Impact Area Review Team

River River Drops of rain on a leaf

Impact Area Review Team
Christ the King Parish
February 22, 2005
6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.

Meeting Minutes

Members: Organization: Attendees: Organization:
Hap Gonser IAGWSP Kris Curley IAGWSP
Ben Gregson IAGWSP Lori Boghdan IAGWSP
Marty Aker AFCEE/MMR Pamela Richardson IAGWSP
Lynne Jennings US EPA Bill Sullivan E&RC
Bill Walsh-Rogalski US EPA Carol Keating US EPA
Len Pinaud MA DEP Bob Lim US EPA
Ellie Grillo MA DEP Brin Thompson UCONN
Kevin Hood UCONN/TOSC Pearl & Peter Moretti Sandwich residents
Tom Cambareri IART/CCC Sue Walker PCT/Sandwich resident
Richard Hugus IART/Falmouth/ABC Matt Malin Mashpee resident
Peter Schlesinger IART/Sandwich David Dow Sierra Club
Michael Butler IART/Bourne Amanda Lehmert Cape Cod Times
Bob Mullennix IART/Bourne Jackqueline Fields WILPF
Judy Conron IART/Bourne Rick Carr STL
    Mark Hutson Weston Solutions
    Jennifer Washburn Portage Environmental
    Jane Moran Portage Environmental
Facilitator: Organization:    
Jim Murphy US EPA    

Action Items:

  1. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked the IAGWSP to overlay recently-detected contamination near Peters Pond with historical aerial photographs.
  2. Mr. Schlesinger asked to be provided with an explanation as to why particular wells (represented by a black dot on maps) in the Eastern Boundary investigation were sampled for explosives or for perchlorate only, but not for both.
  3. Mr. Schlesinger asked for an explanation of the oblong area (visible in aerial photograph) northeast and adjacent to the J-2 Range soil grids as shown on the map entitled "J-2 RRA Site Map Excavation Progress."
  4. Mr. Cambareri recommended the use of a symbol to represent private drinking water wells that distinguishes them from monitoring wells.
  5. Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the possibility of installing a monitoring well in the Coast Guard transmitter site area, between MW-18 and MW-351, for the J-2 Range investigation.

Future Agenda Items:

  • Natural Resources Discussion
  • TOSC Presentation on Granular Activated Carbon and Ion Exchange
  • Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update
  • Groundwater RRA for the J-2 Range
  • Demolition Area 1 Supplemental Modeling

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

  1. Responses to Action Items from the December 7, 2004 IART Meeting
  2. 2/18/05 EPA News Release: EPA Sets Reference Dose for Perchlorate
  3. Presentation handout: Southeast Ranges Update
  4. Presentation handout: Remediation & Investigation Update
  5. Maps/graphics to accompany Remediation & Investigation Update
  6. Memorandum: Notification Procedures for Severe Weather Conditions
  7. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since Last IART (Ending 1/18/05)
  8. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since Last IART (Ending 2/17/05)
  9. News Releases, Neighborhood Notices and Media Coverage (12/8/04 - 2/18/05)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Approval of December 7, 2004 IART Minutes

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members introduced themselves, and Mr. Murphy reviewed the agenda. He asked if there were any additions or corrections to the December 7, 2004 IART meeting minutes. None were offered and the minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Response to Action Items from the 12/7/04 IART Meeting

EPA Reference Dose for Perchlorate

Ms. Jennings reported that a February 18, 2005 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) news release stated that the agency had set a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate, having adopted the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended RfD of 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) per day of perchlorate. She noted that the RfD would be used as the basis for establishing a cleanup level for perchlorate at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) and for determining a drinking water standard for perchlorate, should the agency decide to do so.

Ms. Jennings stated that EPA is currently in the process of establishing official guidance on how to convert the RfD into an appropriate cleanup goal for the site, and until that official guidance is issued, the current policy of a 4 to18 part per billion (ppb) range for perchlorate will remain in effect. She also said that EPA has not yet determined whether it will move forward with establishing a drinking water standard, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), for perchlorate, as some criteria outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) must first be evaluated. Factors being considered include the frequency of the occurrence of the compound in drinking water across the country and the effects that it causes.

Ms. Jennings explained that should an MCL be established, the process would involve converting the RfD of 0.0007 mg/kg to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL). That conversion entails making assumptions about an individual's size and the amount of water consumed, generally a 70-kg body weight consuming two liters of water per day. Ms. Jennings noted that the establishment of the RfD already included the application of an uncertainty factor to protect sensitive populations such as children, pregnant women, and fetuses. Therefore, an additional uncertainty factor for sensitive populations would not need to be applied to the DWEL. She further noted, however, that an additional factor that would be applied to the DWEL when establishing an MCL is total intake per day, given that some foods, in addition to water, could be a source of perchlorate.

Ms. Jennings reiterated that her office is awaiting guidance from EPA Headquarters on how to convert the RfD to a cleanup level. She noted that although the news release indicates that the application of the normal factors of a 7-kg individual drinking two liters of water per day calculates to a DWEL of 24.5 ppb, it's not being said at this point that that would be the cleanup level for the site. Rather, she expects that the actual cleanup level will be dictated by the guidance from EPA Headquarters.

Mr. Schlesinger questioned whether there would be a requirement to undertake studies regarding perchlorate in food before an MCL could be promulgated, given that the MCL pertains to perchlorate in both food and water. Ms. Jennings replied that that may not be necessary. She also said that while some studies already under way probably would be evaluated, absent actual studies, the general rule of thumb that's used is usually 20%.

Mr. Schlesinger also expressed concern that the 10-fold margin of safety built into the DWEL might not be effective in terms of protecting the most vulnerable population. Ms. Jennings explained that the NAS study, which is the basis for the RfD, took that into consideration and, looking at actual human studies, concluded that the 10-fold factor of safety was sufficient. She noted that EPA agreed with NAS that additional adjustment for sensitive populations was not needed, but also agreed that adjustment is needed to account for perchlorate from sources other than water. She said that that would be the important factor when deciding how to set the cleanup level for the site.

Mr. Schlesinger then inquired about the status of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) effort to establish a state cleanup level for perchlorate. Mr. Pinaud reminded the group that DEP had worked with a science advisory group and come up with a draft cleanup number of 1 ppb, which went out for public comment. He said that based on the NAS study, EPA's RfD for perchlorate, and additional work of the science advisory group, DEP plans to issue a groundwater cleanup number in mid to late March, which might be bundled with a draft MCL that would go out for public comment.

Mr. Hugus asked when the cleanup level from EPA Headquarters was expected. Ms. Jennings clarified that her office is actually awaiting specific policy on how to convert the RfD and DWEL into a cleanup standard for Superfund sites. She also said that while she doesn't know the exact timeframe, she's hopeful that this will occur sooner rather than later, given Headquarters' understanding of the importance of the issue. Ms. Jennings noted that she thinks that DEP's state standard would come faster than EPA's guidance on how to convert the RfD to a cleanup level, and added that the EPA Administrative Order (AO) requires cleanup to substantive requirements of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), which that state standard would be.

Mr. Hugus remarked that he hopes the state retains a 1-ppb standard. He also expressed concern about the impression that it's okay to drink perchlorate (or other chemicals for which standards have been established) up to certain levels where it's not expected to cause adverse health effects. He said that he doesn't believe, nor does he think most members of the public believe, that they should be exposed to any perchlorate whatsoever. He also stated his belief that the Department of Defense (DoD) has power and influence at the federal level to ensure that standards are not set so high that it will have to pay for cleanup of the pollution - in this case, perchlorate pollution - it has caused throughout the country. Mr. Hugus further noted that it's difficult for the IART to pursue its work if it isn't clear what the standards are.

Mr. Dow inquired about the confidence interval associated with the 0.0007-mg/kg RfD. Ms. Jennings said that she was unable to answer that question. Mr. Dow said that he assumes that the NAS developed and included a confidence interval in its report as scientists generally don't report point values, but a range of values, such as the 4 to 18 ppb range. He said that it's not possible to have any degree of certainty with respect to a specific value, and he believes it would be more useful to provide the public with the actual range for the RfD and a corresponding range for an MCL.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that he has concerns about how a DWEL could be used to implement a nationally usable MCL given that the level of contamination in food supplies would vary depending on different geographical locations. He said that he thinks it doesn't make sense for EPA to come up with one number, but makes more sense to have a number that's suitable to a range of values, depending on the level of contamination in the food supply.

Ms. Jennings remarked that the process for establishing MCLs is fairly typical, and MCLs for many compounds have been established. She said that if an MCL for perchlorate is established, a range of studies would be examined, and there's a great deal of available information on perchlorate at this time. She also acknowledged that perchlorate issues in California are different than those at MMR. She again mentioned the 20% rule of thumb, which works by multiplying the DWEL by 20% to arrive at an MCL, and added that absent food studies, however, that MCL could be made to be lower, or higher. Ms. Jennings also said that while these and other considerations (such as technical feasibility and the cost of achieving levels below MCL at drinking water supplies across the country) would be evaluated when establishing a number, EPA does establish a specific number for an MCL, not a range.

Mr. Mullennix stated that as a resident of Bourne he is very relieved that all the exhaustive study and expert analysis of this issue that's occurred around the country indicates that perchlorate is not as harmful as was thought initially. He noted that the RfD is much higher than the perchlorate levels around 1 ppb detected in Bourne; this makes him feel good and he thinks it should make everyone around Cape Cod feel good. He also pointed out that the EPA news release stated that the RfD was based upon iodine uptake inhibition, which is not an adverse effect, but a biochemical change. He said that the RfD represents a no-observed effect level, which differs from the traditional approach to deriving an RfD, which bases a critical effect on an adverse outcome. Mr. Mullennix added that he thinks this was a very conservative approach and is one reason why the RfD can include sensitive sub-populations. He further noted that looking at the no-biochemical effect, the DWEL is 245 ppb, and the application of the 10-fold uncertainty factor resulted in the 24.5 ppb number.

Mr. Hugus said that Mr. Mullennix compared the RfD to an MCL (the 1-ppb standard that's been followed), which he thinks is misleading. He said that it isn't known "what the RfD before was" so it's not possible to know if this "is a higher or lower standard." Mr. Mullennix replied that the original draft report from EPA in 2002 included an RfD that extrapolated to a 1-ppb DWEL, and all he did was something similar.

Ms. Conron asked if the 24.5-ppb DWEL noted in the news release is also the cleanup standard. Ms. Jennings clarified that the guidance will dictate how to convert the DWEL to a cleanup standard. Ms. Conron asked if the cleanup standard would be more or less. Ms. Jennings replied that it could be no more than 24.5 ppb, but could be less. She noted that for a 24.5-ppb standard the assumption would be that water was the only perchlorate source to which an individual is exposed, with no additional sources such as lettuce or other foods.

Ms. Conron commented that she's skeptical, only because perchlorate contamination is such a political issue and involves so much money being spent by the DoD to clean up areas around military bases. She said that she will not drink water "with those kinds of levels" as she'd find it to be too scary, in light of how she thinks the standard could have been promulgated.

Mr. Cambareri noted that the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) has been working with 1 ppb as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) to guide the investigation and cleanup of perchlorate contamination. He said that he thinks that this approach should continue until some other standard is established. He also noted, for example, that while the MCL and cleanup level for benzene is 5 ppb, lesser levels of benzene in groundwater are still a concern because it's foreign to the water of Cape Cod and therefore deserves investigation. He said that the current ARAR for perchlorate heightens everyone's sensitivity and awareness and he believes that that concern should

Responses to Action Items from the December 7, 2004 IART Meeting

There were no comments on the written responses to action items from the December 7, 2004 IART meeting.

Agenda Item #3. Comments from Residents of Peters Pond Drive in Sandwich

Ms. Moretti of 3 Peters Pond Drive in the Forestdale neighborhood of Sandwich introduced herself and her husband. She noted that their private drinking water well is contaminated with perchlorate and they wanted to express their feelings about the situation. She first thanked DEP, EPA, the Army, the Health Department, Representative Jeffrey Perry, Selectman Frank Pannorfi, and the IART for "all the phone calls" and for providing them with information. She also reminded everyone, however, that her family is in this situation because of the base and the problem continues, "Still hauling water."

Ms. Moretti noted that the IAGWSP installed three wells in Forestdale and asked why it hasn't considered drilling a well closer to her home, perhaps on the side of her house opposite from where the private well is. She also questioned why, with the amount of money being spent on testing, a town water hookup couldn't be provided. She added that it's amazing to her that the government can spend so much money helping other countries but can't provide clean water for the people in this state and country. Ms. Moretti also noted that she and all of her neighbors believe that the value of their property has decreased and she doubts that she could sell her house at this time. She further noted that her doctor advised her not to drink the water from her well, and added that it's been a hardship to not use her tap except for showers, dishes, and laundry. She also said that she agrees with Ms. Conron.

Mr. Hugus recommended that any investigation reports on the Peters Pond area scheduled for this meeting occur early on. He then said that when the IART first heard about the detection in the Peters Pond neighborhood, Mr. Gregson had said that the residents with the affected well were content to get their own bottled water, and that's how the problem was being addressed. He has since learned, however, that the residents of that neighborhood have put out a petition asking for town water hookups, like many other neighborhoods on the Upper Cape that have been affected by base pollution. He noted that the Peters Pond residents are also asking the military to make up for the loss in property values that resulted from the contamination. Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the IART was misled about the neighborhood's reaction. He also said that he appreciates that the Morettis came to this meeting tonight to speak to the team in person, as he thinks the team might not be getting the correct story if it has to rely on the officials.

Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP has been investigating the area for a long time. He said that when perchlorate was first detected in the Morettis' well, the immediate question was whether bottled water would be provided. For the same reasons encountered at the Northwest Corner, the Army could not spend its money to provide bottled water - because perchlorate is an unregulated substance. Also, DEP said that it could not provide bottled water to the Morettis. Mr. Gregson noted that if he had used the word "content," it was probably a poor choice of words, and he had meant only to say that the Morettis were providing their own bottled water.

Mr. Gregson acknowledged the Morettis' hardship, but noted that, unfortunately, the situation has not changed. He said that the IAGWSP has not yet found a source of the contamination in the Morettis' well, nor a connection to the base, given the wells that have been drilled thus far. He further noted that there still is no standard for perchlorate under which the Army can take an action, which is frustrating for the IAGWSP as well. Mr. Gregson then reported that drilling of an additional monitoring well in the Forestdale area is scheduled to begin on Thursday or Friday, and it's hoped that data from that well will provide more information about the source.

Mr. Hugus remarked that he finds it very disingenuous and against all common sense for the military to say that it's not responsible for the perchlorate in the Peters Pond neighborhood, given the numerous perchlorate discoveries, the J Range plumes, and the proximity of that area to the base. He also said that he thinks it's immoral for the military not to spend the small amount of money it would take to provide a town water hookup for the Morettis. Mr. Hugus also noted that the letters dated December 17, 2004 from the Department of the Army to the residents of Peters Pond Drive are identical, stating that their cooperation is appreciated and that no perchlorate or explosives were detected in their private wells. Only the letter to the Morettis differs in that it simply states that their cooperation is appreciated. Mr. Hugus then asked if it's been put in writing anywhere that the Morettis' well is polluted.

Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP sent the Morettis a letter dated February 14, 2005, which had sample results for their well. He also noted that the IAGWSP had provided the Morettis with a perchlorate fact sheet and additional information, had met with them on a couple of occasions, and continues to try to keep them informed on results of the investigation. He further noted that the IAGWSP is sampling the Morettis well on a monthly basis and providing results. Mr. Hugus said that he assumes that the IAGWSP has not said that the military is responsible for the contamination in that well. Mr. Gregson reiterated that the investigation to date hasn't shown a connection between the perchlorate in the Morettis' well and any contamination seen on the base.

Mr. Hugus questioned how it could possibly be thought that this contamination isn't from the base. Mr. Gregson referred to the data from the off-base wells, what's been seen in the known areas of contamination, the distance of the Morettis well from the base boundary, and the depth of private wells, which are typically water table wells. He explained that the area from which the Morettis' well is drawing its water could not extend back onto the base.

Mr. Hugus stated that his sympathies are with the residents of the Peters Pond neighborhood. He also told the Morettis that the citizen members of the IART are not represented by the National Guard and he hopes that the National Guard hasn't represented itself as speaking for them. He mentioned the case of a homeowner near the Cape Cod Canal in Bourne, whose private well had perchlorate detections, and who was provided bottled water by DEP and eventually received a town water hookup. He said that he hopes DEP does the right thing again and provides bottled water to the Morettis. He also urged the Morettis to protest as much as possible, as he believes that is the only way they will get results on this issue.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked Mr. Gonser to reply to the Morettis' request for a town water hookup, which he thinks is a reasonable request. Mr. Gonser replied that, as Mr. Gregson noted, the position on that hasn't changed at this point. The investigation thus far has not indicated that the contamination is linked to the base, and the perchlorate concentrations are still very low, especially given EPA's new guidance, which would indicate that they don't pose a health risk. Mr. Gonser stated that at this point the Army has no authority to provide hookups. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski remarked that his understanding of the Army's legal authority is that where there's a risk, it can take action; it's not necessary for somebody to be harmed.

Ms. Moretti asked for an explanation of the increasing perchlorate concentration in her well, which went from 1.02 ppb last April to 1.86 ppb in February. Mr. Gregson replied that not knowing the source of the perchlorate contamination, it's difficult to say exactly why that is happening, and it may be due to natural variations in the zones of contamination in groundwater. He also noted that the IAGWSP intends to continue monitoring the well and providing results.

Ms. Conron questioned whether a study of the area in question is going to be or already has been undertaken. Mr. Gregson mentioned the Southeast Ranges presentation to be made later during the meeting, and he noted that the IAGWSP has been conducting an ongoing investigation of the J-2 Range Eastern Boundary plumes and providing the IART with updates. Once the investigation has been completed, all of the information will be presented in an investigation report for the entire area. Presently, however, a number of wells remain to be drilled under that program.

Ms. Conron asked if all the private wells in the Peters Pond neighborhood had been tested. Mr. Gregson confirmed that they had and the Morettis well was the only one with a perchlorate detection. Ms. Conron asked if a town water hookup would be provided should a reasonable conclusion be made that the pollution came from the base. Mr. Gregson replied that the issue of there being no standard for perchlorate would have to be overcome. Ms. Conron inquired about the hookups provided in Bourne. Mr. Gregson explained that the IAGWSP had been unable to respond to the perchlorate detections in a private well on Foretop Road in Bourne by providing bottled water or a hookup. DEP did provide bottled water, however, and as the investigation continued RDX was detected in an upgradient well at a level above the health advisory. At that point, due to the sufficient risk posed by the upgradient RDX contamination to the homeowners, and because RDX is a regulated compound, the IAGWSP did have the authority to provide a town water hookup to the homeowners on Foretop Road.

Ms. Conron asked if the Morettis' well is deeper or in some other way different than other private wells in the area. Mr. Gregson replied that as far as the IAGWSP knows, the well is constructed the same way as other wells on Peters Pond Drive. He also mentioned that he thinks the Morettis' home is located at the end of the street, nearest to Quaker Meetinghouse Road.

Mr. Cambareri said that he hadn't known that the perchlorate levels in the Morettis' well were at or above 1 ppb. He noted that Ralph Marks (of the Bourne Water District) had told the IART some time ago that he would "have a problem" with perchlorate levels above 1 ppb in his drinking water. Mr. Cambareri also said that he thinks that a relevant part of the investigation would be to implement Ms. Moretti's suggestion to put a monitoring well near or on her property in order to evaluate the depth of the perchlorate contamination. He added that perhaps if that well were profiled, some clean areas of the aquifer were found, and permanent screens were set, the IAGWSP could hook that into the Morettis' water system and take samples from their tap.

Mr. Gregson noted that as part of the investigation a well installed between Peters Pond Drive and the base boundary (on the driveway to the Forestdale School) was profiled to bedrock and there were no perchlorate detections.

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that he's unsatisfied with Mr. Gregson's responses to the Morettis. He said that it's been learned over time that variations in contaminant concentrations don't happen randomly, but rather indicate that the concentrations moving through the water are higher, or that there are slugs of contamination moving through the water table. He questioned why this truthful answer wasn't given to Ms. Moretti. He also said that he believes that the IAGWSP has the "ability, moral recourse, and authority" to provide the Morettis with the water they want, and he finds it "downright ludicrous" that it would do nothing because of worries about financial and political ramifications associated with "helping out this citizen here, versus helping the millions of other citizens across the country who are experiencing perhaps similar things."

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski mentioned that it's his recollection that the area east of what is now the base boundary had been used for maneuvers for a number of years, and he also recalls reports of munitions landing there. He said that if the IAGWSP is looking for justification, he would guess that the base history pertaining to that area would provide it.

Mr. Mullennix told the Morettis that he believes that they are victims in this situation and he understands that they're scared about their drinking water. He then pointed out, however, that perchlorate has been intensively studied, particularly over the past few years, and, the information available today - put in lay terms - "is that 24 ppb is a safe level for perchlorate." He also acknowledged that some regulatory processes, which it is hoped will occur quickly, will provide more clarity. He thanked the Morettis for coming to the meeting and asked Ms. Jennings to comment on the safety measure for perchlorate.

Ms. Jennings said that she would not by any means say precisely what Mr. Mullennix had said. Rather, she would just say that the RfD has been established and her office is waiting for guidance on how to calculate a cleanup level. Also, the state is preparing to promulgate a perchlorate standard, which might be a very different number. Ms. Jennings said that she thinks it's premature to say that it's okay for the Morettis to drink the water.

Mr. Mullennix then read from the EPA news release: "EPA's new RfD translates to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level of 24.5 ppb. A Drinking Water Equivalent Level, which assumes that all of a contaminant comes from drinking water, is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that will have no adverse effect with a margin of safety." Mr. Walsh-Rogalski clarified that this assumes that an individual's entire intake of perchlorate is from drinking water. However, he assumes that the Morettis eat food, from different parts of the country, that's irrigated with perchlorate-contaminated water. He said that the default value EPA uses in the absence of information on the relative contribution from food and other sources is 20% . Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stressed that some relative contributions of sources of perchlorate need to be factored into the number "before the DWEL has any meaningful impact in looking at what's safe."

Mr. Hugus said that he completely disagrees that it's safe to drink perchlorate at any level. Also, since the military currently maintains that it is not responsible for the perchlorate in the Peters Pond area, he thinks a study should be undertaken of the entire area, on an emergency basis, driven by the need to determine the source of the contamination and who is responsible. Mr. Hugus also asked DEP how it was possible to provide a water hookup for the resident on Foretop Road, and whether the same could be done for the residents of Peters Pond Drive.

Mr. Pinaud said that the Northwest Corner investigation, which involved Foretop Road, was more advanced than the J-2 Eastern Boundary investigation. At the Northwest Corner, there was no question that the RDX and a portion of the perchlorate contamination were from a military source. At that time DEP issued a Notice of Responsibility to the Army, which responded that it could not or would not take an action. Therefore, DEP stepped in and for about one year provided bottled water to the Foretop Road resident whose private well had had perchlorate detections. Within that year, the Army provided a town water hookup based on RDX contamination.

Mr. Pinaud also noted that DEP has a policy in these cases where the expectation is that the potentially responsible party will pay for a water connection or mitigate contaminated water supplies with a point-of-entry treatment system. If the potentially responsible party will not or can not do so, and the homeowner can not do so for economic reasons, DEP can spend state funds.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about potential sources, other than the base, for the perchlorate at Peters Pond Drive. Mr. Gregson said that any ideas he had would be speculation. He also noted, however, that the Morettis' well is shallow, and based on that, it would seem that the source was something nearby. He referred to a map of that area, pointed out the general vicinity where a source might be, and noted that the IAGWSP has no record of what could have occurred there that would cause perchlorate contamination. Mr. Schlesinger asked if any blasting occurred at the P.A. Landers pit. Mr. Gregson replied that that possibility hasn't been ruled out, but added that because it's a sand pit, one wouldn't think that a lot of blasting was done there.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski recommended overlaying the map of the Eastern Boundary area on historical aerial photos that date back to the 1940s. Mr. Gregson said that there's no evidence of any former ranges or anything like that in that area, but he thinks it would be worthwhile to take a look at the historical photos.

Ms. Grillo inquired about any RDX detections in the area. Mr. Gregson noted to answer this question he would move on to the Remediation & Investigation Update.

Agenda Item #4. Remediation & Investigation Update

Southeast Ranges Recent Results

Mr. Gregson showed a map depicting perchlorate plumes from the J-2 Range and pointed out the base boundary, the Forestdale neighborhood in Sandwich, Route 130, the Peters Pond neighborhood, Peters Pond, the P.A. Landers sand pit, and a garden center across the street. He also pointed out the J-2 Range and the plume concentration contours: nondetect to less than 1 ppb; 1 ppb to less than 4 ppb, 4 ppb to less than 18 ppb, 18 ppb to less than 100 ppb, and 100 ppb or greater.

Mr. Gregson noted that beginning in the 1950s the J-2 Range was used for defense contractor testing activities that included the disposal of munitions by burial or burning. He pointed out the J-2 North plume and said that it's fairly well defined and cleanup plans are under way.

Mr. Gregson referred to the J-2 Eastern Boundary plumes and noted that perchlorate was detected at about 1 ppb in monitoring well 319 (MW-319) and had previously been detected in MW-158, which now tests nondetect. The easternmost plume was mapped based on those detections. He also pointed out the two other J-2 Eastern Boundary plumes, one in the middle, and one more toward the west, both of which are heading north. He noted that in response to the discovery of the easternmost plume, the IAGWSP looked at existing wells, including two at the public park at Peters Pond, one at the garden center, and MW-57, all of which tested nondetect. Based on those results, an off-base drilling program was developed.

Mr. Gregson then pointed out MW-362, the most recently drilled off-base monitoring well, located along Route 130 (across from the establishment that used to sell birdbaths), which tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. He also pointed out MW-358, on town cemetery property, which also tested nondetect, and MW-355, on the Forestdale School driveway, directly between MW-319 and Peters Pond Drive, which tested nondetect as well. He mentioned again that drilling of a new well, at location J2E-7, is scheduled to begin this Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that based on the north/south width of the plume drawn around MW-319 (which is a potentially very narrow), there might be another plume to the southeast that won't be identified unless the IAGWSP looks there. Mr. Gregson replied that many lines of information are considered when putting together a plume map, including potential source areas, and it's more likely that a source exists on the J-2 Range rather than "half way in the woods in between." He noted that groundwater flow is another consideration and a source in the southern part of the range "is likely to go off in this direction." He also pointed out MW-342 to the south, which bounds the southern extent, and pointed out a couple of additional wells, noting that one of them would pick up anything getting by and heading towards Peters Pond Drive. Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP is looking at a lot of different information to piece the puzzle together and ensure that every potential source area for perchlorate and RDX in groundwater is identified.

Mr. Schlesinger suggested that data from MW-342 doesn't indicate what's happening in the area to the south and provides no evidence that there isn't a plume there. Mr. Gregson said that "these three wells" indicate that nothing would be there. Mr. Schlesinger remarked that he thinks the wells are too far apart. He also asked if there's a well in use at the Forestdale School. Mr. Gregson replied that there is not. Mr. Schlesinger inquired about private wells in the neighborhood south of the school. Mr. Gregson replied that there are no private wells there. Mr. Schlesinger also inquired about the wells represented by black dots on the map. Mr. Gregson explained that those are existing wells that were deemed unsuitable for sampling, perhaps because of the screen depths.

Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the IAGWSP would have to install a well fence from MW-355 north and south in order to prove that the contamination at Peters Pond Drive is not from the base. He also noted that pollution from the base has traveled such a distance before, from J. Braden Thompson Road all the way to Wakeby Pond. Mr. Gregson pointed out the wells, which though not in line, have been installed in that area so far, including MW-57, MW-358, MW-362, and MW-355. He also noted that the well to be drilled at J2E-7 will be important. Mr. Hugus clarified that he's talking about a logical line from the base to Peters Pond; there is only one well in that area and he thinks more are needed.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked if it would be fair to say that all of the data from that area are "confounded to some extent" due to its proximity to the top of the mound. Mr. Gregson agreed that it is one of the more complicated areas to be doing this type of work, and while all available information is used, such as groundwater models, it ultimately comes down to drilling wells and developing a picture based on well data. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski suggested that the picture that's drawn based on data points isn't as reliable as others. And drawing conclusions about the sources is perhaps more conditional an exercise than it typically is, given the "ever-changing dynamic in terms of what's in the wells." Mr. Gregson said that shifting in the top of the mound does occur and does control the ultimate shape of the plumes. He also noted that near the top of the mound the plumes will dive deep relatively quickly and then move out from that location, and this third dimension of depth needs to be taken into account as well.

Mr. Cambareri noted that the map includes the outline of the zones of contribution (ZOCs) for the Sandwich water supply wells. Mr. Gregson said that the ZOCs are from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report that was issued some time ago. Mr. Cambareri referred to the southern outline and noted that there appears to be a southeastern pull in the groundwater flow direction. He also noted that Peters Pond is a kettle hole pond (with no stream or outlet to it) that derives all of its water from groundwater, and it's often found that groundwater flow will bend and converge to such a pond. Therefore, he thinks it might be feasible to say that the plume is being pulled by the pond, right through where MW-355 and MW-362 are located, and that the pond might even be drawing the contamination up from a deeper depth to a shallower depth.

Mr. Cambareri also said that he agrees that this an extremely complex area, made even more complex by the flow paths presented by the pond. He then suggested that, rather than trying to define the plume well by well, it would make sense to install a profile well at the subject property to determine where the contamination is, "where perhaps that well is screened."

Mr. Gregson agreed that it is a complicated area and pointed out some dashed lines that indicate a groundwater divide, one side of which would head toward Cape Cod Bay, and the other side of which would head toward Nantucket Sound. He said that the well drilled at J2E-7 will be critical in determining what's happening there. If that well turns out to test nondetect, it could mean that the plume is very small and hasn't reached that location yet, or it could mean that the plume may be heading off to the north. If one were to surmise that perhaps it's going to the south, the expectation is that it would be detected in MW-355. Mr. Gregson suggested waiting for data from that well to provide another piece of the picture.

Mr. Cambareri said that the groundwater contours are generated by one set of data, the model is generated by another, and it's often found that where the plumes are flowing contradicts the model. He said that although he's not knocking the model, he doesn't think there should be too much reliance on it, especially in this complicated area. He also remarked that while he agrees that the well at J2E-7 is critical, he thinks that the IAGWSP must "connect the dots." Mr. Cambareri recommended that private wells that are sampled be identified on maps with a different symbol, to distinguish them from monitoring wells. He also stressed that he sees no better spot to drill a well than the location where the citizen will grant permission to do so.

Mr. Pinaud asked to see the cross-section figure that runs from the easternmost J-2 Eastern Boundary plume to the private wells on Peters Pond Drive. While Mr. Gregson was locating the figure, Mr. Pinaud remarked that one strategy to implement for this investigation is to work backwards from where perchlorate was detected in the private well. He also said that it might be worth looking into the use of drive-point technology, which can achieve four fairly deep closely-spaced drive-point wells in a day, is relatively cheap, and has worked well for the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) in its investigations.

Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP does consider using drive-points because they can be a more economical way to get data. Unfortunately, however, there are very limited situations at Camp Edwards where drive-points can be used to achieve any kind of depth. He then showed cross-section E-E' and pointed out the suspected source area on the east end of the J-2 Range, MW-319, the well at the Forestdale School, and several private wells in the Peters Pond area. He said that the private wells are probably getting their water from the shallow part of the aquifer, while the contamination near the mound and in MW-319 is likely traveling deeper.

Mr. Pinaud stated that it's been seen in IRP investigations that as contamination moves towards a pond it begins to move up. Therefore, if the plume is traveling in the direction that the figure shows, it's possible that it could be moving into the area from which the private wells get their water. Mr. Gregson replied that the trouble is that in starting where the water is relatively deep and trying to bring it up, something has to happen to the water that's on top. It has to discharge to the pond or go somewhere, and given the location and distance from the pond, at this point it's not thought possible that that's occurring. He also said that the IAGWSP is looking at all possibilities to figure out the situation. Mr. Gregson then said that he heard Mr. Cambareri say that the pond is above the water table, so it might make sense "to take that line and look at the vertical exaggeration and steepen that up to intercept the water table."

Ms. Walker noted that she is a member of the IRP's Plume Cleanup Team (PCT), but is speaking as a citizen of Sandwich. She said that she was disturbed to hear that the IAGWSP was choosing well locations based on past contractor activities at the J-2 Range, given that it's well known that the contractors didn't keep very good records and that the military didn't oversee them properly. She also said that the IAGWSP should take into consideration that the base boundary is itself a moving target, with activities spilling beyond it, as was seen at Camp Good News in Sandwich.

Ms. Walker then noted that for several years she was a member of the IRP's former Public Information Team (PIT) and finds tonight's presentation handouts "not very citizen-friendly." She noted, for example, that the legends on the J Range maps are unreadable for someone new to this information. She recommended that the perchlorate and RDX maps be presented on separate pages, with the legends expanded. She also said that she'd like to see a map that shows the Sandwich ZOCs more clearly, not as "squiggles," in order to better illustrate how they might be affected by the contamination in that area.

Ms. Conron remarked that after studying the map of the perchlorate plumes, it certainly seems reasonable to her that the contamination in the Morettis' well could be coming from the base. She said that it is mind boggling to her the amount of money that would have to be spent to prove that, so she thinks it makes more common sense to just pay for town water hookups.

Mr. Gregson continued by showing the J-2 Range RDX map. He noted that RDX was not detected in MW-319, but he did point out the areas where RDX has been detected and is heading in a northerly direction. He also stated that RDX was not detected in any of the wells that were drilled off base or in the private wells that were tested.

Mr. Schlesinger asked why one of the wells represented by a black dot on the perchlorate map shows up as green, or nondetect, on the RDX map. Mr. Gregson said that he would have to get back to Mr. Schlesinger with an answer to that question.

Mr. Dow asked if the perchlorate and RDX occur at the same depths. Mr. Gregson replied that in general they occur at the same depths and have similar source areas. He noted that the J-2 Range Disposal Area 2 is a good example where both source areas exist right at the end of the J-2 Range. He also noted, however, that there are some deeper detections whose source might be farther back on the J-1 Range or which may reflect changes in groundwater flow over time. Mr. Dow then asked if the RDX plumes are shorter because RDX is more retarded by the soil particles as it moves into the groundwater. Mr. Gregson replied that that appears to be the case. Mr. Dow also asked if it's correct that no RDX has been detected in the plume drawn around MW-319. Mr. Gregson confirmed that no RDX has been detected there.

Mr. Cambareri asked if permanent wells screens had been set in MW-362. Mr. Gregson replied that wells screens had been set there, but he didn't know the depths offhand. Mr. Cambareri noted that if a well were installed on the Morettis' property, permanent well screens would be set there also. Mr. Gregson confirmed that that would be the case if a well were installed there.

Agenda Item #5. Southeast Ranges Investigations to Date

Mr. Gregson showed a map of MMR and pointed out the Central Impact Area, the Southeast Ranges, and the top of the groundwater mound at the J-1 Range, from which the groundwater flows in a radial pattern. He then showed the perchlorate and RDX maps of the Southeast Ranges, noted that the legends would be made more readable, and pointed out the J-1, J-2, and J-3 Ranges. He also showed a 2002 aerial photo of the Southeast Ranges, from the perspective of looking down the J-1 Range. He pointed out the J-2 Range, the J-3 Range, the Forestdale School, the water tower, a puff of dust that was probably from P.A. Landers, and the pond in the background. He noted that some excavation work to remove known source areas occurred after the photo was taken. He also pointed out on the photo an open area where 10-foot tall scrub pine trees had been cleared for a geophysical survey.

Mr. Gregson stated that the J Ranges were used for training during the World War II period up through the 1950s, after which they were used for contractor testing. The L Range, however, was used for an infiltration course and as a grenade launcher range up until the late 1990s. Activities at the ranges include firing to test munitions and disposal of munitions by burial or burning. Investigation efforts at the ranges have involved geophysical surveys, the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, archive searches, and interviews with individuals who used to work at the ranges. In general, records of the types of activities that the contractors conducted are very scarce.

Mr. Gregson showed an aerial photo of the J-1 Range, which was a view from the firing-point up toward the Impact Area. He pointed out the berm that's 2,000 meters from the firing-point, and another target berm. He noted that rounds were shot through tunnels in the berms; if the round made it through the tunnel, it was on target. If not, the round would hit knockdown plates and be taken out of the firing realm.

Mr. Gregson showed maps depicting RDX and perchlorate contamination emanating from the northern end of the J-1 Range, and noted that the source is believed to the interberm area in the middle of the range where some weapons testing and burning occurred. He noted that 26 wells have been installed on the J-1 Range since the investigation began, seven of which were installed in 2004. Mr. Gregson said that it's believed that the extent of the J-1 Range plumes is fairly well defined, and the IAGWSP had selected three additional well locations. However, because of concerns that Natural Resources expressed about the habitat in that area, the decision was made to install just one of those wells (J1P-28) and see if it provides adequate information to complete a remedial investigation report and move forward with a feasibility study (FS) or a rapid response action (RRA), if needed.

Mr. Gregson stated that the soil component of the J-1 Range investigation included an aerial magnetometry (air mag) survey, a ground-based geophysical survey of the cleared area, which is the historic boundary of the range, the collection of 562 soil samples, and the review of an archive search report and witness interviews. Additional investigation will be conducted in 2005 to help identify and remove other potential sources of groundwater contamination. The IAGWSP looked at 50 grids for potential investigation based on the magnetic anomalies and other lines of evidence, of which about 33 were prioritized for investigation. The 14 top priority grids will be investigated later this spring, and one of them is the interberm area. The scope of the project will be to locate the anomaly, excavate it, identify it, and then excavate the surrounding soil should it appear to be a source of contamination. Based on what's found as the project progresses, additional grids may be investigated. Mr. Gregson noted that the same type of activity is also scheduled for the J-2 Range.

Mr. Gregson showed a 2002 aerial photo of the J-2 Range and pointed out the road that leads to the firing-point, the Impact Area boundary, and the Forestdale School on the other side of the base boundary. He also pointed out the J-2 Range Disposal Area 2 and noted that it has undergone extensive soil excavation to remove the suspected source of the J-2 North plume.

Mr. Gregson showed maps depicting perchlorate and RDX contamination emanating from the J-2 Range and pointed out the J-2 North plume and the J-2 Eastern Boundary plumes. He reported that 60 monitoring wells have been installed as part of the J-2 investigation, 28 of which were installed in 2004, mostly to define the J-2 North plume. He noted that the IAGWSP believes it has enough information to move forward with an FS for the J-2 North plume, and has to decide whether to go forward with an FS now or wait until the investigation of the J-2 Eastern Boundary plumes has been completed. In the meantime, however, an RRA has been proposed to install a groundwater treatment system for the J-2 North plume. That plan should be ready for IART review later this spring and funds have been programmed for the project, which the IAGWSP would like to award this year.

Mr. Gregson noted that he'd already talked extensively about the J-2 Eastern Boundary plumes and so would simply emphasize again that the well being drilled in the Forestdale neighborhood later this week will be key to investigating the easternmost plume. He also noted that up to five additional wells are planned for the Eastern Boundary area.

Mr. Gregson stated that the soil component of the J-2 Range investigation included magnetometer and geophysical surveys and the collection of about 1,500 soil samples. Several suspected areas of soil contamination were identified, the most significant being the J-2 Range Disposal Area 2, believed to be the source of the J-2 North plume. An RRA for soil was implemented in 2004. Mr. Gregson reported that about 39,000 metallic objects were removed from the J-2 Range, of which about 1,600 were munitions or munitions-related items. Also, more than 8,000 tons of soil was excavated and treated at the thermal desorption unit.

Mr. Gregson noted that there is more excavation work to be done on the J-2 Range, and a similar approach will be used at the J-1 Range. He explained that because geophysical information does not indicate whether a buried item is an old car or munitions, it must be dug up and identified in order to determine whether there's a source area. He also noted that the thermal desorption unit is heading off site next month, so any additional contaminated soil that's excavated would be transported to an off-site disposal facility.

Mr. Gregson then showed an aerial photo of the J-3 Range, located upgradient of Snake Pond in Sandwich, and said that beginning in the 1950s it had been used primarily for defense contractor testing. He noted that Textron, a contractor that used the range, has done quite a bit of work there to remove buildings and other structures, including a big effort to break apart and remove some large concrete blocks containing rebar.

Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP believes that the extent of the J-3 Range plumes is fairly well defined, has proposed and is moving forward with an RRA for groundwater, and is continuing to conduct summertime sampling of Snake Pond for explosives and perchlorate. He noted that 45 monitoring wells have been installed as part of the J-3 Range investigation, and that the suspected source area for the plumes is the site of the concrete blocks, where there were burn pits and additional features that caused contamination.

Mr. Gregson noted that the J-3 Range RDX and perchlorate plumes travel in a southern direction toward Snake Pond. The plumes are roughly co-located, indicating some difference in the timing of the releases, with the RDX released earlier than the perchlorate. Seven monitoring wells were drilled there in 2004, and although additional wells were programmed for that year, the J-2 North plume became a higher priority and so some more wells still need to be drilled.

Mr. Gregson stated that the final RRA plan for groundwater, which will be submitted in a couple of weeks, utilizes the IRP's Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) treatment facility. The plan also involves one existing IRP extraction well (near the toe of the plume) and two new extractions wells (one near the toe and one in the center of the plume). Extracted water from the three wells will be piped to a treatment system housed within the FS-12 treatment plant, treated, and then discharged into the IRP injection well system. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in October 2005. While that is ongoing, the IAGWSP will be drilling some additional wells to the west and on the other side of Snake Pond in order to complete the investigation. When the extent of contamination has been adequately defined, the plan is to move forward with an FS, assess the performance of the RRA system that will be in place, and determine what additional cleanup is warranted, if any.

Mr. Gregson mentioned the concrete blocks and noted that a number of different source areas were excavated as part of the RRA. More than 2,200 tons of soil was sent to the thermal desorption unit for treatment. While it's thought that most of the source areas were removed as part of the RRA effort, some additional investigation will be done to confirm that. Mr. Gregson referred to a figure depicting the J-3 Range excavation work and pointed out the location of Textron's melt/pour building, which had some HMX-contaminated soil around it, and other areas that were excavated as part of the RRA. He also noted that that work was completed last September.

Mr. Gregson stated that the L Range, which has historically been used for military training, is located between the J-1 Range and the J-3 Range and has firing-points to the south and targets to the north. He also mentioned that there's an unexploded ordnance (UXO) safety concern at the L Range, where 40-mm grenades were used. He showed RDX and perchlorate maps of the L Range and pointed out the small plumes. Mr. Gregson stated that the L Range Groundwater Characterization Report was sent out last month, and that some additional soil sampling needs to be done. He also noted that the FS for the L Range will be rolled into the FS for the J-3 Range plume because they are located in such close proximity. It makes sense that any remedy that addresses the J-3 plume could also address cleanup of the L Range plume.

Mr. Gregson then reviewed next steps as follows: for the J-1 Range - complete the RI and start the groundwater FS planned for 2005; for the J-2 Range - soil RRA has been completed, groundwater RRA is under way, continue work on groundwater RI/FS, planned for 2005; for the J-3 Range - soil RRA has been completed, begin construction of the RRA groundwater treatment system, October 2005; and for the L Range - complete the soil RRA in 2005.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he'd observed multiple inconsistencies during the presentation in terms of wells depicted by black dots on some maps and green dots on others. Ms. Richardson of the IAGWSP explained that the close-up maps of the individual ranges were all derived from the same larger map, so there are no differences among them. She also explained that the differences in color-coding between the perchlorate and RDX maps means that a well was tested for one of those compounds but not the other. Mr. Schlesinger said that the question remains as to why some wells were tested for just one of the compounds. Ms. Richardson assured him that the IAGWSP would look into that and provide an answer. Mr. Gregson asked if Mr. Schlesinger would prefer that the black dots be deleted from the maps. Mr. Schlesinger replied that he would prefer that they remain, but would like to know the reason why they weren't sampled. Mr. Gregson said that it would probably be a screen depth issue. Mr. Schlesinger suggested that it might make sense to "punch through" such a well in order to collect deeper samples.

Mr. Schlesinger also noted that Mr. Gregson had mentioned that because of Natural Resources concerns, only one (J1P-28) of three planned wells was being installed at the J-1 Range. He said that he'd hoped that a Natural Resources person would come to an IART meeting and asked Ms. Jennings to comment on that. Ms. Jennings stated that a Natural Resources person will be coming to a future IART meeting when the larger issues pertaining to the Central Impact Area are being discussed. She also said that she thought it was important that Mr. Gregson mention the Natural Resources concern at the J-1 Range since the IART had expressed an interest in being informed about that type of thing. She said that she thinks it would be relevant to bring up this particular issue at the future meeting when a Natural Resources person is in attendance.

Mr. Schlesinger also inquired about any additional vegetation removal and air mag work. He referred to the oblong area northeast and adjacent to the J-2 Range soil grids shown on the aerial photo/map entitled "J-2 RRA Site Map Excavation Progress," and said that something appears to have occurred there and he thinks that the IAGWSP should look into it. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP would take a look at that area in the field. He also said that air mag surveys were conducted over the entire Southeast Ranges area and the IAGWSP believes that it has taken those data as far as they can go. Also, ground-based geophysical surveys were done on the existing ranges. The question is whether there's anything in between the ranges that's worth looking at, and that should be answered as part of the investigation.

Mr. Schlesinger asked if the air mag work was conducted after the vegetation was cleared. Mr. Gregson said that he thinks it occurred at about the same time. Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks the vegetation clearance was done first, and he's concerned that perhaps anomalies do exist in areas where none were detected but the vegetation wasn't cleared. Mr. Gregson replied that air mag data are part of what will be reviewed (along with historical photos and ground-based geophysical data) once the focus shifts from known areas of contamination along the historic range areas to other potential source areas between the ranges that might have been overlooked.

Ms. Jennings asked Mr. Gregson to explain why some of the soil grids at the J-2 Range that appear to have a "geo-mag" issue are not color-coded as priority grids. Mr. Gregson explained that it's a matter of investigating the higher-priority grids first and ensuring the removal of potential source areas of a known groundwater plume. Based on what's seen while working through to the Priority 3 grids - if only beer cans and barbed wire are found, for example - the IAGWSP might want to look again at those lower-priority sites currently shown as open grids and decide whether it makes sense to "dig every single dot on the map" or implement some other approach that would accomplish the same thing.

Ms. Jennings remarked that EPA sent out a comment letter today stating that it generally agrees with the priority scheme, but had understood that while the area would be tackled on a priority basis, all of the grids would undergo some level of investigation. It was also suggested in the comment letter that if the IAGWSP is going to use information from prioritized grids to make decisions on sites that are not prioritized, the investigation should be structured that way. In other words, EPA believes that it's necessary to collect the same kind of data from priority grids and demonstrate that conclusions can be drawn about grids that aren't investigated. Ms. Jennings reiterated that it was EPA's understanding that every grid would undergo some level of investigation, and the only reason for prioritizing was based on some limited funding for the year the investigation began.

Mr. Schlesinger asked if it's correct that the investigation would be limited to priority sites, with no more than a cursory look at the others, because of financial concerns. Mr. Gregson replied that it's obvious that unlimited money is not available for the project, and the IAGWSP believes that it should prioritize in order to ensure that disposal areas that are sources of contamination to groundwater are found. He also said that if the only way to identify the anomalies is to conduct a dig on every single one, then that's something the IAGWSP will have to do. However, it's thought that the approach of looking at the higher-priority grids first, and gaining information in the process, might help inform the final effort on the range and ensure that indeed all the source areas are found. Mr. Schlesinger stated that this does not answer his question of whether there is a financial impediment that would prevent the IAGWSP from investigating every one of the grids. Mr. Gregson replied that he thinks the budget covers the Priority 1, 2, and 3 sites, and if additional sites need to be investigated to find source areas, money to do so would be programmed in future years or taken from some lower-priority activity.

Agenda Item #6. Open Discussion - Contained Detonation Chamber

Mr. Gregson reported that the contained detonation chamber (CDC) is off site and will be brought back once more items have accumulated. He also noted that the handout provided to the team contains information on what's been destroyed in the CDC, and that the CDC will continue to be brought back to the base when needed.

Agenda Item #7. Remediation & Investigation Update (continued)

Rapid Response Actions

Mr. Gregson reported that thermal treatment of soils from the IAGWSP's soil RRA sites and from the IRP's Chemical Spill 10 (CS-19) site has been completed. The thermal desorption unit has been shut down and is being demobilized for transport to another job off site in March. Any soil generated from the limited additional soil removal to be done at the Demo 1 and J-2 Range sites will be moved to an off-site disposal facility.

Mr. Gregson reported that the RRA groundwater system at the Demo 1 plume is in place and continuing to function at a combined flow rate of 320 gallons per minute (gpm). About 75 million gallons have been treated since startup in early September 2004. Influent concentrations at the Pew Road system have been between 3 and 15 ppb for perchlorate and up to 1.1 ppb for RDX. Influent concentrations at the Frank Perkins Road system have been 4 to 5 ppb for RDX and 23 ppb for perchlorate. All effluent samples from both systems continue to test nondetect. Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP is working on some supplemental evaluations for the FS that will be reviewed with the regulatory agencies in March.

Northwest Corner Recent Results

Mr. Gregson stated that the Northwest Corner investigation is currently focused on trying to identify the source of RDX detected in MW-323. At MW-363, RDX was detected in profile samples at concentrations up to 15 ppb, while groundwater results from MW-350 were nondetect for RDX. Mr. Gregson stated that additional well locations are planned along the power line to the south to help define the upgradient extent of RDX. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski inquired about the concentration of RDX in MW-363. Mr. Gregson confirmed that it was 15 ppb, and noted that the detection in MW-323 was about 5 ppb.

J-2 Range Recent Results

Mr. Gregson reported that profile results showed a low level of RDX in MW-365, consistent with the way the middle Eastern Boundary plume is depicted. Profile results from MW-366 showed perchlorate at about 4 ppb, which indicates either that two of the plumes are closer together or that the edge of one of the plumes was detected. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski inquired about the depth of the 4-ppb detection. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn't have that information offhand.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the possibility of installing a monitoring well in the Coast Guard transmitter site area, between MW-18 and MW-351, to see if the detections in those two wells are connected. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP could look at the depth of the detection at MW-18 to see if it could track back that distance and be connected to the detection at MW-351.

J-1/J-3 Range Recent Results

Mr. Gregson showed a map, pointed out MW-360 at the entrance to the J-1 Range, and noted that profile testing showed it to be nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. He also pointed out MW-361, drilled on private property on Snake Pond, which also tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. He then pointed out a well to the north, MW-364, which was drilled to help determine whether there's any contamination downgradient from the barrage rocket target area, and reported that that well also tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the hash-marked area shown on the map. Mr. Gregson explained that the hash marks depict what is believed to be the portion of the J-3 Range RDX plume below the bottom of Snake Pond. He noted that that portion of the plume is believed to be riding beneath the pond at that location, not upwelling into it. He also said that it might be upwelling farther out in the pond or may be going underneath it, and there will be some additional well locations to the south to look at that.

Agenda Item #8. Open Discussion (continued)

Mr. Hugus requested that Mr. Gonser speak with his superiors at the Pentagon to see if they think it would be good economical reasoning to provide town water hookups for the residents on Peters Pond Drive rather than spend money on well fences in an attempt to prove that the military is not responsible for the contamination there. He said that he would appreciate it if Mr. Gonser would report back to the team on the response. Mr. Murphy remarked that this would be noted as an action item.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked if a water main runs by Peters Pond Drive. Mr. Gregson replied that he would have to check, but thinks that there's a water main on Quaker Meeting House Road. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski then asked if the Morettis' house is right on the corner. Mr. Gregson replied that it is about 100 to 200 feet from the corner.

Mr. Murphy noted that included in the meeting's handouts is a memo outlining notification procedures for meeting cancellations in the event of severe weather conditions.

Agenda Item #8. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy announced that the IART would meet next on Wednesday, March 22, 2005 at the Holiday Inn in Falmouth. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

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