Impact Area Review Team

River River Drops of rain on a leaf

Impact Area Review Team
Bourne Best Western
July 22, 2003
6:00 - 9:00 p.m.

Meeting Minutes

Members: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
Hap Gonser IAGWSP 508-968-5636  
Ben Gregson IAGWSP 508-968-5821
Marty Aker AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670  
Jerrime Oliver Camp Edwards 508-968-5885
Todd Borci US EPA 617-918-1358
Bill Walsh-Rogalski US EPA    
Margery Adams US EPA 617-918-1733
Len Pinaud MA DEP 508-946-2871
Ellie Grillo MA DEP 508-946-2866
Richard Hugus IART/ABC/Falmouth 508-540-6034
Jim Stahl TOSC 781-255-5537
Amine Dahmani TOSC/UCONN 860-486-2781
Facilitator: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
Jim Murphy US EPA 617-918-1028
Attendees: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
Tina Dolen IAGWSP 508-968-5629
Pam Richardson IAGWSP 508-968-5630  
LTC Will Tyminski E&RC 508-968-5675  
LTC Brian Rogers DA/NGB 703-697-2501  
Jane Dolan US EPA 617-918-1272
Kevin Hood TOSC/UCONN 860-486-2546  
Millie Garcia-Surette MA DEP 508-946-2727  
Justin Mierz MDPH 617-624-5757
Michael Butler   508-564-6972  
David Dow Sierra Club 508-540-7142  
Ralph Vaccaro West Falmouth resident    
Patrick Skelly Bourne resident 508-524-3948
Jean Crocker CAC/STRONG 508-428-4283  
Kim Harriz AMEC
Jay Clausen AMEC 978-692-9090
Mark Applebee AMEC    
Joseph Robb AMEC    
Katherine Weeks AMEC
Jim Quin Ellis Environmental Group 303-963-9346
Steve Denahan Ellis Environmental Group 352-332-3888
David Cobb Envirogen    
Rob Paine ECC 508-229-2270
Pete Delano Nobis Engineering 978-683-0966  
Doug Larson GeoSyntec Consultants 978-263-9588
Rick Carr STL 781-455-0653
Kris Curley Guild 508-968-5626
Lori Boghdan CH2M HILL 508-968-5635
Jennifer Washburn CH2M HILL 508-968-5631
Jane Moran CH2M HILL 508-759-9114

Action Items:

  1. The Impact Area Review Team (IART) asks to be provided with a more detailed organizational chart, which would include regulators.
  2. Mr. Schlesinger requests that the documents obtained by Ms. Conron, and pertaining to the proposed Homeland Defense Center at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), be distributed to all IART members.
  3. Dr. Dahmani requests that zones of contribution (ZOCs) shown on Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) maps reflect the current status, i.e., transient ZOCs versus steady-state ZOCs.
  4. Mr. Gregson agreed to provide the IART with perchlorate data pertaining to well SMR-2 in the Southeast Ranges.
  5. IART members ask that a capture area for well 4036011 (Schooner Pass community supply well) be generated. Mr. Hugus requests increased sampling frequency of well 4036011. Dr. Dahmani requests information on the travel time of the particle track from well 4036011.
  6. Dr. Stahl requests that particle tracks be incorporated into Northwest Corner Investigation cross-section figures.
  7. Mr. Hugus requests that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study the freshwater/saltwater interface at monitoring well 270 (MW-270).
  8. Ms. Pepin asks to be provided with any available data pertaining to wells WS4-C, WS4-D, and WS4-E.

Future Agenda Items:

  • Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update
  • Gun and Mortar Firing Positions Update

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

  1. Request for comments on the Proposed Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources
  2. Draft document: Programmatic Agreement
  3. Responses to Action Items from the June 24, 2003 IART meeting
  4. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Organization Chart – June 2003
  5. Presentation handout: Northwest Corner Update
  6. Presentation handout: Investigation Update
  7. IAGWSP Data Tables
  8. Draft fact sheet: Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Overview & Update (and draft base-wide map)
  9. Snake Pond Public Use Update – June 2003
  10. Impact Area Groundwater Study Program Update – July 2003
  11. Press Releases, Neighborhood Notices, and Media Coverage 6/25/03 – 7/21/03

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Review Draft Agenda, Approval of June 24, 2003 IART Meeting Minutes

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m., reviewed the agenda, and asked for any comments on the June 24, 2003 IART meeting minutes. It was noted that Mr. Gonser's e-mail address was missing from the sign-in list, and that the word "leader" on page 9 of the document should be deleted and replaced with the acronym "LITR." The June 24, 2003 IART minutes were approved with these changes.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Responses to Action Items from the June 24, 2003 IART Meeting

Mr. Gregson announced that the July 23, 2003 Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting agenda would include the topic "Proposed Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources."

Ms. Grillo announced that Bob Golledge has been named as the new commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Mr. Hugus referred to Action Item #1 and said that he assumes that the Guard permitted the disposal of illegal fireworks at MMR and therefore should be responsible for that perchlorate contamination. Mr. Gregson noted that he has not seen any documents that indicate whether or not permission was given for fireworks disposal there. Mr. Minior clarified that it was the Air Force Center For Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), which, under its Superfund authority, Section 104E, questioned whether the Massachusetts state police had disposed of illegal fireworks at MMR, and the response was that they had done so. He also said that while it isn't yet known whether Range Control approved of the disposal activities, the owner of the fireworks is responsible. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that he thinks the responsibility lies with the party who arranged for the disposal. Ms. Adams said that she recalls that Range Control records included notations about the state police coming on base; therefore Range Control was aware that the state police were exploding various items.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to Action Item #2, a request for an organizational chart that outlines parties/responsibilities associated with the cleanup program. He indicated that he's dissatisfied with the chart that was provided, and he asked Mr. Gonser to name the organization for which he works. Mr. Gonser said that he is a civilian employee in charge of the IAGWSP, and works for the commander of the U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC), who works for Department of the Army (DOA) staff. He also noted that the New England District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was hired to procure and manage the IAGWSP contracts, which include work being done by the USGS, the Department of Energy (DOE), other USACE districts, and private contractors such as AMEC and ECC. Mr. Gonser further noted that the IAGWSP coordinates with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the Massachusetts National Guard, which provide logistics support, facilities, and the like. However, the chain-of-command goes from DOA to USAEC to the IAGWSP. He also said that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP are part of the IAGWSP team, but he has no direct management or control of their function.

Mr. Grillo mentioned that at tomorrow night's SMB meeting, COL De Paz, commander of the USAEC, would be making a presentation about the USAEC's overall role and its role at MMR. She also said that she doesn't think that the organization chart that was provided to the team is user friendly, and it should have included specifics about work being performed by the private contractors, the role of the regulatory agencies, and names and responsibilities. Other comments made by team members were that the chart is incomplete, that the respondent to EPA's administrative orders was "sidelined" on the chart, that the citizen IART members weren't included, and that the chart should show lines that indicate the flow of power and decision-making.

Mr. Hugus noted he's still disturbed that AMEC is under contract to conduct a feasibility study for a proposed Homeland Defense Center at MMR, while, at the same time, it's conducting environmental investigation work for the IAGWSP. Mr. Gonser stated that AMEC is a large organization with many different functions, and the IAGWSP is not involved with the Homeland Defense Center proposal, which is being handled by the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC). He also noted that the USACE is in charge of overseeing IAGWSP contractors and ensuring that their products are good and that guidelines are followed. Mr. Hugus said that in his view AMEC has lost credibility in terms of the cleanup investigation because it has taken on the Homeland Defense Center feasibility study work. Mr. Gonser said that he doesn't think that any Homeland Defense Center activities would be taking place on the training areas. He also noted, however, that he would keep Mr. Hugus's concerns in mind as the IAGWSP oversees AMEC's performance.

Ms. Conron noted that she had obtained a document that outlines the scope of work for the Homeland Defense Center feasibility study. She also said that under the Freedom of Information Act, she obtained a copy of the presentation AMEC gave when competing for this work. She said that the presentation notes that AMEC is a recognized local presence at MMR, with extensive MMR knowledge and data. Mr. Murphy said that he would see to it that copies of these documents were distributed to IART members. Mr. Pinaud said that the competing companies probably had to file conflict-of-interest statements, which could help alleviate, or perhaps might add to, these concerns.

Dr. Dahmani questioned whether some kind of environmental impact study would be required. Ms. Conron replied that the project proposal calls for the contractor to conduct an environmental assessment of the plan under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ms. Adams added that an existing consent decree in a lawsuit brought by the Conservation Law Foundation against the NGB requires environmental review for additional construction projects on the base.

Dr. Dahmani also referred to Action Item #5, and clarified that his request was for zones of contribution (ZOCs) shown on IAGWSP maps to reflect the current status, i.e., transient ZOCs rather than steady-state ZOCs.

Mr. Gregson referred to the response to Action Item #4 and noted that it was brought to his attention that perchlorate was recently detected in well SMR-2 at the Southeast Ranges. He said that he would forward the specific information on that detection to the IART members.

Agenda Item #3. Northwest Corner Update

Mr. Gregson stated that perchlorate was detected in each of the three screens set in MW-270, which showed perchlorate detections from the water table to bedrock in profile sampling. Perchlorate was detected at 0.52 ppb in the screen at the water table; at approximately 9 ppb in the middle screen, 50 feet below water table (bwt); and at 1.3 ppb in the deep screen, about 100 feet bwt. Mr. Gregson also reported that first sampling results for MW-277 yielded perchlorate detections of 0.6 ppb and 0.7 ppb in the middle screen. Results from the shallow screen, where perchlorate was detected at 6 ppb in profile sampling, are expected later this week.

Mr. Gregson also reported that profile data from MW-278 showed perchlorate in two intervals: at a 3.6 ppb, 17 feet bwt; and at 1.3 ppb, 27 feet bwt. Profile data from MW-279 showed a 5.5-ppb perchlorate detection at 31 feet bwt, and a detection of 2,4-di-amino-nitrotoluene (2,4-DANT) at 155 feet bwt. He noted that profile samples at the water table weren't collected at these two wells, but well screens have been set there. He also reported that the irrigation well (well CWNW01) at the Upper Cape Regional Technical School, where the well screen is believed to be about 50 feet bwt, was recently sampled and tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate.

Mr. Gregson stated that upcoming work includes the drilling of three new wells (NWP-5, NWP-6, and NWP-7), a synoptic water level measurement round, assessment of data from the monitoring of tidal fluctuations, biweekly or monthly monitoring of the residential wells, and soil sampling at Gun Position 19 (GP-19) and along Canal View Road.


Mr. Hugus inquired about the hypothesis that the perchlorate might have come from the fireworks area behind the Tech School. Mr. Gregson replied that while some of the new wells that show shallow contamination indicate a nearby source, at this time there isn't enough information beyond that to speculate on the source.

Ms. Pepin noted that no ZOCs are shown on the Northwest Corner map. Mr. Gregson replied that this is because that area has no public water supply wells, which would have an official ZOC.

Mr. Kinney inquired about the detection of 2,4-DANT. Mr. Gregson replied that this was a 0.26-ppb detection, thought to have been a false positive. Mr. Kinney asked whether testing for other compounds is being conducted along with testing for perchlorate. Mr. Gregson replied that routine testing includes testing for perchlorate and explosives. The investigation is focusing on the known problem, but if there were reason to believe there might be sources of other contaminants, further testing would be conducted. Mr. Kinney asked if explosive breakdown products like 2,4-DANT had been detected elsewhere in the investigation. Mr. Gregson said that they might have been detected elsewhere in profile results, but not in well screen sampling.

Mr. Borci noted that the Schooner Pass supply well, labeled 4036011, is located in the Northwest Corner investigation area. Mr. Gregson explained that a ZOC was not generated for that well because it's not a municipal well, but a community well that serves a certain small population. Mr. Pinaud added that community public water supply wells are defined by "a default radius of a half a mile…around the well." Mr. Schlesinger said that a ZOC should be generated for that well.

Mr. Schlesinger then asked to hear more about the particle tracks shown on the maps. Mr. Gregson explained that particle tracks from the water table remain at the well itself, while particle tracks from deeper locations go back various distances from the well, depending on the depth. Mr. Gonser agreed that the length of a particle track is dependent on the depth of the detection, and added that the theory is that a source area exists somewhere along the beginning and end of a particle track line. Mr. Schlesinger also inquired about the date of the aerial photograph used as a background for the mapping of well and particle track information. Mr. Gregson replied that the photograph was taken in 1997. He also noted, however, that part of the source area investigation process is to overlay older aerial photos with newer data.

Mr. Hugus noted his concern that well 4036011 is located between two wells where perchlorate has been detected. Mr. Gregson said that perchlorate has not been detected in well 4036011, perhaps because of the depth of the well screen. He also said that the well is sampled on a quarterly basis for perchlorate and explosives, and possibly more frequently for explosives. Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the well should be sampled more frequently, and that arrangements should be made to provide an alternate water supply to the residents of Schooner Pass.

Dr. Dahmani suggested that the lack of historical pumping information could mean that attempting to generate a ZOC for well 4036001 wouldn't be that that helpful. He also said, however, that information on the travel time of the particle track from the well would be useful. Mr. Gregson said that the modelers could check on that information.

Mr. Cambareri suggested dating the groundwater in that area to help determine whether what's being seen is the trailing edge of a slug of contamination. He also asked whether measurements are being done of the vertical hydraulic gradients in wells near the canal. Mr. Gregson replied that that information is being collected. He also noted that Denis LeBlanc of the USGS has said that interactions near the canal are not well understood because of a lack of data in that area. Also, there appear to some complicating factors, as evidenced by the detections from the water table to bedrock at MW-270, while detections closer toward the base appear to be consistently shallow.

Mr. Cambareri suggested that the stratigraphy of the area near the canal might affect preferential flow patterns. He also said that he thinks that a capture area—using the average pumping condition and/or the rate of pumping capacity—could be generated for well 4036011.

Mr. Gregson showed Northwest Corner investigation cross-section figures: A-A', which runs parallel to the canal; B-B', which runs along the base boundary; and C-C', D-D', E-E', and F-F', which run parallel with groundwater flow. He pointed out the various wells and detections on each figure, and said that they will continue to be updated. Dr. Stahl said that it would be helpful if the particle track lines were added to cross-sections C-C', D-D', E-E', and F-F'.

Mr. Schlesinger asked why the cross-sections are useful. Mr. Gregson replied that they provide a vertical dimension and show the depth of the detections. Mr. Borci suggested that it would be helpful if plume contour lines were added to the cross-section figures. He also noted that cross-section F-F' indicates a need to determine why perchlorate isn't being detected in well 4036011.

Mr. Pinaud informed the team that DEP's provision of bottled water to the residents at 5 Foretop Road, which began on June 27, 2003, would continue. He said that there are still some legal challenges that prevent the Army from providing an alternate water source to the residents.

Dr. Dahmani said that the 3-D visualizations of plumes that he requested would be helpful to team members. He also suggested that the top-to-bottom perchlorate detections in MW-270 could be due to sampling artifacts, or to various vertical gradients smearing the contamination. Mr. Hood said that it might have to do with leaks or fractures in the well casing.

Mr. Hugus suggested that a USGS study of the freshwater/saltwater interface at MW-270 might provide some understanding of the detections seen at that well. He also urged the regulators to listen to his concerns about well 4036011 and take action.

Mr. Cambareri inquired about the stratigraphy in the cross-section areas. Mr. Gregson said that he could look into having the modelers incorporate stratigraphy information into the figures. Mr. Cambareri also asked if recent detections at MW-270 occurred in actual well screens. Mr. Gregson replied that they had, which indicates to him that the top-to-bottom profile detections, which have never been seen in any other well in the investigation, were not an artifact of the well drilling process. Mr. Cambareri then suggested that flow lines also should be added to the cross-section figures. Mr. Gregson mentioned that the IAGWSP well right near the canal and the USGS well near the Bourne Bridge have freshwater from the water table down to bedrock, which would indicate that there's freshwater underneath the canal, rather than a lens of saltwater protruding down to bedrock, as seen at the coast.

Agenda Item #4. Investigations Update

Demolition Area 1

Mr. Gregson reported that anomaly removal at Demolition Area 1 is under way. He showed a geophysical survey map of the area and noted that all of the approximately 2,500 magnetic anomalies identified at the 7.4-acre site are going to be removed. To date 70 ordnance items have been encountered, 61 of which are small arms ammunitions. One of these will be blown in place and the remainder will be destroyed in the contained detonation chamber (CDC).

Southeast Ranges

Mr. Gregson reported that a Schonstedt survey of the J-3 Range Hillside site (a World War II era target area for firing of 60-mm, 81-mm, and 3-inch Stokes mortars from a firing point believed to be in the H Range) identified several large anomalies unevenly distributed across the site. An EM61 metal detector survey identified 21 soil-sampling locations based on the distribution of the munitions, and the results of the survey and soil sampling are pending. Four excavation areas at the site have been proposed, as has a downgradient monitoring well, J2P-33.

Mr. Gregson stated that a Schonstedt survey of the Barrage Rocket site (a World War II target area for firing of barrage rockets, which were two to three feet in length) identified a relatively even distribution of anomalies across the site. The IAGWSP has proposed soil sampling and an intrusive investigation to further characterize the site, additional field reconnaissance to determine whether the original site was bigger than first believed, and the installation of monitoring wells to check groundwater quality.

Mr. Gregson reported that additional ongoing work at the Southeast Ranges includes: unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance for well J1P-19; the installation of four piezometer wells for a synoptic water level survey; and site clearance for two wells at the L Range and two at the J-2 Range, downgradient of Disposal Area 2. Also, two additional monitoring well locations are proposed for the J-3 Range. Mr. Gregson stated that while activities associated with the workplans, field work, and remedial investigation reports that lead to the feasibility study are being undertaken, the proposed interim actions for soil removal and groundwater treatment also will be moving forward.

Bourne Area Recent Unvalidated Detections

Mr. Gregson reported that for the first time in 66 sampling events, perchlorate was detected in water supply well #1 at Bourne Water District's Monument Beach wellfield, at a concentration of 0.37 ppb. The sample was rerun at two different laboratories, and the well was sampled again on July 1, July 7, and July 14, all with nondetect results.

Mr. Gregson stated that the first sampling event at MW-267 yielded a 2.89-ppb perchlorate detection, consistent with the profile results. Two additional locations, BP-3 and WS4-PS, are being drilled currently, and there are plans to drill two contingency wells, CPB-6 and CBP-7. Another well location, BP-6, will be drilled pending results from BP-3, and soil sampling is scheduled at several upgradient gun and mortar positions.


Mr. Hugus questioned why the Army had revised the Demolition Area 1 Rapid Response Action plan "to expunge any reference to Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) requirements." Mr. Gonser said that the plan was revised to include new data and accommodate many of the regulators' comments. In response to the question of whether the plan constituted an Immediate Response Action (IRA), the Army replied that while it's recognized that the document didn't completely comply with all the procedural requirements of an IRA, the intent is to fully comply with all the substantive requirements of the state regulations. Mr. Gonser further explained that when Congress passed various environmental laws, it's intent was that only one set of procedural rules would have to be followed at a site. He said that the IAGWSP will follow the requirements of EPA's administrative orders as well as the substantive requirements of Massachusetts laws, but is looking into the applicability of some of the procedural requirements, i.e., the paperwork.

Mr. Pinaud stated that at as far as DEP is concerned, the Army is not in compliance with state regulations at this point. He noted that in recent discussions the Army raised the issue of sovereign immunity, and he asked Mr. Gonser or his attorney to explain to the team what that is.

Mr. Gonser said that it's his understanding that when passing laws, Congress can choose to waive sovereign immunity, in which case state regulations apply, or not, in which case federal regulations must be followed. With respect to National Priority List (NPL) sites, Congress indicated that sovereign immunity would not be waived. He also explained that this bigger issue surfaced when DEP issued its Notice of Responsibility (NOR). Mr. Pinaud noted that the NOR pertained to the perchlorate detection at Foretop Road. He also noted that DEP has been involved with the MMR site since 1997 and the MCP has applied since that time.

Mr. Hugus said that he'd like the military to continue to obey the most protective regulations, and so wants the MCP to be upheld in this case. He also suggested that a full briefing on this issue be added to next month's IART meeting agenda.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thought the CDC was no longer at the base. Mr. Gregson replied that the CDC is a mobile chamber that's returned to the base about every six months. Mr. Schlesinger also inquired about the location of the H Range. Mr. Gregson replied that the H Range is located on property currently held by Camp Good News, was a firing point area for targets in the J-3 Range, is being cleaned up by the USACE under the Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) program, and was part of the magnetic anomaly survey conducted by the IAGWSP. Mr. Schlesinger then asked if the question of sovereign immunity applies to the entire investigation or just a portion thereof. Mr. Gonser replied, " general, it would be for all aspects."

Ms. Pepin asked to be provided with any available data pertaining to wells WS4-C, WS4-D, and WS4-E, monitoring wells associated with the pump testing of potential water supply well site WS-4. She also inquired about wells LRWS2-3 and LRWS2-6. Mr. Gregson replied that those wells were part of an earlier effort to identify potential water supply locations on base.

Dr. Stahl asked Mr. Gregson to identify the item from Demolition Area 1 that would be blown in place. Mr. Gregson replied that the item is a 3.5-inch high-explosive anti-tank rocket, found in the western portion of the site. He also said that the anomaly removal effort has not yet reached the basin at center of the site.

Mr. Hugus asked if Bourne's water supply well #1 continues to operate. Mr. Marks of the Bourne Water District replied that well #1 was shut down when the 0.37-ppb perchlorate detection occurred, and then, following discussion among the board members, began operating again on July 3, 2003, after four nondetect sampling results. At the July 8, 2003 board meeting, the decision was made to resume operation of well #6, which had tested nondetect for at least the past 10 months. The board also established a policy that the wells would continue to run to 0.5-ppb perchlorate, which is half the advice level set by DEP. Mr. Marks further noted that to date both wells #1 and #6, which are sampled weekly, have tested nondetect for perchlorate.

Mr. Hugus said that the Bourne Water District would likely shut down those wells if an alternate supply were available, and he thinks it's the military's responsibility to provide a water supply free of any perchlorate. Mr. Marks said that Bourne has been using some Upper Cape Water Cooperative water, but anticipates that less might be available next summer if Mashpee and Sandwich also hook up to that system. He also said that the Bourne Water District looks at DEP's 1-ppb advice level as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), and once contaminant levels reach the half-way mark to an MCL, it's time to consider treating the water or shutting down the well.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks that the citizens of Massachusetts should not allow the military to extend its lease at the base if DEP is "cut out" from the cleanup program.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski explained that the "sovereign immunity" concept, which originated in British common law and meant that the King couldn't be sued, evolved in American law to mean that the federal government couldn't be sued except where explicitly stated that it would accept suit. A number of federal environmental statutes state that the federal government waives immunity from state lawsuits under certain circumstances. One of those statutes is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), in which sovereign immunity is waived regarding non-NPL sites, but in which a position is not stated regarding NPL sites. For wellhead protection areas under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), sovereign immunity is waived with respect to state requirements, and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a solid and hazardous waste management statute, sovereign immunity is waived with respect to certain state requirements.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that he and the Army lawyer have been having conversations about this issue, which have so far been productive. He also said that EPA's position is that a waiver of sovereign immunity exists with respect to 21E at MMR, and that the Army should follow the MCP and recognize the jurisdiction of the state government in this case. He added that he thinks this is in the Army's interest, the public's interest, and that there is a legal basis for it.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski further noted that under EPA Administrative Order #3, the NGB is required to comply with all state substantive requirements, but the order doesn't mention procedural requirements. He said that it's his understanding that the IAGWSP is complying with state substantive requirements because they are viewed as a federal requirement, not as a state requirement, and the program generally views itself as being immune to state requirements, not just to the paperwork aspect of those requirements. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski added, "But there's an independent federal requirement with respect to the state substantive requirement that gets read in through the Order." He also said that he thinks it would be to everyone's benefit if the MCP were recognized as binding on the cleanup and on future activities at MMR.

Mr. Cambareri referred to the Monument Beach wellfield area and asked whether a transient groundwater model has been generated that looks at the areas of contamination and evaluates how the history of pumping there could lend itself to reducing concentrations and modifying flow paths. Mr. Gregson replied that this hasn't been done, and suggested that a lack of pumping data might impede such an effort. He also noted that the data being collected on wells in the wellfield and upgradient are providing valuable information to the investigation. Mr. Cambareri said that he feels certain that the Bourne Water District would have data on the pumping history in the wellfield. He also noted that he still finds it perplexing that the particle paths in that area seem to have "skirted northward of well 1," and he has not been given an explanation for that.

Mr. Kinney said that the Bourne situation indicates an even greater need to expedite the investigations in the northern part of the base, a potential future water supply area. He also agreed that the topic of sovereign immunity should be added to the next IART meeting agenda, and added that he thinks this issue really has to do with setting cleanup levels, an important topic for the IART. Mr. Kinney further noted that he thinks DEP should take immediate measures to ensure that any base lease extensions include ironclad safeguards about MCLs and the state's requirements.

Mr. Mullenix thanked the Bourne Water District for opening well #1, where the perchlorate level detected was well below DEP's health advisory, "the lowest of any (perchlorate) standard in the nation." He said that it took a great deal of courage for the water commissioners to make this decision and not succumb to "fear-mongering" associated with perchlorate contamination.

Dr. Stahl said that with respect to the sovereign immunity issue, it seems to him that MMR is a local test bed for a national policy. He also asked what would happen if perchlorate levels in a Bourne supply well reached 0.5 ppb. Mr. Marks replied that the well would be shut down and weekly sampling would continue. He also said that at some point in the future there is going to be an official standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Dr. Stahl asked if a 0.7-ppb detection means that a well would be shut down for the foreseeable future. Mr. Marks replied that that is correct.

Agenda Item #5. Open Discussion/Other Issues

IAGWSP Fact Sheet

Ms. Curley stated that last week IART members received a preliminary draft IAGWSP fact sheet. Since that time, the draft has been revised to incorporate regulatory agency comments, and IART members are being asked to review and provide their comments on the revised draft over the next two weeks. She noted that comments could be submitted to her or to Tina Dolen by telephone or e-mail.

Ms. Grillo asked which organizations, other than the regulators, had already weighed in on the draft fact sheet. Ms. Curley replied that the document was sent to USAEC's public affairs person, Bob DeMichael. Mr. Murphy mentioned that it would be helpful if each team member shares comments with other team members.

Ms. Pepin indicated some confusion over the various draft fact sheets that had been circulated among team members. Ms. Curley clarified that two documents were sent out to the IART last week. The first document was the same fact sheet that was distributed to the team for comment last December and finalized in late-December. This document was not intended for wide public distribution because of the level of technical information it contained. The second document was a preliminary draft of a revised version of the December 2002 fact sheet. This document is less technical and is intended for a wider audience. The draft that was distributed this evening is a revised version of the preliminary draft document.

Mr. Mullenix noted that he'd read Mr. Borci's e-mailed comment that the draft fact sheet contained a significant amount of inaccurate data, and he asked Mr. Borci to identify those data. Mr. Borci replied that a comparison of the two versions of the fact sheet would reveal the "factual inaccuracies" in the earlier version.

Mr. Kinney expressed some frustration in having already spent a significant amount of time reviewing and commenting on the earlier version of the fact sheet. Ms. Curley assured him that those comments, as well as any comments on the more recent version, would be considered. Mr. Borci added that EPA had wanted the citizens to see the earlier version of the fact sheet "as is." He also assured Mr. Kinney that all of his comments would be considered. Mr. Gonser noted that the two versions contain essentially the same information. However, at Ms. Grillo's suggestion, the recent version is formatted such that soil and groundwater issues are addressed together for each site, rather than separately.

Mr. Kinney inquired about the meaning of "considering" comments. Ms. Grillo explained that the IAGWSP and the regulators would meet to review all the comments and come to agreement as to which should be incorporated into the document, which should be expanded upon, and which should not be incorporated. For those comments not incorporated into the document, an explanation would be provided. She also said that everyone wants a quality document to go out to the public.

Mr. Kinney suggested that in addition to providing input into this fact sheet, the citizen IART members, along with the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) advisers, should use government money to produce their own document for public distribution. Dr. Dahmani proposed that the TOSC representatives create a condensed monthly summary of IART meeting discussions, to be disseminated to the general public. Ms. Conron said that she thinks the first step is to finalize the fact sheet that's currently under review. She also suggested that some of the IART citizen members' names should be added to the contact list on the back of the fact sheet. Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks that the amount of time it would take for the citizens to secure funding and produce their own fact sheet would be prohibitive in terms of informing the public.

Mr. Schlesinger also noted that the draft base map, which is going to be placed in the center of the fact sheet, fails to orient the user and provide significant meaning because it doesn't depict town boundaries or names. Ms. Curley replied that the plan is to insert a location map on the front page of the document, but added that this information could also be added to the center map.

Mr. Cambareri noted that after the first mention in the fact sheet, the IAGWSP is referred to as just "the Groundwater Study Program," and he thinks the program should be consistently referred to as "the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program" throughout the entire document.

Ms. Grillo said that Mr. Kinney's willingness to work on putting together a fact sheet produced by the citizen team members underscores the fact that "something's seriously broken." She said that the citizen members should not be taking on this job for which others are being paid, and DEP will ensure that there's an analysis of "what is broken" and "why," and that a better effort is put forth to produce public information pieces on a regular basis.

Use of IART Meeting Videotapes

Mr. Hugus said that Jean Crocker took a section of the videotape from the May IART meeting to EPA Headquarters in Washington D.C. to make a point about IART proceedings. He then asked who authorized the release of that videotape. Mr. Gonser said that he isn't sure that any specific authorization was given, but added that he thinks that the videotapes are public information, and copies are routinely provided to any agency or organization that requests them. Mr. Hugus noted that it's his understanding that IART meetings are videotaped by a hired contractor for the purpose of creating accurate meeting minutes. He further noted that he wants to know who edited the videotape in question. Mr. Gonser said that he wouldn't object to discontinuing the practice of videotaping as long as the contractor could continue to produce accurate meeting minutes.

Ms. Conron asked if anyone could obtain a copy of a videotape. Mr. Gonser replied that he would have to confirm with the IAGWSP attorney, but offhand he doesn't think there would be any way to refuse such a request. Ms. Conron said that she would object to a videotape being altered in such a way that team members were misrepresented or their words were taken out of context. She also said that she doesn't oppose discontinuing the practice of videotaping IART meetings.

Mr. Minior noted that AFCEE used to videotape all of its meetings and would make a copy for anyone who wanted one. Over the past year or so, however, the decision was made to stop videotaping meetings for picture, but to continue running the video camera, with the lens cap on, in order to provide a backup recording for the person writing the meeting minutes. He also said that AFCEE retained all of its videotapes, which have "gone out to many places and many different people."

Ms. Cassidy stated that in her office she has EPA's copy of the videotape in question, which, she noted, contains a "small portion" of an SMB meeting and a "small portion" of an IART meeting, which were spliced together by the E&RC, and provided to Ms. Crocker.

Ms. Pepin stressed that she does not want her image reproduced for the general public unless she is notified.

Mr. Schlesinger suggested that Mr. Gonser could immediately pursue and provide an answer to the question of who authorized the release of the videotape, rather than wait until the next IART meeting. Mr. Gonser explained that he didn't want to take the time in the midst of an IART meeting to do so. Ms. Boghdan of CH2M HILL, the company contracted to provide IART meeting support, stated that the videotapes do serve as backup in case the audio recording should fail.

Ms. Crocker said that she took a "full tape" to EPA Headquarters, did not do any editing, and also took the IART meeting minutes with her. She noted that her purpose was to communicate to EPA Headquarters "how some of the attitudes were around the table."

Jean Crocker Statements

Ms. Crocker read a letter from EPA's Marianne Horinko, and provided a copy for the record as it appears in an attachment to these minutes. She also said that she told EPA Headquarters that DEP had clearly indicated that it had set a 1-ppb advice level for perchlorate "to go along with EPA for now, temporarily…" but had never heard or said directly that EPA was being led by DEP.

Ms. Crocker then asked Mr. Borci to confirm that EPA New England is following EPA's interim policy guidelines on perchlorate, and will use that interim range (4 to 18 ppb) when working with the military and contractors at MMR. Mr. Borci replied that EPA New England has been and will continue to follow EPA Headquarters policy. He also noted that the cleanup program is still in the investigation phase and no final remedies have yet been put forth. Ms. Grillo confirmed that the 1-ppb advice level was provided by DEP to the Bourne Water District. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski clarified that Ms. Horinko's memo stated that standards higher or lower than 4 to 18 ppb couldn't be used without checking back with EPA Headquarters. Ms. Grillo explained that the interim guideline range wouldn't come into play until the cleanup stage; during the investigation stage, however, the program is "looking where the perchlorate is at any level."

Perchlorate Studies

Mr. Borci noted that critiques of the two perchlorate studies that were discussed at a recent IART meeting could be found in the January 16, 2002 external review draft, available on the Internet at He said that extensive reviews of both of the studies are contained in Chapter 4, and Table 4-5 provides a useful reference of all the human data that were reviewed. Mr. Mullennix asked whether EPA refuted or accepted the findings of the studies. Mr. Borci said that he does not have that information.

Agenda Item #6. Adjourn

Ms. Pepin asked that IART meetings be held in locations that are handicapped accessible.

Mr. Murphy stated that the IART would meet next on August 26, 2003, at the Falmouth Holiday Inn, pending the question about accessibility to the handicapped. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:39 p.m.


To: Interested Persons
From: Jean H Crocker
Prepared for the EPA IART: Bourne Best Western: 22 July 2003
Subject: Late Breaking News: Community Communication RE Perchlorate

From: Marianne Horinko: 10 July 2003
To: Jean H Crocker & George Seaver

Thank you for your June 20 message regarding EPA New England and the MMR Impact Area. I also want to thank Mrs. Crocker for her visit on June 5th. We are preparing a memo to EPA New England outlining recommendations proposed during that meeting. I want to assure both of you that EPA New England is following our EPA Headquarters directions. There is no conflict. EPA New England is following the guidance, which I signed on January 22nd, 2003, which re-affirmed use of the provisional reference dose for Perchlorate. Our EPA Headquarters office and EPA New England coordinate very closely on the situation on the MMR.

On close review of Mr. Borci’s full comments you cited, his statements indicate to me that EPA New England has made no decision that conflicts with my guidance or any other relevant EPA regulations with regard to Perchlorate.

The Data Quality Act is also not relevant in this regard.

My office and other EPA Headquarters offices will continue to work with our regional programs in Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Department of Defense, the Army and the Air Force, and the concerned public at MMR. If you have further questions, please contact Megan Cassidy in EPA New England at 617-918-1387.

Sincerely, Marianne Lamont Horinko
Asst. Administrator EPA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C.

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