Impact Area Review Team

River River Drops of rain on a leaf

Impact Area Review Team
Falmouth Holiday Inn
August 24, 2004
6:00 p.m. 9:00 p.m.

Meeting Minutes

Members: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
Hap Gonser IAGWSP 508-968-5107
Ben Gregson IAGWSP 508-968-5821
Marty Aker AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670
Todd Borci US EPA 617-918-1358
Margery Adams US EPA 617-918-1733
Len Pinaud MA DEP 508-946-2871
Mark Panni (sitting in for Ellie Grillo) MA DEP 508-946-2848
Amine Dahmani ERI/UCONN/TOSC 860-486-2781
Tom Cambareri IART/CCC 508-362-3828
Richard Hugus IART/ABC/Falmouth 508-540-6034
Richard Hugus IART/Falmouth/ABC 508-540-6034
Peter Schlesinger IART/Sandwich 508-888-0262
Michael Butler IART/Bourne 508-564-6972
Judy Conron IART/Bourne 508-759-1559
Bob Mullennix IART/Bourne 508-759-8319
Facilitator: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
Jim Murphy US EPA 617-918-1028
Attendees: Organization: Telephone: E-Mail:
John McDonagh IAGWSP 508-968-5636
Paul Nixon IAGWSP 508-968-5620
Kris Curley IAGWSP 508-968-5626
Lori Boghdan IAWGSP 508-968-5635
Bill Sullivan E&RC 508-968-5147
Mike Minior AFCEE/MMR 508-968-4670
Denis LeBlanc USGS
Bob Lim US EPA 617-918-1392
Jane Dolan US EPA 617-918-1272
Mark Begley EMC 508-968-5127
Kevin Hood UCONN/TOSC 860-486-2546
David Dow Sierra Club 508-540-7142
Matt Matlin Cape resident 508-274-8472
Pat Skelly Citizen 508-524-3948
Amanda Lehmert Cape Cod Times 508-548-9300
Carolyn Fordham Terra Tech for Ellis Env. 303-526-1991
Jennifer Washburn Portage Environmental 508-968-5629
Jane Moran Portage Environmental 508-759-9114

Action Item:

  1. Mr. Schlesinger asked for information on the origin of specific ZOC depictions shown on IAGWSP maps, particularly with respect to the Southeast Ranges area.
  2. Mr. Mullennix requested information on the total mass of contamination removed from the soil treated at the thermal treatment unit.
  3. Mr. Mullennix asked DEP to provide information on perchlorate concentrations detected in public water supplies across the state.
  4. Mr. Schlesinger recommended that magnetometry survey work be considered at gun positions in the Northwest Corner.
  5. Mr. Cambareri requested information on Central Impact Area contamination and its relationship to potential water supply recharge areas outside of the base boundary.

Future Agenda Items:

  • TOSC Presentation on GAC and Ion Exchange
  • Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update
  • Gun and Mortar Soil Management Plans

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

  1. Responses to Action Items from the July 27, 2004 IART Meeting
  2. Presentation handout: Sources of Groundwater to Supply Wells on Cape Cod
  3. Presentation handout: Remediation & Investigation Update
  4. Maps/graphics to accompany Remediation & Investigation Update
  5. Data tables
  6. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since 7/28/04 (ending 8/18/04)
  7. News Releases, Neighborhood Notices, and Media Coverage (7/28/04 8/20/04)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Approval of July 27, 2004 IART Minutes

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. and the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members introduced themselves. Mr. Murphy asked if there were any recommended changes or additions to the agenda. Mr. Schlesinger added an Open Discussion item on the quality of public outreach materials. Mr. Murphy asked if there were any changes or additions to the July 27, 2004 IART meeting minutes. No changes were offered and the minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Responses to Action Items from the 7/27/04 IART Meeting

There was no late-breaking news to report at this time. Mr. Schlesinger referred to Action Item #1 and asked if the Northwest Corner cross-section was available at this meeting. Mr. Gregson replied that the cross-section is in the Remediation & Investigation Update presentation handout.

Agenda Item #3. Zones of Contribution

Mr. LeBlanc noted that for this presentation he drew on work done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on Western Cape Cod, particularly by his colleagues John Masterson and Don Walter. He also said that his presentation looks at the source of water that comes out of fairly large capacity supply wells.

Mr. LeBlanc stated that the source of all fresh water on Cape Cod is the precipitation that falls there. A contributing area to a supply well is the area at land surface or at the water table that is the source of the rainfall that ultimately is pumped from the well. The challenge is to define the contributing area, locate it, and try to understand where it is relative to any particular well.

Mr. LeBlanc showed a diagram of the Western Cape Cod groundwater flow cell and pointed out the location of the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) near the top of the water table mound. He noted that groundwater flows perpendicular to the groundwater contours and reminded the group that in this case the entire land area is the recharge area. He explained that rainfall recharge comes in at the land surface, percolates down through the unsaturated zone to the water table, and then moves outward and downward through the groundwater flow system until it discharges naturally at the coast or at streams and ponds.

Mr. LeBlanc stated that although there are wet years, dry years, and seasonal ups and downs, generally speaking the water levels on Cape Cod are fairly constant. He described this system as "dynamic equilibrium," with rainfall coming in, recharging the aquifer, flowing down through the aquifer, and discharging at the coast in a continuous cycle. He said that to begin, he would discuss contributing areas in that "steady state" condition. He then noted that the Cape receives about 26 inches of recharge per year, or about 60% of the precipitation. This translates to one million gallons a day (mgd) on average over the long term for every 0.8 of a square mile.

Mr. LeBlanc showed a cross-sectional diagram of a typical pumping well scenario and pointed out the sloping water table, the well (which is screened below the water table), the transmitting volume, and the contributing area. He explained that rainfall recharge comes in, flows through the transmitting volume, and is discharged from the well screen. He also showed a map view diagram, pointed out the well and the contributing area, and noted that depending on the screen depth and the pumping rate, it's possible that the contributing area doesn't actually overlie the pumping well because some water that recharges near the well would slip by. He further noted, however, that most pumping wells on Cape Cod are not screened that deep, so it's more common that contributing areas encompass wells.

Mr. LeBlanc then said that when talking about a steady long-term average, the amount of recharge falling on the contributing area has to equal the pumping rate in order to prevent drawdown. He referred to the diagram and explained that if the pumping rate was doubled, from 1 mgd to 2 mgd, the contributing area (0.8 square mile) would also have to double in size. And if the recharge rate turned out to be higher than anticipated, the contributing area would be smaller.

Mr. LeBlanc continued his presentation by discussing some examples drawn from three-dimensional groundwater flow modeling on Cape Cod. He showed a figure depicting hypothetical well A and pointed out the dark area representing the steady-state contributing area to the well when it's pumping at 0.34 mgd, and the light area representing the steady-state contributing area to the well when it's pumping at 0.68 mgd. He noted that the light-colored contributing area is twice the size of the dark-colored contributing area, as they are proportional to the pumping rate. Mr. LeBlanc also noted that on Western Cape Cod the pumping wells are located somewhere down the slope of the water table, from the top of the mound to the ocean. This creates a natural flow direction, making it more efficient for pumping wells to get their water from upstream and resulting in elongated comet-shaped contributing areas. He also mentioned that it's important to remember that mapped contributing areas and mapped plumes look alike.

Mr. LeBlanc then showed a vertical cross-section depicting hypothetical well A and pointed out the water table, bedrock, the well screen, the direction of groundwater flow, the 0.34-mgd contributing area, and the 0.68-mgd contributing area. He said that the well reaches deeper and farther back when the pumping rate is increased, which is particularly significant when there's a plume nearby.

Mr. LeBlanc showed a diagram depicting Bourne Water District supply wells #2 and #5, which are located directly downgradient of the Landfill 1 (LF-1) plume, yet do not pump contaminated water. He explained that the wells are pumped at a fairly low pumping rate, and although their contributing areas overlie the plume, they do not extend up to the landfill source area. If the pumping rates were increased, however, those contributing areas would extend up to the landfill. In this case, even though the wells are located in the path of the plume and the contributing areas themselves overlie the plume, what matters is where the contributing areas are relative to the source of contamination. Mr. LeBlanc showed a cross-section figure depicting Bourne wells #2 and #5 and noted that particles seeded in the model illustrate the path the plume follows, which is under those pumping wells. He noted that if the pumping rates were increased, however, the contributing area would expand to intercept the landfill. He also displayed an illustration that showed how a spill that occurred upgradient of a pumping well could flow beneath water from the contributing area to the well.

Mr. LeBlanc then noted that groundwater flows through the glacial kettle lakes on the Cape, such as Ashumet, Johns, and Snake Ponds. The ponds have areas where groundwater discharges into them on the upstream side, and pond water recharges the aquifer on the downstream side. A contributing area to a pond is actually the area that supplies recharge to the aquifer that's flowing into the pond. Mr. LeBlanc showed another diagram with hypothetical well A and an upgradient kettle pond that touches the contributing area to the well. He explained that in this simulation, with the well pumping 0.34 mgd, 71% of the well's water comes from the contributing area and 29% comes from pond water that's going through the transmitting volume to the well. A well can have a blend of waters - some directly from precipitation recharge and some from a nearby pond. Mr. LeBlanc said that, for example, a fairly large part of the yield for the Coonamessett well, which is very close to Coonamessett Pond, comes from recharge to the pond.

Mr. LeBlanc showed a diagram depicting a steady-state contributing area to well A pumping 600 gallons per minute (gpm). He then showed a diagram depicting steady-state contributing areas to two wells, A and B, each pumping 600 gpm, with well B located in the contributing area for well A in the previous diagram. He explained that because the same packet of water can't go to two places at one time, in a sense the wells compete for the water. Because well B is upstream, the contributing area for well A has to bifurcate, thereby creating a lobster claw shape around the contributing area for well B. Mr. LeBlanc described this as a worst-case scenario in terms of a pumping well arrangement, and also pointed out that the two contributing areas are equal in size because each well is pumping 600 gpm.

Mr. LeBlanc showed another diagram depicting a steady-state contributing area to well A pumping 600 gpm, and noted that it can be understood intuitively that water that comes in as recharge farther away from the well takes longer to reach the well than recharge closer to the well. He explained that the water that comes out of a well is a blend of water of different ages; that is, water that recharged the aquifer at different times. Using models, it's possible to look at the distribution of ages of water coming out of a well. He displayed another diagram of well A that showed travel times from various parts of the recharge area and noted that the water coming out of the well is a blend of water between zero and 270 years old. He noted that most water coming into the public supply wells is relatively young, however - 20 to 30 years old, rather than hundreds of years. Mr. LeBlanc said that travel time is an important consideration when trying to relate water quality with land use.

Mr. LeBlanc remarked that the "real world" is more complicated than the "steady-state world," and began discussing what happens when a well first begins pumping. He noted that old water (i.e., pre-pumping water) originated somewhere as recharge and its quality reflects the land use at the time it was recharged. For example, the Ashumet Valley well pumped contaminated water the first day it was turned on because over the past 40 years that packet of contaminated water had been working its way down through the natural flow. He then referred to a diagram of a transient contributing area to well A pumping 600 gpm and pointed out the outlines representing the contributing area for the first day of pumping, the first year of pumping, and the steady-state contributing area. He explained that in this particular simulation the water that first comes out of the well has been traveling for a long period of time and has probably been in the system for 30 to 60 years. Pumping continues, and after a year the water coming out of the well is actually a blend of water that's two to 100 years old, but no new water. It takes quite a while for water that's come in as recharge since the well was first turned on "to make the trip" to the well, so for some time only old water is being pumped. If the well operates long enough, eventually all the water that's pumped will be water that fell since pumping began. Until that time the water that comes out of the well is a blend of water that was already in the aquifer before the well was turned on and water that came in recently as recharge. Mr. LeBlanc noted that these contributing area concepts can help in understanding whether or not a well is contaminated from a source.

Mr. LeBlanc then showed a diagram of two wells that began operating on the same day, both pumping 600 gpm, and pointed out the contributing areas after 10 years. He noted that the water being pumped by the wells is a blend of new and old water, and he also pointed out that the contributing areas overlap. He explained that while the same packet of water can't go to two different places at the same time, in this case time is a factor in that the recharge that falls one year can go one place and the recharge that falls the next year can go someplace else. Mr. LeBlanc also showed diagrams of the same scenario after 20 years of the wells operating, and after 30 years. He noted that after 30 years the "lobster claw" shape starts to develop and the wells are pumping all new water, and eventually a steady-state condition is reached.

Mr. LeBlanc noted that if there were a contaminant plume in this situation, the wells would pump that contamination from the same source for a period of time until it's flushed out. This is the same idea behind capture zones for treatment wells. If an extraction well fence is installed, those wells have their own contributing areas, and they might cut off the plume. However, the water that has already gotten by would have to "make the trip." Mr. LeBlanc also said that in the real world it's not likely that there would be two wells that start pumping on the same day, competing with each other, and so it's very difficult to determine in detail the source of water to wells. However, all of the contributing areas tend to extend upgradient, and this is the logic behind the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Zone 2's - that while the source of water to a well can't be known in great detail, it is understood that the water won't be coming from downgradient. Therefore, DEP "protects everything all the way to the divide."

Mr. LeBlanc stated that because a pumping well competes for its recharge with other wells and with hydrologic features such as streams and ponds, contributing areas are not fixed features, but can change dynamically. He also said that the best solution of all is not to contaminate the groundwater in the first place.


Mr. Pinaud suggested that tonight's update on the J Ranges investigations include an explanation of how the concepts that Mr. LeBlanc discussed relate to that area, given that it involves a number of plumes, some water supply wells that were recently turned on, and their associated contributing areas, or zones of contribution (ZOCs).

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that in general this was not the presentation he'd wanted to see. Rather, he'd hoped to learn about specific ZOCs discussed at IART meetings - how they're developed, how the files were physically made, and how often they're changed or updated. He also inquired about the difference between groundwater travel time in a natural flow regime and in a pumping well situation; for example, did the rate of travel of the contaminant plume in the ZOC for the Upper Cape Water Cooperative (Co-op) water supply well #2 increase once that supply well was turned on.

Mr. LeBlanc replied that because he is not doing the work associated with the ZOCs discussed at IART meetings, he doesn't know very much about them. He also noted, however, that he would think that that modeling represents the best approximations of the current hydrologic system and uses realistic pumping rates so that the models can be calibrated to real world observations. In response to Mr. Schlesinger's question about travel time, Mr. LeBlanc replied that because the pumping wells on Cape Cod generally aren't pumped at rates high enough to create cones of depression, or drawdown, most flow is not that dissimilar under natural conditions and under pumping conditions, except for very close to the pumping well itself. He noted that the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) treatment systems are relatively passive; they pump at fairly low rates and do not affect the regional gradients, but instead let Mother Nature deliver the water to the extraction wells. Mr. LeBlanc said that it's his understanding that pumping of the Co-op wells would not have accelerated the speed at which the plumes in that area were traveling.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the appropriate party - if not Mr. LeBlanc - to answer specific questions about ZOCs discussed at IART meetings. Mr. Gregson replied that the ZOCs shown on Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) maps come from a variety of groundwater modeling efforts done over the history of the project, including those conducted by the USGS, AMEC, and Jacobs Engineering. While all of these efforts were based on the same regional groundwater flow model, in order to address particular investigative needs, ZOCs were generated at different locations in order to determine how those contributing areas relate to contamination in the investigation areas.

Mr. Schlesinger questioned why the plume that's moving northwest along the border of the ZOC for Co-op water supply well #3 doesn't follow the same flow direction as that ZOC. Mr. Gregson noted that although it's close by, the source of that plume is not within the ZOC for that supply well. He also said that it's important to remember that this is not an exact science - the ZOC was built based on a groundwater model using steady-state conditions, average recharge rates, and maximum pumping, while the plume outline was based on actual well data.

Mr. Schlesinger also questioned why the ZOCs shown on the J-2 Range Eastern Boundary contamination map overlap and go in different directions. Mr. Gregson explained that this is an effect of the timing when the ZOCs were created. The ZOCs for the Co-op wells, which were created years later, were overlain atop the ZOCs that were created for the Sandwich supply wells.

Mr. Schlesinger asked that a request for specific information on ZOCs (files, date produced, under what conditions, and so forth) be noted as an action item. He said that he doesn't think it's possible to make good decisions without this information.

Mr. Gonser clarified that in addition to the different modeling, another issue that affects the ZOCs, as well as particle tracking, is the location of the top of the mound, which varies depending on the water table date selected to measure it. While it can be somewhat confusing near the top of the mound, farther away, closer to the wells, the direction of flow is clearer.

Mr. Borci asked Mr. Gregson to show some of the maps that Mr. Schlesinger had mentioned. Mr. Gregson showed the map of the J-1 interberm area plume, which is traveling northwest, along the edge of the ZOC for Co-op supply well #3. He then referred to the difference between modeling and the real world and noted again that the source area for that plume is outside of the ZOC. He said that the understanding is that the plume is under-flowing the very tip of the ZOC and heading northwest.

Mr. Hugus asked Mr. LeBlanc to comment on the prospects for Co-op supply well #2, assuming that the ZOC that's drawn for that well is reliable. Mr. LeBlanc replied that any precipitation that originates inside the ZOC would ultimately reach the well, and if the plume's source area is within the ZOC, that contamination would also reach the well. He also said that it would take some time for the contamination to reach the well; however, since it occurred quite a while ago, it's already made a good part of the trip. The map indicates to him that eventually the well should pump some of that contamination. Mr. Gregson added that the source of the plume began about 30 to 40 years ago in a non-pumping groundwater flow regime. Then, several years ago the Co-op installed and began pumping well #2, which is now drawing water from the immediate vicinity of the well. He noted that that the well currently has not seen any impact from the plume.

Mr. LeBlanc noted that if the water quality coming out of well supply #2 is truly nondetect - that is, it doesn't just test nondetect because of mixing - it means that for some period of time when the well was turned on, the area that originally contributed recharge was not contaminated. However, at some point the contaminated water and uncontaminated water will come together, according to the steady-state view. Mr. LeBlanc also referred to the DEP Zone 2's, which are bigger than the area a well needs for water supply, and suggested that it's wise to be cautious and avoid risk and not assume, for example, that if a contamination source is one grid cell away from a ZOC in the model that it's okay. Rather, he would presume that there's a problem and move on from there. Mr. LeBlanc said that the model should be used as just one tool to help in making decisions, and added that a ZOC boundary line depends on many factors, including the pumping rate selected, hydrologic properties, recharge rates, and so forth.

Mr. Mullennix thanked Mr. LeBlanc for the presentation, which he found it to be educational. He then referred to the way the LF-1 plume flows underneath the well screens for Bourne wells #2 and #5, although in map view it appears that the plume goes right through those wells. He asked if it wouldn't stand to reason that well screen depths and pumping rates could be selected more carefully so as to avoid drawing underlying contamination into the intake of a well screen. Mr. LeBlanc replied that that certainly is an engineering decision that could be made. He noted, for example, that only a handful out of several hundred private wells on Club Valley Drive were found to be drawing up the Ashumet Valley plume, because the others were pumping at a low enough rate that the plume was passing beneath them. He added that one would have to be careful with a large municipal well, however, because models tend to have large grid cells that under-predict the drawdown right near a well. He said that to implement Mr. Mullennix's suggestion would require careful engineering analysis and lots of follow-up monitoring.

Dr. Dahmani suggested that perhaps steady-state ZOCs are unreasonable at this time, considering that steady-state conditions don't exist around the mound. He asked for Mr. LeBlanc's opinion on the validity of the ZOCs. Mr. LeBlanc replied that steady-state ZOCs have some value in terms of decision-making, but are just one tool in the toolbox. He also said that with the steep water table slope and a reasonable distribution of wells, the ZOCs are likely to line up like comet-shaped tails going toward the top of the mound. However, when the history is more complex, one needs to be extremely careful in terms of fine-tuning decisions based on contributing analyses. Mr. LeBlanc said that he would be skeptical about being too wedded to model results with respect to deciding whether a remedial action should be taken. He also noted that near the top of the mound is the worst place to try to make predictions because it's moving around and is complicated.

Mr. LeBlanc also said that the appearance that the J-1 interberm area plume is traveling at an angle that goes against intuition could have to do with the subtleties of its location, which is very close to the top of the mound. Also, it could be that the model would put the plume in the same direction as the nearby ZOC, and this is something that must be considered when blending field data with modeling. He said that even though there's uncertainty associated with models, at least they are internally consistent, whereas "intuition can violate the laws of physics pretty easily." Mr. LeBlanc said that it's important to look at the consistency of the field data with the model simulations, which is called calibration.

Mr. Pinaud noted that if the source area for the J-2 Range Northern plume is not cleaned up, it eventually will make its way to Co-op supply well #2. Mr. LeBlanc agreed. Mr. Pinaud then said that this tells the regulatory community that both the source area and the plume need to be cleaned up, given that reality indicates that the plume is headed in the direction of the supply well and modeling confirms that. Mr. LeBlanc agreed again, and added that doing multiple realizations of the model could add confidence to that.

Mr. Dow inquired about the difference in contamination sources that occur as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL). Mr. LeBlanc replied that he believes that all the simulations assume saturated groundwater flow with the contaminant as a dissolved tracer. In the case of low density non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs), such as gasoline, they float at the water table and dissolve off of it. A dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), such as a dense oil, however, is insidious and actually projects itself down into the groundwater flow where it dissolves. Mr. LeBlanc said that he thinks that some of the IRP plumes for which source areas cannot be identified might have originated as DNAPLs.

Mr. Dow asked if it's possible that any Impact Area contaminants are LNAPLs or DNAPLs, and are not traveling as dissolved constituents. Mr. LeBlanc replied that it's his understanding that most contaminants there came in at the surface as dry material or fall-out and are dissolved by rainwater at relatively low concentrations. Mr. Gregson agreed and stated that under the conceptual model, the contaminants start out at the surface as solids. The rainwater dissolves them in relatively low concentrations and they pass through the vadose zone and into the water table.

Mr. Skelly said that he now sees that there's truth in the statements of both groups in contention: the one that says that the users of MMR "are making us all sick," and the one that says that the only clean water on the Cape is on MMR. He also said that it's his observation that it will take another two to five years and another order of magnitude in computing power to resolve the vertical dimension and answer the questions being asked at this time. He then thanked Mr. LeBlanc for the presentation and said that it helped him to understand things much better.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to the J-1 interberm area plume and asked how it's known that the modeled ZOC for Co-op supply well #3 is in fact correct. He also asked, given Mr. LeBlanc's earlier comments, whether it should be assumed that a contaminant from that plume is entering that ZOC. Mr. LeBlanc replied that if he were to look at that situation, he'd want to understand within the context of the model why the trajectory could be like that, and then investigate "what might be off." He said that unless the regional water table map is quite wrong, the ZOC is probably reasonable. He also said that that oblique angle might have to do with some difference in flow direction deeper in the aquifer, or an obvious physical feature of the flow system. Mr. LeBlanc then said that focusing too much on particular ZOCs comes from not having the luxury of being a modeler. While the IART, for example, is presented with a final product, he would argue that the modelers are using their technology to understand whether the field data are right, the flow system is appropriately defined, and so on. He said that the job of the modelers is to understand the system as best they can so that the best judgments can be made. Mr. Schlesinger remarked that his experience on the IART tells him that he shouldn't assume anything and that people usually do things because they're told to, "not because they're interested in just wondering how it goes."

Mr. Schlesinger referred to the Northwest Corner investigation area, where some private wells are being switched over to town water. He then asked Mr. LeBlanc if, based on the understanding of recharge in that area, he thinks the contamination there comes from a local source or from a source farther away on the base. Mr. LeBlanc replied that he assumes that the supply wells there are relatively small and do not create large cones of depression. He also said that the first thing he would do is look at the best groundwater flow model available to determine whether it matches the gradients, flow directions, and so forth, and use the model to try to estimate the origin of various flow paths. Hydrologically, the deepest flow paths originate from the greatest distance, while those near the water table originate from a closer source. Mr. LeBlanc said that it's his understanding that this already has been done, and the most recent particle track data that he's seen indicate a zone up around the base boundary, as well as a more distant zone indicated by some of the deeper detections. He also noted, however, that he doesn't know how sensitive those predictions are to the geology and the assumptions made about recharge rates and the like.

Mr. Hugus commented that if a plume is in a ZOC he thinks it should be taken seriously as a public health matter, without having to figure out "which part of it's real and which isn't." He then asked Mr. LeBlanc to explain the "miracle" of how the LF-1 plume bifurcates before reaching Bourne wells #2 and #5, while the groundwater does not bifurcate. Mr. LeBlanc said that some people thought it was a result of natural degradation processes in the core of the plume, but he doesn't actually recall how that was resolved. Mr. Minior explained that the IRP maps its plumes based on the maximum contaminant level (MCL) exceedance line, which, in the case of the LF-1 plume, is 5 parts per billion (ppb). Although a "halo" of nondetect-to-5 ppb exists around that exceedance line, with the plume map based on the MCL, that halo is not depicted. He also noted that the reinjection system was designed such that it is forcing clean water down toward the supply wells, although it's still a few years upgradient. Mr. LeBlanc said that this is a good example of how a simulated plume would be more internally consistent, and illustrates the point that "every map has its own little history that sometimes isn't always very clear."

Mr. Schlesinger repeated his request for detailed information about ZOCs shown on IAGWSP maps so that the team can be assured that it's seeing the most accurate, up-to-date pictures available. He also said that it's important for the team to have a better understanding of the ZOCs so that any potential health matters can be identified. Mr. Schlesinger added that he hopes the IAGWSP will "take marching orders" from the IART to use its models "to ascertain exactly" if the plume contaminants shown on maps are actually within the ZOCs.

Mr. Minior recommended that the IAGWSP provide the team with information about the origin of the ZOCs that are shown; for example, whether they come from a certain report or were generated specifically for the ongoing investigation. He said that he thinks this would answer some of the team members' questions regarding the certainty of what they're seeing on the maps.

Agenda Item #4. Remediation & Investigation Update

Soil Rapid Response Actions (RRAs)

Mr. Nixon reported that the 8-foot lift at the Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) site excavation has been completed, as have the 1-foot and 2-foot lift areas. The removal of burn pits and munitions is ongoing and the items being found are mostly small arms, munitions, flares, and the like. To date 22,500 tons of soil has been excavated from the Demo 1 site, and almost all of that has already been treated. Mr. Nixon showed several photographs of the Demo 1 site and pointed out the screener area, some treated soil to be returned to the excavation area, a plastic cover on some soil excavated from the J-3 Range, and the thermal treatment plant in the background.

Mr. Nixon showed a photograph of the Demo 2 site, which is much smaller than Demo 1. He reminded the team that apparently at some point in time a bulldozer was used to push the soil off the main area of the site over to the west end where it formed a discontinuous berm of soil piles. He noted that 1,200 tons of soil has been excavated from Demo 2.

Mr. Nixon reported that excavation work began at the J-3 Range on July 25, 2004. The 2-foot lifts have been completed at the J-3 Range demolition area and melt/pour building, and post-excavation sampling results are pending. He noted that some asbestos cement pipe was removed from the site for proper disposal. Also, the area south of Target 2 was excavated to a depth of 1.25 feet. All the soils excavated from the J-3 Range have been transported to Demo 1 for treatment at the thermal treatment plant. Mr. Nixon said that once soil excavation at the demolition area and melt/pour building is completed, approximately 3,500 tons of soil will have been excavated.

Mr. Nixon stated that anomaly clearance activities are ongoing at the J-2 Range, after which approximately 8,000 tons of soil (rather than the originally planned 6,200 tons) will be excavated. He said that it's hoped that the J-2 soil RRA will end any further contribution to the J-2 Range Northern plume.

Mr. Hugus asked when the bulldozing at the Demo 2 site occurred. Mr. Nixon replied that he doesn't know an exact date, but can say that it didn't occur very recently because there are trees growing up through the soil berms. He added that he's quite certain that the bulldozing occurred prior to the startup of the cleanup program.

Mr. Nixon reported that the IAGWSP is finishing up the focused investigation of Targets 42 and 23 at the Central Impact Area. He noted that unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance activities are ongoing, and soil excavation work is expected to begin soon. Approximately 2,000 tons of soil will be excavated from the area of the two targets, after which it will be taken to the thermal treatment plant at Demo 1. Mr. Nixon stated that all of the excavated soils from the RRAs he discussed will be taken to the thermal treatment plant for treatment and then used as fill at the Demo 1 excavation area.

Regarding Demo 2, Mr. Borci said that the IAGWSP looked into the question of when the bulldozing occurred there, but was unable to come up with an answer. He said that the best guess right now is that it occurred about 15 to 20 years ago. Mr. Hugus asked whether the soil that was bulldozed came from an area of contaminated soil. Mr. Nixon replied that because Demo 2 was used for demolition training for military engineers, some explosives were left over on the ground; however, he doesn't know why the decision was made to move that soil toward the west end of the site. He also said that the IAGWSP wants to be sure to remove the source of the Demo 2 plume, which contains RDX and HMX, but no perchlorate.

Mr. Dow asked if Targets 42 and 23 are the only Central Impact Area targets that have high concentrations of contaminants of concern contributing to the Central Impact Area plumes. Mr. Gregson replied that they are just two of about one dozen Central Impact Area targets with relatively high levels of explosives. He explained that the purpose of the focused investigation, which includes the use of lysimeters for sampling before and after the cleanup activity, is to determine the effectiveness of those two soil removal efforts in anticipation of conducting additional soil removal at more targets in the future.

Soil Treatment Update

Mr. Nixon reminded the team that there had been some difficulty with perchlorate treatment at the thermal treatment plant, and was glad to report that the last approximately 5,500 cubic yards of treated soil showed no exceedances of the treatment criteria. He said that he's not sure that the problem is solved forever, but at least it's looking pretty good. Mr. Nixon stated that a number of adjustments to the system were made after several batches of treated soil failed (but were retreated until they met the criteria). He reported that the treatment temperature was increased from 840F to 950F, loading into the system was decreased from 40 tons per hour to 30 tons per hour, and the baghouse filter and cyclone were cleaned out. He also noted that the bin structure was changed from 500-cubic-yard piles to five 100-cubic-yard piles so that less soil would have to be retreated in the event that a pile fails. With this new structure a failure would be less costly because a smaller amount of soil would have to be retreated.

Mr. Nixon stated that the thermal treatment system began operating on July 7, 2004 and to date about 23,600 tons of soil has been treated. The plant was shut down last Wednesday, with a small amount of untreated soil in reserve, and will resume operating on September 8, 2004, when more excavated soil will be available for treatment from the various soil RRA sites. Once the treatment plant is turned back on it should continue operating until sometime in October at which point it will have treated soil from about nine different potential source areas on Camp Edwards, with the total amount being approximately 49,000 tons.

Mr. Mullennix inquired about the total mass of contaminants removed so far from the 23,600 tons. Mr. Nixon said that he could look into providing an answer to this question.

Dr. Dahmani asked if the residue that was removed from the baghouse was tested. Mr. Nixon replied that two samples were taken from the six drums of dust removed from the baghouse: one sample tested at 6 ppb for perchlorate and the other at 6.6 ppb. Dr. Dahmani asked if the baghouse residue was not the actual cause of the perchlorate problem. Mr. Nixon replied that it might have been a contributing factor, but it was not as big a factor as he'd thought it might be. He also noted that the last time a batch failed was August 6, 2004, but there have been no failures in the last 5,500 cubic yards treated.

Demolition Area 1 Groundwater Rapid Response Action

Mr. Nixon showed a photograph of the portable container unit at Pew Road, which arrived last week and has been hooked up. He noted that the Pew Road system is scheduled to be up and running by the middle of September. One of the portable container units for the Frank Perkins Road system arrived yesterday, and looks exactly like the one at Pew Road except that it also contains ion exchange resin. The last two portable containers for Frank Perkins Road are expected by the end of this month and that system should be up and running about a week after the Pew Road system startup.

Mr. Nixon also reported that profile samples from a new monitoring well (MW-341) at Pew Road showed higher perchlorate levels than expected, up to about 25 ppb. He also noted that profile concentrations tend to be higher than concentrations detected in regular groundwater samples. Mr. Nixon said that four screens were set in MW-341 and are being sampled. The sampling result from the screen that was set at the interval where perchlorate was detected at 8.5 ppb in profile came back at 2.9 ppb, and results from the other well screens are pending. He noted that the 2.9-ppb perchlorate detection matches up with what's been seen there in the past and the 4-ppb contour line.

Mr. Schlesinger stated that despite past assurances that the toe of the plume was well understood, it appears that more investigation there is needed. Mr. Nixon replied that two new wells are going to be installed on the Rod & Gun Club property. He also said that an August sampling round will cover all of the monitoring wells in the downgradient portion of the plume, and the results will be rushed so that smart decisions regarding that area can be made as soon as possible. Mr. Nixon mentioned that the wells at the Rod & Gun Club will act as sentinel wells and will continue to be monitored to detect any future movement of the plume.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that there'd also been previous discussion about whether the plume curved to the west and north or whether it went farther south. Mr. Nixon replied that particle track modeling indicates that the plume seems to have "a little bit of a hook to it," and added that the extraction well is in a location "to capture that if that is contaminated." Mr. Schlesinger questioned whether a monitoring well should be installed south of MW-231. Mr. Nixon pointed out the wells that define that edge of the plume and said that they will continue to be monitored.

Mr. Hugus inquired about the maximum profile result for perchlorate in MW-341. Mr. Nixon confirmed that it was 25.7 ppb. Mr. Hugus asked when that result would be validated. Mr. Gregson replied that it would be validated in a few weeks. Mr. Hugus suggested that if that 25.7 ppb detection is validated, there must be a fair amount of high-level contamination downgradient of it. Mr. Nixon replied that detections a little farther downgradient are in the 1 to 3 ppb range. Mr. Hugus inquired about the perchlorate detection in MW-231. Mr. Nixon replied that he believes that detection was close to 1 ppb.

Mr. Borci explained that what needs to be done now is to look at the screen depths of the wells downgradient to determine if they're in the right spot with respect to the 25.7-ppb detection in MW-341. He noted that the remedy selection process is ongoing and the IAGWSP's preferred remedy, Alternative 5, involves an extraction well at Pew Road, right near MW-211, where increasing concentrations, up to about 11 ppb, have been seen. He also noted that MW-341 was drilled just south of MW-211. Mr. Borci then said that even prior to seeing the data from MW-341, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had commented that an extraction well downgradient of Pew Road was needed based on the data that were available at that time. That concentrations in that area have doubled strengthens EPA's opinion that some type of extraction is needed downgradient of Pew Road.

Mr. Nixon stated that the toe of the plume was remodeled using the 11-ppb concentration at MW-211, and that modeling indicated that contaminant concentrations would dissipate by the time they reached the area of North Pond at the Rod & Gun Club. He said that modeling would be done again using the results from MW-341 and the August sampling round.

Dr. Dahmani remarked that he thinks it's confusing to put profile results alongside monitoring well results. He explained that a profile result is actually "a point concentration within the whole cross-section," while a monitoring well result is really a concentration based on the screen that's been established, whether it's 10 or 20 feet. Mr. Nixon noted that the purpose of profile sampling is to make smart decisions about where to set screens. Dr. Dahmani said that the concentrations in MW-341 may go down as a result of collecting monitoring well samples. Mr. Nixon noted that the 2.95-ppb monitoring well result from MW-341 certainly represents a decrease from the profile sample.

Mr. Borci said that he disagrees with the general assumption that concentrations seen in monitoring well results are lower than those seen in profile results. He said that his observation is that profile results match groundwater results more often than not.

Mr. Hugus noted that he seconds EPA's concern about the ability of extraction wells on Pew Road to address the entire plume, and he would favor a remedy that captures contamination downgradient of that area.

Northwest Corner Recent Results

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the Northwest Corner investigation area and pointed out MW-323, where RDX was detected at about 5 ppb. He said MW-338 was drilled to try to delineate the extent of the RDX at that location and the southern extent of perchlorate, and groundwater results showed detections at the water table of RDX at 0.25 ppb and perchlorate at 0.4 ppb. He then pointed out the RDX detections in the Northwest Corner as they extend off base: at MW-338, MW-323, the Schooner Pass condominium well, the irrigation well, MW-284, and MW-270. He said that some of the detections are shallow (MW-270 and MW-338), while others, such as the detection at MW-323, appear to be deeper in the aquifer.

Mr. Gregson showed a cross-section of the Northwest Corner plume and noted that in MW-323 perchlorate was detected in the shallow screen, both RDX and perchlorate were detected in the middle screen, and RDX was detected in the deep screen, almost at bedrock. He also noted that there were shallow detections of RDX and perchlorate at MW-284, near the canal. Mr. Gregson then stated that there's a plan to use a camera to go inside the irrigation well and determine the depth of that screen so the detections there can be tracked. He also reported that two new well locations are going to be drilled: NWP-20, to help determine the upgradient extent of the RDX, and NWP-18, to help determine the extent of perchlorate contamination.

Mr. Hugus said that he finds the cross-section to be very helpful. He then asked how far back the source of the deep RDX contamination might be. Mr. Gregson remarked that the RDX plume is interesting in that it's so narrow, like "a pencil of RDX coming through the aquifer." He said that deeper detections track back to the Impact Area, while others track back to the Former A Range, which is halfway between the Impact Area and the base boundary. He also said that more work has to be done to determine the exact source of the RDX. Mr. Hugus inquired about the likelihood that such a narrow plume would travel that far. Mr. Gregson replied that it's not known whether this is because the plume is following a higher permeability zone or if there's some other reason, but the investigation is continuing.

Mr. Mullennix asked if the IAGWSP has been able to track back to the source of perchlorate contamination at the Northwest Corner. Mr. Gregson replied that deeper perchlorate detections would track back farther up on base, to something that's an unknown source. The shallower detections, however, indicate a larger, local source of perchlorate. He also mentioned that based on the shallower RDX detections there appears to be an RDX source in the vicinity of Gun Position 19 (GP-19).

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that the perchlorate contamination at MW-65 and MW-66 must be coming from somewhere upgradient, and recommended drilling more monitoring wells in the vicinity of GP-12. Mr. Gregson replied that those are shallow detections, consistent with what's being seen in the plume. Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the cause of "that large block of red" shown on the map. Mr. Gregson replied that that's based mainly on particle tracks from downgradient wells. He also noted that profile results from well location NWP-18, which should be available in the next few days, will be helpful in defining that fairly large data gap along the edge of the plume.

Dr. Dahmani asked if it's correct that the shallow RDX detections might track back all the way to the eastern part of the plume. Mr. Gregson referred to the RDX plume map and noted that the detections line up pretty well. He pointed out a shallow RDX detection and said that if the screen in the irrigation well turns out to be shallow, those detections would indicate a source area "someplace right back here." Dr. Dahmani noted that the cross-section doesn't show RDX going all the way across there. Mr. Gregson agreed and explained that more data are needed before that can be drawn definitively. Dr. Dahmani asked if there's a plan to install a new well in between those points. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is trying to obtain property access to install well CWP-13. He also mentioned the use of a borehole camera to determine well screen depths that are currently unknown to see if the RDX there is shallow. Dr. Dahmani asked if this would mean there'd be perchlorate and RDX "in the same camp." Mr. Gregson replied that it would, at that location.

Mr. Borci asked Mr. Gregson to update the team on the status of the Schooner Pass water supply well and the three private wells in the Northwest Corner area. Mr. Gregson noted that the Schooner Pass condominium complex is in the process of being hooked up to town water and the community supply well there will be abandoned. Also, the three residences with private wells are being hooked up to town water, and that construction begins this week. Mr. Borci said that he thinks that the Schooner Pass hookup has been completed and the supply well has been shut down.

Mr. Mullennix asked that a request for DEP to provide information on perchlorate concentrations detected in public water supplies across the state be noted as an action item. He said that he thinks this information would provide perspective and understanding of the number of Massachusetts residents who are presently drinking water with levels of perchlorate above 1 ppb.

Ms. Conron asked who is doing the town water conversion at Schooner Pass. Mr. Gregson replied that the developer, who is also the property owner, is taking that action because with an active community supply well there he was unable to develop the surrounding property. Ms. Conron inquired about the three private residences. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is taking that action. Mr. Hugus asked if this means that the military is paying for those town water hookups. Mr. Gregson confirmed that it does.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks it might be useful to do magnetometry surveys at gun positions in the Northwest Corner. Mr. Gregson said that he would have to check to see what magnetometry work has been done there in the past.

Mr. Minior clarified that the reason the military took responsibility for the town water hookups to the three residences in the Northwest Corner was based on a detection of RDX, not perchlorate.

J-1 Range Recent Results

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the J-1 Range contamination and reported that perchlorate was detected at 21 ppb and RDX at 2.1 ppb in MW-326, and the investigation there is continuing. He said that a couple of new monitoring wells are planned and the IAGWSP is working to get Natural Resources clearance for one of the locations. He also said that additional investigation downgradient of the plume might help answer questions about the direction the plume seems to be traveling.

J-2 Range Northern Plume Recent Results

Mr. Gregson showed the updated J-2 Range Northern plume map, based on groundwater well data. He noted that MW-345 at Gibbs Road tested nondetect, and wells installed to offset MW-345, as reported previously, also tested nondetect. Also, a groundwater sampled collected from MW-327, which had a profile result of 1.5 ppb for perchlorate, tested nondetect, as did the well off to the west. MW-313, located in the center of the plume, had an 8-ppb perchlorate detection. Based on this information, the plume has been drawn to extend somewhere between MW-313 and MW-327. Mr. Gregson stated that perchlorate results for the Co-op sentry wells are expected any day, and RDX results there were nondetect. He also said that at this point the IAGWSP needs to begin looking at cleanup options to cut the plume off and prevent further migration to the north.

Mr. Hugus asked why the military wasn't taking responsibility for the town water hookup at Schooner Pass, given that RDX had been detected in the community supply well there. Mr. Gregson noted that the concentration detected in that well was below the health advisory, and the 5-ppb concentration wasn't detected until fairly recently. Mr. Hugus asked if the military would pay for the hookup now that it has knowledge of that 5-ppb detection. Mr. Gregson replied that it's a complicated situation in that the landowner has multiple interests in a town water hookup, regardless of what contaminants were detected in the supply well. Mr. Hugus remarked that he thinks it's strange that the military is paying for the hookup to a residence where RDX was not detected in the well, but is not paying for the Schooner Pass hookup, where RDX was detected.

Mr. Hugus then asked when contamination would be expected to reach Co-op well #2 if no cleanup actions were taken. Mr. Gregson replied that it would probably take about five to ten years, assuming that the current plume shell is accurate. Mr. Hugus asked how long it would take to install an extraction system of some kind. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP has money set aside to conduct an RRA for the J-2 Range Northern plume, and has already ordered two mobile treatment units. He said that an RRA plan would be developed this fall, and once that is in place, the IAGWSP will continue with a feasibility study to determine what else needs to be done.

Mr. Hugus clarified that he's not suggesting that an extraction system is the solution for Co-op well #2, as he doesn't think that a well whose ZOC is so occupied by a plume should be relied upon any further. However, the information Mr. Gregson provided does answer his question about the prospects for the well.

Mr. Borci asked Mr. Gregson to point out the location where the IAGWSP anticipates installing an RRA treatment system. Mr. Gregson replied at this time the thought is to install an RRA system on Wood Road, in order to remove the bulk of the plume mass. However, that might change.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks that location is too far south. He also said that he thinks the plume is drawn as it is because of a lack of information, and is actually wider than depicted at Wood Road. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is quite confident about the width of the plume at Wood Road and Jefferson Road, given the well coverage there. Mr. Schlesinger questioned why the RRA system wouldn't be located on Jefferson Road. Mr. Gregson clarified that an RRA plan hasn't even been written, but the thought was to attack the highest levels of perchlorate and RDX in the core of the plume. Mr. Schlesinger asked if there's a plan to install more monitoring wells between Wood Road and Jefferson Road. Mr. Gregson pointed out a location halfway between Wood Road and Jefferson Road where a well is being drilled. Mr. Schlesinger asked if there would be other additional monitoring wells in that area. Mr. Gregson replied that that would depend on the results that are seen, and added that the IAGWSP thinks that the current plume depiction is quite reasonable, based on the available data.

J-2 Range Eastern Boundary

Mr. Gregson showed a draft map of the J-2 Range Eastern Boundary area and noted that there appear to be three distinct perchlorate plumes. He then showed a draft map depicting RDX contamination and noted that there also appear to be three distinct RDX plumes, with source areas at locations similar to the perchlorate plume source areas. He also showed a series of draft cross-section figures depicting the perchlorate and RDX contamination. He noted that the source area for the westernmost plume is in the middle of the J-2 Range, and the plume is migrating to the northeast. He pointed out that the source area for the center plume is near the firing point, and that there's a separate lobe of contamination that's deeper than the main part of the plume. He also showed cross-sections of the plumes that depicted RDX contamination.

Mr. Gregson then reported that MW-342, which was installed to help define the southern extent of perchlorate and RDX detections at MW-319, tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate. He also said that the IAGWSP is working toward obtaining access to about a dozen off-base drilling locations, including the Forestdale School property, the Russo property, and several private properties, as well as locations on Route 130 and further to the south.

Mr. Borci noted that the forward particle track from MW-319 matches up well with the perchlorate detection in the Peters Pond Road area, and part of the purpose of the off-base drilling locations is to determine whether those two detections connect. Mr. Gregson agreed and showed the map depicting the proposed off-base drilling locations. He also reported that recent results from a couple existing wells at the Peters Pond Park town property (the former Hewlett Packard recreational facility) were nondetect for perchlorate and explosives.

J-3 Range Recent Results

Mr. Gregson stated that the J-3 Range plume investigation is continuing while the RRA involving the Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) treatment system is also moving forward. He reported that profile results from MW-343, which was installed in the center of the plume, showed a maximum perchlorate detection of 2 ppb, which was consistent with previous detections. However, RDX was detected there at a maximum of 35 ppb, which was a bit higher than anticipated, even though increased levels are expected in the heart of the plume. Mr. Gregson said that the investigation will continue to define the western and southern extents of the plume, and the next well location drilled will be J3P-39.

Agenda Item #5. Open Discussion

Membership Update

Mr. Murphy stated that just one prospective team member, a gentleman from the Forestdale area of Sandwich, is planning to attend the September IART meeting. He asked current team members to encourage anyone they know who's interested in membership to submit an application soon and attend the September meeting as well. He also said that in the next couple of weeks he would be speaking to people in Sandwich in an effort to find others who might be interested in joining the team.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that he spoke with Bill Diedering, a Sandwich selectman, who said that he would entertain an appointment to the IART by the Sandwich of Board of Selectmen, should additional members still be needed. Mr. Murphy clarified that while selectmen may not appoint team members, applications are welcomed and should be submitted as soon as possible. He also noted that applications are available on the EPA web site and the IAGWSP web site, and he could mail an application to Mr. Diedering.

E&RC Statements

Mr. Borci inquired about the response from the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC) to Mr. Schlesinger's question at the August IART meeting regarding "heavier-than-normal noise" coming from the base. Mr. Sullivan of the E&RC, who noted that he spoke with Mr. Schlesinger earlier, stated that the week prior to the August IART meeting was one of the heaviest training periods this summer. Also during that week, there was training associated with preparation for the Democratic National Convention in Boston, which included a security police unit and some helicopter activity. Mr. Sullivan also referred to Mr. Mullennix's past inquiry about Co-op meetings. He noted that the Co-op meets on the second Wednesday of each month, with the exception of this September, when they'll meet on the third Wednesday. Co-op meetings take place at 10:00 a.m. at the Mashpee Water District building.

Site Tour

Mr. Murphy said that in anticipation of getting new team members from Sandwich, he'd suggested that the IAGWSP organize a site tour for IART members. He said that he's looking to determine team members' interest in a tour. Ms. Conron noted that she'd be interested in touring the sites where remediation activities are occurring. Mr. Murphy recommended discussing the possibility of a site tour again, after any new members have joined the team.

Public Outreach Materials, Central Impact Area

Mr. Schlesinger commented that the IRP Annual Report is a wonderful publication, but is lacking in that it doesn't include representations of plumes being addressed by the IAGWSP. He said that he wants the IAGWSP to produce a similar brochure, to be distributed to Cape Cod households so that members of the public can become aware of "the extent of the issues" and understand how their tax dollars are being spent. Mr. Schlesinger asked the regulators to look into the possibility of producing a brochure that includes information on the cleanup program's progress, problems, and status of its activity, in a better format "than the two-page piece of junk" seen in the past.

Mr. Gregson clarified that the fact sheet that the IAGWSP produced last fall was a ten-page, color, glossy publication that was distributed with the local newspapers and mailed directly to more than 500 residences. He also said that he believes that the IAGWSP has plans to produce a similar publication in the future, and will continue to put together information for the public.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he hopes that any future publications produced by the IRP would include representations of IAGWSP plumes, and likewise, that IAGWSP publications would include representations of IRP plumes. He further suggested that if the government wants to save money, the two cleanup programs should be combining information in a single publication that would show the public the full extent of activities occurring at MMR. Ms. Conron agreed.

Mr. Borci noted that EPA recently spoke to the IAGWSP about an updated fact sheet, since it's been a year since the first one, which was supposed to have been updated on a six-month basis. He said that he would ask that this fall be the target date for a new updated fact sheet. Mr. Borci also clarified that the IAGWSP fact sheet produced last fall did include "shadow" depictions of the IRP plumes. He further noted that there are some issues associated with showing both IRP and IAGWSP plumes in that IRP plume outlines are based on the MCL, while the IAGWSP's are based on nondetect or health advisory contours.

Mr. Schlesinger mentioned that the updated fact sheet should include information about the IAGWSP's accomplishments, given the enormous amount of money spent on cleanup.

Ms. Conron remarked that because the public cannot clearly distinguish between the two cleanup programs, she thinks that a combined fact sheet makes a lot of sense. She said that the public really knows very little about what's going on at the base. Mr. Cambareri noted that the former Joint Program Office had put together a base-wide plume map. He said that he is in favor of continuing with an approach to public education that covers the entire base and is not divided by jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Murphy said that the E&RC is working on an updated base-wide plume map, but he's not certain about the timeframe associated with it.

Mr. Cambareri then commented that while he understands the urgency to evaluate the areas of contamination within the ZOCs for the Co-op supply wells, he believes that the Central Impact Area contamination is also very important because of its location along the western boundary of MMR, near the town of Bourne and potential water supply areas, which are increasingly few and far between. He recommended that the IAGWSP, with regulatory support, move "in all due haste" with respect to evaluating the western extent of Central Impact Area contamination. He also suggested that the use of modeling be considered to evaluate potential water supply areas outside of the base and their relationship to known areas of contamination within the base.

Mr. Mullennix commented that he is not dissatisfied with the IAGWSP's community outreach efforts. He said that he sees a great deal of communication from the cleanup program, including monthly display ads in a number of local newspapers to notify the public about IART meetings. He also said that he thinks that the lack of response to efforts to get more members of the public involved is not the fault of the people running the cleanup program. Rather, he believes that the people who live in towns surrounding the base "apparently are showing the attention that they think this deserves."

Mr. Mullennix also said that while he agrees that it would be good to produce a single document that covers the entire base, those that cover just one of the cleanup programs are fairly complicated and difficult for the public to understand. Therefore, he appreciates the increased complexity that a combined document would mean in terms of how to draw the plumes - whether to cleanup standards, MCLs, health advisories, or other criteria.

Ms. Conron noted that she too is concerned about the Central Impact Area contamination and its potential to affect future water supply.

Agenda Item #6. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy stated that the IART would meet next on September 28, 2004 at the Quashnet Valley Country Club in Mashpee. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.

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