted that every July Fourth, Bourne has a fireworks display involving about $25,000-worth of incendiary devices that are launched from an area that appears to be about halfway between the Upper Cape Regional Technical School and the Schooner Pass well. He said that while he doesn’t know whether there’s any correlation, he just wanted to point out that there are "an awful lot of explosives that go off, unrelated to the base, on a yearly basis in that area."

Following a short break, the action items from the first part of the meeting were reviewed.

Mr. Gregson said that he would be providing a brief overview of upcoming activities at the various sites and would like team members to provide feedback on any detailed presentations they’d like to see at future meetings, including the October meeting. He also noted that, as always, the work of the program focuses on protection of public health, prevention of offsite migration, detection of contaminants in groundwater and soil, and addressing UXO issues.

Mr. Gregson stated that four new wells are going to be installed upgradient of the wellfield in order to look at the nature and extent of contamination there. The workplan also involves about 12 contingent well locations, based on the results of the investigation. Mr. Gregson noted that the Guard has been working with the Bourne Water District to look at potential wellhead treatment technologies such as carbon, a fluidized bed reactor, and resin ion exchange technology. He said that the Guard and its consultants, DEP, and the Bourne Water District are putting together a team to look at piloting a technology. Mr. Gregson further noted that the Guard is working with the Bourne Water District at WS-4, drilling additional locations in order to determine the extent of perchlorate in that area.

Mr. Gregson reported that over the next six months 13 additional wells are going to be installed at the Southeast Ranges to help with plume delineation; work on the Munitions Survey Project (MSP), which looks at geophysical anomalies, will continue; and additional delineation workplans will be prepared as more results become available.

Mr. Gregson also noted that individuals from the Groundwater Study Program have been talking with representatives of AFCEE about the possibility of expanding the Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) plume treatment system so that it could be used to prevent further migration of the RDX and perchlorate contamination traveling toward Snake Pond from the J-3 Range. He said that it seems that this might be a workable solution; however, there would be issues to address, such as introducing RDX and perchlorate into the FS-12 treatment train, which currently treats ethylene dibromide (EDB) and fuel-related contaminants. Mr. Gregson also noted that an existing extraction well, which hasn’t yet been piped into the FS-12 system, could potentially be used.

Mr. Gregson stated that many of the upcoming activities at Demolition Area 1 will be in preparation for the Rapid Response Actions and Release Abatement Measures (RRA/RAM) to remove soil contamination at the source and start groundwater treatment. Those activities include an ecological risk assessment involving biota sampling, additional soil sampling to delineate the extent of contamination, and the development of draft RRA/RAM workplans. Mr. Gregson noted that public comment periods for the workplans would be handled as part of IART meetings. He further noted that, as he reported earlier in the meeting, additional monitoring wells are going to be drilled in order to determine the extent of contamination at the Demolition Area 1 plume.

Mr. Gregson reported that the current phase of drilling at the Central Impact Area, which was designed to assess the extent of RDX contamination, is close to completion. He said that it’s thought that about three or four more wells are needed to adequately define that extent. He also noted, however, that additional drilling needs to be done in order to define the extent of perchlorate contamination – beyond what’s been done for RDX. Mr. Gregson further noted that work will be done to complete an ecological risk characterization workplan under MCP regulations, and that MSP investigations at the Central Impact Area also will be completed.

Mr. Gregson stated that investigation work is going to be done at Demolition Area 2 to look at the extent of soil and groundwater contamination there; additional munitions survey work is going to be conducted at the Former A Range, the Former K Range, the Former U Range, and two inactive demolition sites; and some additional soil sampling is planned at the small arms ranges.

Mr. Gregson stated over the next couple of weeks a ground-penetrating radar survey is going to be initiated at the gun and mortar positions in an effort to locate buried propellant bags there. In addition, some further MSP work is planned at the gun and mortar positions to look for buried UXO and munitions.

Mr. Hugus asked if there’s been some indication that a large number of propellant bags were buried. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn’t know that a lot of bags were buried, but an interviewee did say that burying of propellant bags did occur, and the Guard is following up on that interview. Mr. Hugus said that he also read that another interviewee reported that hundreds of pounds of explosives were buried near a bunker at Chemical Spill 19 (CS-19). Mr. Hugus noted that his point is that he thinks that the interviews are turning out to be important.

Mr. Hugus then referred to the possibility of using the FS-12 system to treat RDX and perchlorate contamination, and asked if this means that AFCEE would take over that cleanup project. Mr. Gregson replied that the details haven’t been worked out to that level. He also noted that the FS-12 treatment plan is operated by AFCEE and completely funded by Army money. Mr. Gregson said that he would imagine that AFCEE would continue to operate the plant, but reiterated that those details haven’t even begun to be discussed. Mr. Hugus stated that he would want to ensure that "we don’t lose any of our rights under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and oversight from the Groundwater Study" in the event that the FS-12 system becomes the answer to the contamination from Camp Edwards.

Mr. Hugus also inquired about the Guard’s interest in treating Bourne’s contaminated water. Mr. Gregson stated that at the Monument Beach wellfield, only one supply well continues to operate, and perchlorate has been detected immediately upgradient of that well. The situation there is viewed as dire, and so the decision was made to move forward with taking the necessary steps to look at wellhead treatment technologies.

Mr. Hugus noted that one of the perspectives that’s repeatedly been provided at base-related meetings over the past seven years or so is that a lost water supply well should be replaced with a clean water supply, not with wellhead treatment. He said that this goes back to the question of "making the community whole" and he believes that Bourne should get back what it has lost, which is a clean water supply. Mr. Gregson noted that for the past seven years the Bourne Water District has been looking for an alternate water supply to replace wells #2 and #5, which are downgradient of the LF-1 plume. In fact, one potential site was within the Monument Beach wellfield, which of course had to be dropped when perchlorate was discovered there. Because of the difficulty it’s had in finding an alternate water supply, the Bourne Water District is seriously starting to consider wellhead treatment as a viable alternative to provide clean water to Bourne residents.

Mr. Hugus asked whether the Town of Bourne has full access to all its property on the base to look for water supply. Mr. Gregson replied that it does, and noted that WS-4 is a potential site on base that’s currently being considered. Mr. Hugus then commented that as a resident of Falmouth, where wellhead treatment was implemented at the Coonamessett well as an "emergency measure" and then became permanent, he thinks it’s important for the residents of Bourne to know that once they accept wellhead treatment, that is all they will get. He added that he thinks that Bourne residents "should be asking for more altogether, including the people at Schooner Pass."

Mr. Hugus also stated that he thinks that during the next six months cleanup should begin at Demolition Area 1, CS-19, and the Southeast Ranges, as should the makings of a plan for "chipping away at sections of the Central Impact Area plume…" He indicated that he thinks it’s important to start making "concrete plans for cleanup."

Mr. Schlesinger asked whether the FS-12 treatment system is capable of cleaning up perchlorate. Mr. Gregson replied that from a technical standpoint, the answer would be yes – for a certain period of time. However, carbon is not completely effective for removing perchlorate and so something would have to be added to the system in order to deal with the perchlorate.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he agrees with the idea of developing plume cleanup plans over the next six months. He also noted that just a few moments ago, LTC Cunha suggested to him that perhaps a way to speed up the process would be for the IART to break into two groups, or create a second group, so that one deals just with plume remediation. Mr. Schlesinger said that perhaps this is something that the team ought to consider in the near term, and added that he thinks that anything that could be done to make the process more streamlined and effective would be worthwhile.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked Mr. Gregson to elaborate on Bourne Water District’s efforts to find alternate water supply. Mr. Gregson replied that he can talk about the sites of which he’s aware, which are the one in the Monument Beach wellfield that he’d mentioned, and two sites, 95-15 and 95-6, on the northwest side of the base, which Bourne was working on with AFCEE, but which were dropped because of the discovery of RDX contamination in the Central Impact Area. Mr. Aker added that long-range water supply 2 also was considered by the Bourne Water District, but was dropped because of its proximity to a wetland.

Mr. Cambareri suggested that a potential spot for water supply development might be the large undeveloped parcel outside the base and downgradient of the northwest portion of the Impact Area, near the Bourne Bridge rotary. Mr. Gregson asked whether that parcel is private land. Mr. Cambareri replied that it is. Mr. Minior added that he believes that this parcel is owned by a private developer whose proposed project was cut way back in scope by the Cape Cod Commission.

Dr. Feigenbaum noted that Jacobs Engineering, which actually runs the FS-12 treatment system for AFCEE, also has contracted to do some work for USACE. He then inquired about the nature of work that Jacobs would be doing for the USACE. Mr. Gregson explained that the USACE, which works for the Guard as its supervising contractor, has entered into a Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC) with the contractor team of Jacobs Engineering and Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC). He also said that ultimately the Guard sees the Jacobs/ECC team as being the engineers for the work being done at the Southeast Ranges.

Dr. Feigenbaum asked for reassurance that the plan is not simply to wait for the contamination from the J-3 Range to migrate farther south to the FS-12 treatment system. Mr. Gregson replied that the Guard is looking at using properly placed existing extraction wells, which might not necessarily be piped into the system, as a potential quick fix to help prevent further migration. Beyond that, however, other additions to the FS-12 system, or perhaps separate systems altogether, would be considered to deal with the heart of the contamination from the J-3 Range. Dr. Feigenbaum indicated that he feels strongly that it is time for the Guard to develop a plan for addressing the Southeast Ranges plumes and then present that plan to the IART.

Dr. Feigenbaum also asked whether it’s correct that a magnetometer is going to be used to identify buried propellant bags. Mr. Gregson clarified that it is ground-penetrating radar, which is expected to recognize the bags because of differences in the dielectric constant, that’s going to be used.

Mr. Dow asked whether the ecological risk assessments that are going to be done would involve looking at heavy metals, herbicides, and other contaminants that might be more likely than explosive compounds to affect the ecology. Mr. Gregson replied that the ecological risk assessments are being conducted under MCP regulations. He also noted that the ecological risk assessment at Demolition Area 1, which is in stage two, involves a long list of contaminants of concern, including explosives, heavy metals, propellants, pesticides, and herbicides. He added that the plan is to conduct some biota sampling to determine whether any of these contaminants of concern are present in the flora or fauna at Demolition Area 1.

Mr. Gregson reminded the team that he is welcoming suggestions for more detailed presentations on any of the "Six-Month Outlook" topics that were discussed briefly tonight.

Agenda Item #6. Open Discussion/Other Issues

Because the meeting was running late, Mr. Murphy recommended that this presentation be postponed until the next IART meeting. There were no objections to this recommendation and Mr. Miller of E&RC agreed to come back to the next meeting to make the presentation.

Ms. Hayes said that she would like information about the reliability and usefulness of testimony provided by interviewees regarding past activities on the base. Mr. Borci suggested that this topic be added to a future IART meeting agenda, but he also offered a brief response to Ms. Hayes’s inquiry. He stated that there have been at least 58 interviews, and he believes that they have been extremely valuable to the investigation and have provided a great deal of useful information. He also noted that it’s important to conduct many interviews so that information can be cross-checked and the investigation can act on the information that’s most reliable.

Ms. Hayes also inquired about the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) advisers at the IART table – whether they are paid by EPA, whether they are available to all team members, and if so, in what capacity.

Mr. Murphy noted that the meeting of the TOSC advisers and citizen IART members that took place prior to this meeting had been arranged at the last minute, and as a result of inaccuracies in the e-mail contact list, some IART members did not receive an invitation to attend. He also explained that EPA provides TOSC funding to various universities around the country, and the advisers are university employees whose primary purpose on the team is to work for the citizens, not for EPA.

DEP Communications

Mr. Pinaud announced that hardcopies of DEP letters, which have been distributed regularly to IART members, would no longer be available. He noted that instructions for signing up for the new e-mail distribution system would be included in the next DEP mailing.

Question for Mr. Mullenix

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski thanked Mr. Mullenix for his candor earlier in the evening. He then inquired as to Mr. Mullenix’s start date at Ocean Spray. Mr. Mullenix replied that he started working at Ocean Spray exactly 11 years ago today.

Mr. Cambareri announced that the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) has arranged a workshop with Professor Zoeller, director of the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neurobiology at UMASS Amherst, whose goal is to understand how the thyroid hormone affects brain development and to clearly delineate the consequences of thyroid dysfunction that occurs in development. He said that he believes that the workshop will be occurring on October 16, 2002 at a location in Cataumet, Massachusetts. He also agreed to provide exact details of the time and place of the workshop to Mr. Murphy, who would distribute that information to all the IART team members.

Mr. Murphy stated that the next IART meeting is scheduled for October 22, 2002. He also noted that the November meeting is scheduled to occur on November 26, 2002, which is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, and the December meeting is scheduled to occur on December 24, 2002, which is Christmas Eve. He then said that it’s being proposed that the November and December meetings be combined into one meeting, to take place on December 3, 2002, and asked if this sounded reasonable to the IART members.

Mr. Hugus and Dr. Feigenbaum indicated that they would prefer to continue meeting once a month. Ms. Hayes noted that she in favor of combining the meetings. Mr. Murphy said that IART members should e-mail their ideas about future meeting dates to him and an effort would be made to arrive at a solution.

Agenda Item #7. Adjourn