Action Items:

1. The resident at 6 Peters Pond Drive requested that the IAGWSP look into why his private well was not tested in February when other wells on the street were tested.
2. Mr. Cambareri asked for a Sandwich Water District cost estimate to hook up the residences on Peters Pond Drive to town water.
3. Mr. Hugus requested the installation of a monitoring well fence between the base and the Peters Pond neighborhood. Mr. Schlesinger requested the installation of monitoring wells along Grand Oak Road.
4. Mr. Cambareri asked the IAGWSP to consider focusing the J-2 off-site investigation toward Peters Pond and look at the interaction of the contamination with the pond.
5. Mr. Cambareri requested that the cross-section figure showing the particle track from MW-319 towards Peters Pond be revised to include the depth of the pond (55 feet). Mr. Schlesinger also asked that the particle track be extended to show the flow of particles to Peters Pond.
6. Mr. Dow asked for information about confidence intervals associated with the perchlorate reference dose (RfD) proposed by the National Academies of Science (NAS).
7. Mr. Cambareri requested an update on supplemental modeling beyond the Pew Road extraction system for the Demolition Area 1 plume.
8. Mr. Mullennix asked for information on volume of water treated and mass of contamination captured by the carbon filter prior to change-out at the Pew Road treatment system.
9. Mr. Schlesinger asked the IAGWSP to look into whether NDMA can be a breakdown product.
10. Mr. Schlesinger requested that wellhead treatment of water supply wells in Bourne be included as one of the remedy alternatives to be considered for the Central Impact Area plumes.
11. Mr. Mullennix requested that the IART be provided with an educational presentation (by EPA and DEP experts) on the toxicity of perchlorate.

Future Agenda Items:

• Natural Resources Discussion
• TOSC Presentation on Granular Activated Carbon and Ion Exchange
• Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update
• Demolition Area 1 Supplemental Modeling
• Revised Combined Schedule

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

1. Responses to Action Items from the February 22, 2005 IART Meeting
2. Presentation handout: Remediation & Investigation Update
3. Maps/graphics to accompany Remediation & Investigation Update
4. 3/14/05 DEP Letter to EPA re: Perchlorate Contamination & Drinking Water
5. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since Last IART (Ending 3/17/05)
6. News Releases, Neighborhood Notices and Media Coverage (2/23/05 - 3/18/05)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Approval of February 22, 2005 IART Minutes

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:05 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 February 22, 2005 IART meeting minutes. None were offered and the minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News

Ms. Jennings referred to a map of the J-2 Eastern Boundary area and reminded the group that sampling conducted by the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) at homes on Peters Pond Drive in Sandwich had yielded low-level detections of perchlorate (1 to 2 parts per billion [ppb]) in just one of the private wells on that street (at the Morettis' residence), while all the others had consistently tested nondetect for perchlorate. For the sampling round conducted in February, the IAGWSP provided the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with an additional aliquot (amount) of the samples, which EPA sent to its laboratory in Chelmsford, Massachusetts for analysis by a different method than that used by the IAGWSP.

Ms. Jennings explained that the method is "a new EPA method, recently under development," and is capable of detecting lower levels of perchlorate. The method being used by the IAGWSP has a reporting limit of 0.35 ppb, while EPA's method has a reporting limit of 0.2 ppb and a detection limit of 0.065 ppb. She reported that EPA's results from sampling of the private wells on Peters Pond Drive yielded very low perchlorate detections, in the range of 0.1 ppb to 0.12 ppb. The sample from the Morettis' private well tested at 2.2 ppb, comparable to results that the IAGWSP has been getting for that particular well.

Ms. Jennings reported that EPA received its results about a week ago and last Wednesday met with a number of residents from that area to provide them with the results and a letter explaining what the results meant. She also said that it's important to note that the perchlorate levels detected were about 0.1 ppb, below the state's health advisory level of 1 ppb.

Ms. Jennings said that the new results are important in that they indicate "that there appears to be no widespread low-level perchlorate contamination around that area." However, they do not explain why the levels are higher in the Morettis' well or where the contamination is coming from. She noted that the IAGWSP is going to split samples from monitoring wells closer to the base and EPA will have those samples analyzed using the new method to see if low-level concentrations of perchlorate are detected there. In addition, EPA's project managers plan to have a technical discussion with the IAGWSP's project managers regarding this issue, very soon. Ms. Jennings also mentioned that before deciding on a next step, EPA wants to see the groundwater results from a recently installed monitoring well, the profile results of which Mr. Gregson will be discussing later during the meeting. She said that more details on the characterization efforts really haven't been determined yet.

Mr. Hugus said that he hopes Mr. Murphy reminds the audience members that they are welcome to speak. He also said that he's glad that EPA conducted its analysis. He then noted that the 2.2 ppb detection in the Morettis' well is above the state health advisory, and therefore he thinks the logical next step would be to provide the entire neighborhood with bottled water and meet the residents' demand for town water hookups. He also suggested that it makes more sense in terms of cost to provide those hookups immediately rather than installing "one monitoring well after another" until it's established that the military is responsible for the contamination. He added that he thinks it is a "clear moral case of responsibility," and the "bureaucratic reasons" for not providing bottled water to the residents do not make sense to him. Mr. Hugus then told the Peters Pond Drive residents at the meeting that the citizen members of the IART do not work for the military or the regulators and do their best to look at issues from the residents' viewpoint and to advocate for them.

Ms. Conron commented that she thinks that EPA's testing of the samples was a "great idea" and the results make more sense of the situation, where before perchlorate was being detected in just one private well. She also said that she believes the contamination is coming from the base. She then asked Ms. Jennings to identify the monitoring wells that EPA plans to sample. Ms. Jennings asked Ms. Dolan, whose idea it was to use EPA's method of analysis, to identify the wells. Ms. Dolan referred to the map and pointed out monitoring well 355 (MW-355) (at the Forestdale School), MW-362 (on Route 130, across from the garden center), MW-358 (one the southern side of the town cemetery), MW-367 (for which profile results will be reported later), and MW-342 (on Greenway Road on the base). She also noted that in addition to samples from the private wells, the IAGWSP has been cooperating with EPA's requests and has provided aliquots from other monitoring wells on the base. Ms. Conron remarked that if there turn out to be "low levels all the way around," perhaps "whatever is disseminating is just starting to come that way."

Mr. Schlesinger said that he doesn't think that that layout of wells is sufficient, but would like to see wells installed closer to and upgradient of Peters Pond Drive. He also said that at last month's IART meeting Mr. Gonser had indicated that there was no evidence of any military use of perchlorate in the vicinity. Mr. Schlesinger then asked if anything has changed that would lead Mr. Gonser to believe that the perchlorate detected at Peters Pond Drive is coming from the base. Mr. Gonser replied while all the information is worthwhile in terms of looking at the big picture, he wouldn't say that anything has really changed at this point. He also said that data from additional wells and further information, including knowledge of the lower detections, will be helpful in ultimately reaching some conclusions.

Mr. Schlesinger then inquired about the status of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) offer to install a water filter in the Morettis' home. He also asked if there's been any investigation into the cost of providing town water hookups to the homes on Peters Pond Drive, and whether it's a private road.

Mr. Pinaud said that he isn't sure whether Peters Pond Drive is a private road. He then informed the group that at the last Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting, DEP spoke about offering to supply the Morettis with a point-of-use reverse osmosis system (which has been used in the town of Westport) that would provide them with perchlorate-free water for drinking and cooking. Mr. Pinaud reported that the Morettis declined the offer, which he thinks might have had to do with their ultimately wanting a town water hookup.

Mr. Schlesinger questioned whether the town health agent had been approached about the perchlorate issue and whether the homes could be hooked up to town water. Ms. Jennings replied that EPA provided the health agent with the sampling results, but did not ask for town water hookups. She also said that she could provide an estimate of the cost for water hookups on Peters Pond Drive at the next IART meeting. Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks information about the cost of water hookups should be available to the public. He also said that the maps that are available to the general public are inadequate and should be improved to include the detections in the Peters Pond Drive neighborhood.

Mr. Mullennix stated that the analytical chemistry community has done a great deal of work on perchlorate. He noted that up until about 1998, perchlorate could be detected only to a level of 400 ppb, after which there was a breakthrough and it could be detected down to 4 ppb. This was the standard up until a few years ago when methods were developed so that perchlorate could be detected down to less than 1 ppb. Mr. Mullennix said that now he understands that there is an analytical technique that allows detection down to below 0.1 ppb.

Mr. Mullennix noted that these kinds of numbers are difficult to understand for those who are not analytical chemists. He then said that in terms of time, 1 ppb is equivalent to one second in 32 years, and 0.1 ppb is equivalent to one second in 320 years. He also suggested that when looking for chemicals down at that level, they can be found all over the place. For example, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted an analysis of pristine waters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and detected a host of various chemicals at levels below 1 ppb. This came as somewhat of a surprise to the USGS, but it shows that if someone is looking for something at low enough levels, it's going to be found. He also said that it's thought that the occurrence of some of these chemicals "at the very molecular level" indicates that they are naturally occurring rather than manmade. Mr. Mullennix explained that he is trying to bring some perspective to the discussion, given that the new EPA analytical method can detect lower levels than any other - really in the parts per trillion - and "when you get down that level, you find things."

Mr. Mullennix added that perchlorate has probably been studied more than any other contaminant over the past dozen years. The National Academies of Science (NAS) findings on perchlorate, which EPA basically supported, and which Health Canada also supported, indicate that levels significantly greater than 1 ppb are completely safe over a lifetime. Mr. Mullennix acknowledged that there's a lot of fear and uncertainty associated with the perchlorate issue, but repeated that it has been studied thoroughly and the rest of the country "apparently feels very comfortable that it's completely safe at levels significantly above one part per billion." He then encouraged the citizens in the audience to ask any questions they might have.

Ms. Jennings said that she found in her notes some rough estimates on the cost of providing town water hookups for Peters Pond Drive. She reported that the cost to run a line down the street is about $400 per foot, or about $10,000, and the cost to connect to each home is about $1,500 per home, bringing the total cost to connect all the homes on the street to approximately $20,000.

Mr. Hugus questioned whether the Pentagon wouldn't consider $20,000 for the water hookups a wise investment, given the approximate cost of $100,000 for one monitoring well. Mr. Gonser agreed that it would be more cost-effective, but explained that the problem is proper use of funds as authorized by Congress. He noted that he has discussed this issue with the people in Washington and made some progress on dealing with policy issues; however, the lawyers look at the fiscal law and conclude that it would be a violation to spend Operations & Maintenance (O&M) funds (which Congress specifically states are only for operating and maintaining a military facility) off-post for that kind of activity. Mr. Gonser also said that while he continues to bring up the cost argument and look at innovative ways to attack the problem, at this point "it isn't just what's the cheapest way; it's what's the legal way."

Mr. Hugus mentioned the water hookup for a residence on Foretop Road in Bourne, where perchlorate was detected in the private well. He noted that the IAGWSP had been able to provide that hookup based on an RDX detection in that area, and he urged the regulators and the IAGWSP to see if that same approach could be taken at Peters Pond Drive, given the likelihood that RDX is co-located with perchlorate. He suggested that it might satisfy the Pentagon if RDX were also detected in that neighborhood.

Mr. Hugus also said that he doesn't think that the residents should accept assurances that perchlorate is a safe chemical to drink. He noted that everyone agrees that ethylene dibromide (EDB), a component of jet fuel that was released from Otis Air Force Base, is dangerous at a parts-per-trillion level, or 0.02 ppb. He said that he wouldn't want to knowingly drink perchlorate at any level, and he thinks that it should not be the business of the regulatory community to say that it's okay for people to drink a certain amount of chemicals. He also made a point of noting that the 2.2 ppb detected in the Morettis' well is in fact a recognized exceedance of the health advisory, and he would like EPA and DEP to explain why something can't be done based on that.

Mr. Pinaud said that DEP offered the Morettis what it could within its authority, which was a point-of-use system. However, for their own reasons, the Morettis declined that offer. Mr. Hugus noted that DEP had supplied bottled water to the resident on Foretop Road until a water hookup was provided. Mr. Pinaud explained that bottled water also would have been an option, but because the Morettis were already buying bottled water and had objections to it because of having to carry it around, DEP offered the point-of-use system as an alternative.

Ms. Jennings said that she thinks that DEP has more authority than EPA to step in and offer some sort of solution, and in this case, it offered the point-of-use system. She also said that if Mr. Hugus is asking EPA to be more forceful with the IAGWSP, she believes that that is what EPA is working to do, and that is part of the reason it did the split sampling and will be sitting down with the IAGWSP to discuss the next step for the investigation. Ms. Jennings remarked that it's been difficult and frustrating not to know the source of perchlorate in the Morettis' well, and therefore she thinks that the focus will be to work with the IAGWSP and try to get the wells installed that will clearly show where that contamination is coming from.

Mr. Mullennix stated that in the spirit of trying to help allay some fears for the people that live on Peters Pond Drive, he'd like to provide some history about perchlorate, with which he's quite familiar. He noted that perchlorate first came to light as a contaminant in the southwestern part of the country in 1998, when the detection limit was dropped down to 4 ppb. At that time perchlorate was detected in the Colorado River and Lake Meade in Las Vegas at 14 ppb, in a watershed that provides drinking water for 20 to 25 million people in that area. He noted that the perchlorate contamination probably first started to occur in the 1950s at a facility in Nevada that manufactured rocket fuel. He explained that pipes at the facility were flushed out right onto the ground and perchlorate leached into the groundwater, into the Las Vegas wash, and into Lake Meade, and then went down the Colorado River.

Mr. Mullennix said that people in that area of the country undoubtedly had been drinking water containing perchlorate for quite a long period of time. Once it became possible to detect perchlorate at lower levels and perchlorate was found at 14 ppb, manufacturing practices were changed, resulting in decreasing levels of perchlorate in the water, which he believes are now down to about 6 ppb. He also reported that the numerous epidemiological studies of the population that followed (which looked at problems with births, hypothyroidism, and the like) have shown no correlation to the water that the people had been drinking. Mr. Mullennix said that while he understands that there are concerns about perchlorate, he wanted to point out that other parts of the country have been dealing with much higher levels than 1 or 2 ppb, with no apparent evidence of any bad health effects.

Mr. Murphy invited any of the Peters Pond Drive residents interested in addressing the team to do so at this time. Mr. Cowick of 6 Peters Pond Drive noted that Mr. Murphy had told him that his well was not sampled as part of the February sampling round, and he would like to know why. Mr. Gregson replied that it seems that Mr. Cowick's well should have been tested, and he will look into why that was not the case, and also see that a sample is collected.

Mr. Cowick then thanked Mr. Mullennix for providing some history about perchlorate, but maintained that there is a reason for the residents' concerns. He noted that he doesn't want his 10-year-old son to drink perchlorate and questioned whether Mr. Mullennix, if a father, would allow his own children to do so. He also noted that his wife has health problems and he'd like something to be done about this issue, which clearly exists. He further noted that, like his father who served his country proudly for 28 years, he also served proudly and has never asked the government for anything. He also said that his father taught him "when you make a mess, you clean it up," and he believes that is a good standard by which to live.

Ms. Moretti clarified that according to the information she received, the most recent perchlorate levels detected in her well were 2.3 and 2.8 ppb. She also explained that while she appreciated DEP's offer, she declined it because she thought that by accepting she would be letting the base off the hook. Ms. Moretti then said that the detection in her well had been an isolated case, but now everyone on her street has detections, "so where's it coming from?" She further noted that she's sure that the parents of the one-and-a-half year old child who lives on Peters Pond Drive are very upset. She concluded by saying that she thinks that the base should provide town water hookups to the homes on Peters Pond Drive, as the residents had clean water before and they want it back.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to a J-2 Range RDX map and noted that RDX was detected in profile samples from MW-367, which is upgradient of Peters Pond Drive. He then said that he thinks the IAGWSP should move quickly on Mr. Hugus's suggestion to provide town water hookups based on RDX contamination. He also remarked that in the general realm of a $300-million-dollar budget, $20,000 is not a lot of money to ensure that the residents aren't drinking perchlorate.

Mr. Cambareri commented that he appreciates the Peters Pond Drive residents' difficult situation and believes that the issue is part science, part policy, and a lot of emotion. He also said that since he first became involved with the cleanup program in 1990, it has evolved to try to make the community whole in regards to past incidences of contamination - in terms of cleanup and allaying the fears of the public. He then said that he thinks the government needs to work hard to find a resolution to this current situation.

Mr. Cambareri then referred to the idea of people being comfortable with the perchlorate levels in the southwestern part of the country, and noted that he has information about an upcoming two-day conference in San Francisco that includes topics such as current perchlorate litigation, challenges for water providers, prioritizing perchlorate cleanup for water resources in Southern California, survey of exposure potential of perchlorate in vegetables, and shifting standards and strategies. Mr. Cambareri also requested that the Sandwich Water District be asked to provide an estimate of the cost to provide town water hookups to the homes on Peters Pond Drive.

Ms. Conron told the residents of Peters Pond Drive that she doesn't think any of the citizen members of the IART are actual experts on perchlorate, and therefore couldn't tell them not to worry. She also said that she thinks it is common sense, and normal, for people to be concerned about something in their drinking water that wasn't there before. She then noted that, as she'd mentioned at the last IART meeting, she thinks that compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to research the source of perchlorate, she thinks that spending $20,000 on town water hookups instead is a "no-brainer."

Mr. Cambareri said that he agrees with the Morettis' strategy to decline DEP's offer, as admirable as that offer is. He then noted that in 1994, the military offered the Town of Bourne and others a cleanup system for their wells. That offer was also declined in favor of having the water replaced, which eventually led to the establishment of the Upper Cape Water Cooperative (the Co-op) to provide clean, untreated water. He said that he thinks that still stands as the remedy in that situation.

Mr. Hood asked Mr. Gonser if there were any positive actions the citizens could take to help get things done in Washington with respect to moving funds around or obtaining authorization to use funds. Mr. Gonser replied that he couldn't think of anything offhand, as the issue has to do with complying with existing laws and how they allow for money to be spent. He explained that Congressmen would have to introduce specific legislation that would authorize the use of funds for the purpose being discussed, or it might be added to the defense appropriation bill. Mr. Hood inquired about the defense appropriation bill timeframe. Mr. Gonser replied that fiscal year 2006 (FY'06) authorization and appropriation bills are before Congress now. He said that it's hoped that Congress will be passing those this summer to authorize expenditures in FY'06, which begins on October 1, 2005.

Ms. Adams said that it seems to her that if it can be shown that the perchlorate contamination is coming from the base, the IAGWSP could use O&M funds to address it. Mr. Gonser replied that it's his experience that it would be a mission requirement to deal with contamination coming from a military installation. He also noted, however, that normally the contamination would have to be at an actionable level - in other words, concentrations would have to exceed a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or something like it.

Ms. Adams noted that it's her understanding that the Department of Defense (DoD) is committed to meeting any state level once it has been promulgated. Mr. Gonser said that generally that is the case, although he can't speak to perchlorate because he doesn't know what's going to be done. Ms. Adams said that as an alternative strategy to going to Congress, she thinks that it makes sense to focus on installing enough monitoring wells, or employ other techniques, to determine whether the perchlorate contamination at Peters Pond Drive is coming from the base. She noted that there's an exceedance of 1 ppb in at least one of the private wells on Peter Pond Drive, and if the state ends up promulgating its standard, that would seem to her the most efficacious way to get the military to spend the funds to install a water main. Mr. Gonser agreed that that may well be an avenue.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks that a number of wells should be installed along Grand Oaks Road - not "scattered all around," but following the direction where the plume is likely to be found. Mr. Gregson recommended moving forward with the next agenda item as a way to address this comment, and the team agreed.

Agenda Item #3. Investigation Update: J-2 Range Recent Results - Off-Post Investigation

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the J-2 Range investigation area and pointed out the base boundary, Route 130, Quaker Meeting House Road, Peters Pond Drive, Peters Pond, the P.A. Landers gravel pit, and the Forestdale School. He noted that the J-2 Range was used for training and defense contractor testing. He pointed out the firing point from which munitions were shot into the Impact Area, and said that disposal activities also occurred at the range. He noted that the IAGWSP has identified plumes of contamination in the groundwater emanating from the J-2 Range. He showed a map of the perchlorate plumes and pointed out the plume 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 greater than or equal to 100 ppb. He also pointed out the symbols used to represent monitoring wells and private drinking water wells, the Sandwich water supply wells, and the Co-op supply wells, and noted that green symbols indicate no detection of perchlorate, yellow indicates less than 1 ppb, brown indicates between 1 and 4 ppb, and red indicates greater than 4 ppb.

Mr. Gregson also pointed out the various monitoring wells on base and those more recently drilled off base, the top of the Sagamore Lens groundwater aquifer, and the radial direction of groundwater flow in that area, which, he noted, complicates the investigation and the ability to identify sources of contamination. He reported that no perchlorate was detected in profile samples (samples taken at 10 foot intervals from the water table to bedrock, during drilling) from the most recently drilled off-base well, MW-367, located downgradient of the perchlorate detection at MW-319. He also noted, however, that RDX was detected at 0.42 ppb in one profile interval at MW-367, which is below the 2-ppb RDX health advisory. He said that well screens will be set at the depth of the RDX detection and at a depth that corresponds with the perchlorate detection at MW-319. Mr. Gregson further noted that there was some interference from the lab results associated with the 0.42-ppb RDX detection, so it might not be seen again in the actual groundwater samples, as was the case at MW-319.

Mr. Gregson then responded to Mr. Schlesinger's comments about additional investigation by saying that EPA's new methodology is encouraging and might provide more information to help with the investigation. He also pointed out the location of the next well to be drilled as part of the investigation, between MW-319 and MW-310, to see whether the contamination is migrating north in that area. In addition, the IAGWSP plans to meet soon with the regulators and talk about using a direct-push rig in order to obtain more data points at a lower cost as part of the effort to identify the source of perchlorate at Peters Pond Drive. He noted that Mr. Schlesinger's suggestions and other suggestions about a well fence along the base boundary or closer to the residential area that's being affected would be considered, all in an effort to determine if there's a connection between the base and the perchlorate at Peters Pond Drive.

Mr. Schlesinger asked if it's correct that the residents will have to buy their own bottled water in the meantime. Mr. Gregson replied that that is correct, until the investigation progresses, and if it shows a connection to the base and levels of perchlorate or RDX that allow the IAGWSP to take an action. Mr. Schlesinger then asked if the IAGWSP would be allowed to spend O&M funds on town water hookups if the RDX profile detection is validated in the well screen sample. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP would ask the question, but noted that if there's a validated detection at about 0.5 ppb that confirms the profile detection, that would still be below the health advisory. He explained that the RDX detection upgradient of Foretop Road in Bourne was close to 6 ppb, and has since increased to 14 ppb - levels that are above the health advisory and so allowed the IAGWSP to take the action of providing town water hookups there.

Mr. Schlesinger then requested that the same maps that the IART members receive in regular mailings also be made available to the public, as they contain more information that he thinks the public should be able to see.

Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the best place for a new monitoring well fence is perpendicular to the line between the base boundary and the Peters Pond neighborhood. He also said that there are RDX detections on base that are "plenty high," if that is the crucial point regarding the town water hookup issue. In addition, Mr. Hugus informed the Peters Pond Drive residents at the meeting that the process moves very slowly, and noted, for example, that the IART went through at least six months of asking for more and more information in the case of the Foretop Road situation in Bourne. He said that he thinks the residents would be wasting their time, and recommended that they approach their elected officials while waiting to get some action.

Mr. Cowick said that he thinks that is just unacceptable, and asked what the residents could do to speed things up. Mr. Hugus noted that in the past, residents of neighborhoods contaminated from plumes emanating from Otis Air Force Base filed class-action lawsuits to get satisfaction by way of town water hookups. Others consulted lawyers individually, and others went to elected officials, from selectmen up to Congressman Delahunt. He also said that he's sorry that the citizen members of the IART couldn't do more and added that most of them don't agree with what's happening.

Mr. Schlesinger recommended that the residents go to small claims court and file suit against the federal government. He then asked Ms. Adams, as an attorney, to comment. Ms. Adams said that she doesn't have much to offer except to clarify that to sue the federal government it must be done in federal court. She also said that she thinks that the way to get the military to pay for the water hookups is to push for the investigation to proceed as quickly as it possibly can and establish a connection to the base. Mr. Schlesinger remarked that, as Mr. Hugus said, the team's experience with pushing the investigation as fast as it can is not very good, which he knows from having been a member of the IART since 1998.

Ms. Moretti said that she would bet that if a town official or state representative were living on her street, the homes would be hooked up to town water "darn fast."

Mr. Cambareri stated that the ponds on Cape Cod are groundwater fed, and Peters Pond penetrates into the aquifer at a fairly significant depth. He noted that the ponds act as drains to the aquifer and focus groundwater flow toward them. He further stated that the IAGWSP hasn't had a lot of experience in dealing with the interactions of groundwater flow and significant ponds, and should get up to speed on this. He said that the ponds not only take water from the surface of the water table, but also the groundwater travels vertically to discharge up into the ponds, which could potentially affect private wells in the area. Mr. Cambareri noted that therefore he thinks the investigation needs to move toward Peters Pond, and so is surprised that the next well to be installed is located north of MW-319. He also asked if Mr. Gregson had had the opportunity to correct the cross-section figure that was shown at last month's IART meeting, which showed Peters Pond as not interacting with the aquifer at all.

Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn't have a corrected figure, but does have the one shown last month. While trying to locate the figure, he noted that the groundwater model in that area is being worked by Jacobs Engineering, which has a great deal of experience dealing with pond/aquifer interaction through its work for the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). He also noted that the IAGWSP works closely with the USGS, which has done a lot of work on how ponds and the aquifer interact. He said that the IAGWSP is trying to use as much information as it can to understand the groundwater flow in the investigation area.

Mr. Cambareri noted that the IRP has a set policy with respect to providing town water hookups to homes in the vicinity of detected contamination, and inquired about the details of that policy. Mr. Aker said that residences within a certain number of feet from a plume can be provided with a hookup. Mr. Pinaud added that the residence would be within a two-year travel time from the leading edge of the plume or within 500 feet cross-gradient.

Mr. Gregson then showed a plan view map, pointed out cross-section E-E', which runs from the base through MW-319 and to Peters Pond, and noted that it can be confusing to look at the cross-section versus the map. He then showed the cross-section figure and noted that because all the major ponds on Cape Cod are groundwater fed, the bottom of Peters Pond actually intersects the water table. Mr. Cambareri asked if one of the Peters Pond Drive residents knows the depth of the pond, and was told that it is 55 feet deep. Mr. Gregson then pointed out that depth on the cross-section figure and mentioned that there's a lot of vertical exaggeration in the figure. He then pointed out how the pond should have been drawn, and also pointed out the wells on Peters Pond Drive, the particle backtracks from those wells, and the forward particle tracks from MW-319.

Mr. Cambareri questioned whether the pond was part of the model, since the particle tracks don't appear to be affected by it at all. He also said that he doesn't see the pond in the right spot on the figure. Mr. Gregson referred to his comment about how this can be confusing, and said that the tracks that are projected into the cross-section might actually be north of the pond. He also noted that "as you get deeper in the aquifer, the water can underflow the pond, and as you get up shallower, the groundwater can…well up and discharge into the pond." Mr. Cambareri said that he believes that the USGS study of Snake Pond indicated that most of the flow went into that pond and there wasn't much underflow.

Mr. Mullennix remarked that while he may not come across that way, he is very sympathetic to what the Peters Pond Drive residents are experiencing, being concerned that their tap water is suspect and might be causing them to be sick. He noted that he's devoted much of his career to water quality and water issues, and said again that he is very sympathetic. He also agreed with Mr. Schlesinger and Mr. Hugus that the process moves very slowly, and added that because a perchlorate standard hasn't yet been established, the IAGWSP's hands are tied to a large degree in terms of its options. He said that he too would urge the residents to go to their elected officials, including Jeff Perry, the state representative, who is very cognizant of this issue and has discussed it with DEP, and holds regular office hours in town once a week.

Mr. Dow recommended that the residents pursue advocacy, and noted that he knows of an environmental advocacy organization that sometimes engages in litigation. He also suggested that a photo opportunity would be a good way to get started, as politicians are always looking for a good photo opportunity. He further noted that he thinks the residents should consider approaching not only the federal politicians, but also the state politicians, as DEP is much more likely to establish some kind of actionable perchlorate level than EPA is. He said that getting perchlorate standards implemented as soon as possible would be of great benefit to the residents. He also mentioned that he believes that he was the only citizen to testify at the hearing on DEP's proposed perchlorate cleanup standard, as many people ignore such things.

Mr. Dow also suggested that the residents not wait for either a state or federal standard, but rather use their own common sense in deciding whether or not they'll drink their tap water. He said that he thinks it's incumbent on DEP and EPA to provide the public with information on what the levels are and then let people decide whether they think those levels are safe, even if they're deemed safe by the regulators. He also noted that individual states look to the same scientific studies, but apply different weights to them and come up with much different numbers. He then said that at the last IART meeting he'd asked for information about the confidence levels associated with the NAS reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate, which would give people an idea of what the range of potential safe values might be and allow them to make informed decisions.

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that he thinks the Sandwich selectmen "have been very lax with respect to this study." He also said that the IART needs membership of citizens, like himself, to come to the table and be part of getting things to happen, which he believes would not be the case without them. He said that the Peters Pond residents cannot wait for their selectmen to do something; rather, either one of them should come forward and become a member of the IART or they should find someone to represent them on the team. He noted that for months there's been an ongoing effort to recruit a team member from Sandwich, and added that "it takes an investment," but "it makes things happen."

Mr. Schlesinger then said that the particle tracks in the cross-section E-E' figure assume that the contamination is moving downward, but don't show any upward movement of contamination, which he would like to see. He added that he thinks that the way the particle tracks are currently depicted is inadequate for an area around a deep pond like Peters Pond, and it seems very likely to him that there is some kind of upward movement of contamination that should be modeled and depicted.

Agenda Item #4. Remediation Update

Demolition Area 1

Mr. Gregson showed a figure depicting excavation progress at the Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) source area and said that work at all but three "quad" areas has been completed. He also mentioned that the heavy snows over the winter slowed the progress of the project. He noted that excavation at the three remaining quads will be about 0.5 to 1.5 feet deep and will result in the removal of about 500 tons of soil, which will be sent off site to a licensed disposal facility, as the thermal desorption unit has been demobilized.

Mr. Gregson also reported that operation of the Demo 1 Rapid Response Action (RRA) extraction systems are continuing at a combined flow rate of 320 gallons per minute (gpm). Approximately 89 million gallons of water has been treated since system startup in September 2004. Current influent concentrations at the Frank Perkins Road system are about 5.8 ppb for RDX and 16.1 ppb for perchlorate. At the Pew Road system, influent concentrations are nondetect for RDX and about 12 ppb for perchlorate. The first carbon change-out for the systems was done several days ago at the Pew Road location. The first granular activated carbon (GAC) container had treated 17,000 bed volumes and the second had treated 27,000 bed volumes, with a total treatment volume of about 25 million gallons. Mr. Gregson also reported that about 66,000 tons of soil was treated in the thermal desorption unit, which operated for 2,100 hours, treating at a rate of about 30 tons per hour, or about 732 tons per day.

Mr. Cambareri inquired about the detection near Pew Road that was discussed at previous IART meetings. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn't have information about the toe of the plume tonight and suggested that the topic be included on next month's meeting agenda.

Mr. Mullennix asked how it was determined that a carbon change-out was needed. Mr. Gregson replied that routine sampling of the effluent had shown breakthrough. Mr. Mullennix asked for information on volume of water treated and mass of contamination captured by the carbon filter prior to change-out. Mr. Gregson agreed to provide that information.

Mr. Cambareri noted that his question about the detection near Pew Road is related to the Demo 1 supplemental modeling piece, and should be kept together. Mr. Gregson replied that he would check to be sure, but he thinks it will be possible to present the supplemental modeling results and tie that in with recent detections at the next IART meeting. Mr. Cambareri mentioned that there's a pond in the area downgradient of Pew Road. Mr. Gregson agreed and noted that it is very shallow.

J-3 Rapid Response Action

Mr. Gregson reported that the IAGWSP recently finalized the RRA plan for an interim groundwater treatment system at the J-3 Range plume. He showed a map of the J-3 Range perchlorate and RDX plumes and reminded the group that the plan was to make use of some existing IRP extraction wells installed for the Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) plume treatment system and to house treatment containers in the FS-12 treatment plant. Since the time the draft plan was presented to the team, the total combined flow rate has been changed to 175 gpm, and it was decided that one of the existing IRP extraction wells really wasn't in a good location. Therefore, the IAGWSP will be using only one IRP well and installing two of its own wells, one being located near the center of mass of both the perchlorate and RDX.

Mr. Gregson noted that, as stated in the original plan, the extracted groundwater will be pumped to the FS-12 treatment plant where it will be treated using GAC, then ion exchange, and then GAC again as a polishing step. The treated water will be returned to the aquifer through the existing FS-12 reinjection wells. Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP is now working on securing easements for the portions of the work that will occur on Camp Good News. He added that the IAGWSP anticipates awarding a contract on the work in late spring or summer, with construction beginning in the fall. He also mentioned that he would be presenting the J-2 North plume RRA plan at next month's IART meeting.

Mr. Schlesinger asked, as a general question, whether NDMA (n-nitrosodimethylamine) had ever been identified as a constituent in this vicinity. Mr. Gregson replied that some sampling for NDMA has been conducted. He also noted that the archive search process indicated that the types of munitions that contain NDMA were not used at MMR. Mr. Schlesinger said that he was led to believe that NDMA can be a daughter product, created through the breakdown of munitions. Mr. Gregson said that he hadn't heard that, and inquired about a reference. Mr. Schlesinger said that a gentleman named Larry Ladd, of Arizona, could probably provide some references. Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP would check into NDMA as a breakdown product. Mr. Cambareri added that NDMA can be a kind of disinfection byproduct of chlorination. He also said that he once attended a conference in Amherst where he learned about NDMA contamination generated from a spill of unrelated chemicals, which led to the closure of wells in the aquifer in the Massachusetts town where the spill occurred.

Mr. Gregson then showed a diagram of the floor layout at the FS-12 treatment plant and pointed out the area where the IAGWSP's equipment would be located.

Agenda Item #5. Investigation Update: Central Impact Area - Path Forward

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the perchlorate and RDX contamination emanating from the Central Impact Area. He reported that as a result of the presentation on the Central Impact Area at the December 2004 IART meeting and discussions with the regulators, the IAGWSP took a very close look at the possibility of conducting additional soil RRAs that would provide an immediate and cost-effective benefit to the aquifer. He reminded the group that two soil RRAs, at Targets 23 and 42, were completed last year at the Central Impact Area.

Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP looked at all the available data, including information from firing fans (where rounds would be likely to fall when fired into the Impact Area), aerial magnetometry survey data, soil sampling data, modeling and particle tracks, and groundwater data, and ranked the data based on how useful they would be in identifying a source area. It was determined that the sites where there were wells with groundwater detections probably were the best indicator of a nearby source area that the IAGWSP might act on.

Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP looked at a number of different scenarios for potential RRAs in the Central Impact Area: removal of a 2-acre source area, estimated to remove about 10% of the source; removal of a 4.5-acre area, estimated to remove about 21% of the source; and removal of a 20-acre source area, estimated to remove about 38% of the source. Modeling calculations showed that these actions would have some benefit to the aquifer, and would reduce concentrations in the aquifer to about 8 to 11 ppb. Costs ranged from $4 million for the least expensive, to about $53 million for the largest source removal. Mr. Gregson noted that EPA asked the IAGWSP to look at two different removal scenarios, which are currently being evaluated. He then displayed a figure that showed how particle track information was used to look at potential source areas, and two additional figures that showed red outlines around areas of soil above the highest groundwater detections that might be removed.

Mr. Gregson said that as the IAGWSP looked at these alternatives with the regulators, it became clear that the source area remedy really is tied significantly to the groundwater cleanup remedy. If none of the source area were removed, the groundwater remedy would have to run for a very long time. Based on this and other considerations, such as natural resources impacts of excavation activity at the Central Impact Area, the technical complexities of finding the areas to excavate, and the cost of these alternatives, it was decided that the best way forward was to put the RRA type of approach on hold and to proceed with the feasibility study (FS) for both soil and groundwater. He also noted, however, that if it becomes apparent during the FS process that an area could be handled through an RRA soil removal, that RRA could be implemented while continuing with the FS.

Mr. Gregson stated that the current focus is on the FS screening report, which will be discussed with the regulators at a meeting on Thursday with respect to what the report will contain, what technologies will be considered, and what some of the remedial action objectives will be. In addition, the IAGWSP is working on a proposal, to be submitted to the regulators this spring, on some innovative technology evaluations for in situ soil treatments that might be of use at the Central Impact Area, but are of such a new nature that they may or may not work. Mr. Gregson also noted that based on the information from the actions at Targets 23 and 42, the remedial investigation report for both soil and groundwater will be completed, and the IAGWSP will move forward with the final FS for the soil and groundwater plan for next year.

Mr. Hugus stated that in his view the IAGWSP is generally much more aggressive when it comes to source area cleanups than groundwater cleanups. He also said that he agrees that the two remedies are tied together, but doesn't understand why the IAGWSP isn't talking about how to stop the Central Impact Area plume, and would like to know what the plan is to do that.

Mr. Gregson replied that this point in the process is the FS for groundwater, and the plan is to work with the regulators to try to merge the FS for groundwater with the FS for soil and come up with an evaluation of alternatives for groundwater that tie in the soil alternatives. Mr. Hugus asked when the team could expect to hear about some concrete plans to stop and contain the Central Impact Area plume. Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP is working with the regulators on the schedule and will update the team at the next IART meeting. He also mentioned that completion of the FS is planned for next year, so construction of a treatment system is not a near-term thing.

Mr. Schlesinger said that it wasn't clear to him from Mr. Gregson's presentation why the decision was made to move right into the FS. He also said that it seems that an RRA would move along more quickly, and would like Mr. Gonser to explain why that approach isn't being taken.

Mr. Gonser replied that the normal cleanup process involves a remedial investigation, an FS, a remedial design, and a remedial action. However, if opportunities arise to short-circuit that process, an interim response can be implemented, and the IAGWSP has been fairly aggressive about doing that. He noted that groundwater RRAs are planned or in place for Demo 1, the J-2 Range plume, and the J-3 Range plume, and soil RRAs have been done at Demo 1, the J-2 Range, the J-3 Range, and at two targets in the Central Impact Area. Mr. Gonser explained that the RRAs were used in situations where the source area or groundwater plume were quite clearly defined such that cleanup could begin ahead of the FS. He also mentioned that the J-2 Range and J-3 Range plumes were high priority projects because of potential off-post impacts and water supply impacts.

Mr. Gonser noted that the situation at the Central Impact Area, however, is very complex. Cleanup of an impact area has never been done before, so there isn't much literature available, and it's very difficult to find the source areas, as they are very widespread. Even the sampling techniques make it hard to determine exactly where the contamination is located - with a nondetect at one spot and a high level of contamination detected in another spot nearby. Mr. Gonser also said that the connection between the source area and the groundwater is not entirely clear - that is, it's not known whether cleaning up a particular area of ground would change the groundwater picture at all. He further noted that because of the unexploded ordnance (UXO) at the site, any action taken will be extremely expensive. Therefore, guessing incorrectly could mean spending a substantial amount of money with no productivity.

Mr. Gonser stated that because of the complexity associated with the Central Impact Area, it's not yet known what should be done, and he thinks this is a classical example of when the normal cleanup process should be followed, as more time is needed to figure out what's happening at the site. He also noted, however, that the IAGWSP is willing to look at actions that are identified as worthwhile.

Ms. Jennings stated that the regulators have been heavily involved with the Central Impact Area discussion, which the IART was told in December would be "a hard look…in a very short period of time" to determine whether there's an obvious RRA that should be implemented or whether it makes more sense to move forward with the FS, and try to accelerate it. She said that it didn't take long for the regulators to understand the difficulty of trying to do an RRA at the site, and she thinks Mr. Gonser described the situation correctly. She said that absent removing the entire source, which is an option that will be considered as part of the FS, the appropriate amount of source to be removed must be defined and the effect of that amount on the groundwater remedy has to be evaluated.

Ms. Jennings said that it would be very difficult to pick one remedy without having a good understanding of what the other remedy will be. She noted that it was actually EPA and DEP that suggested combining the FS for groundwater and the FS for soil. She also said that she thinks it makes a great deal of sense to "just pause for a moment and try to get the range of alternatives for both soil and groundwater written in a way that's understandable, screen out those that obviously should be screened out, match them up, and then send the modelers out to model those two together so we understand how they interact with one another."

Ms. Jennings then said that it's possible that the remedy will be the 20-acre decision, at a cost of $53 million for the soil component alone, which she believes warrants a true FS that involves a detailed evaluation of the benefits of taking that approach. She noted that up until this point the groundwater FS and the soil FS were on two separate tracks, and the regulators proposed that the IAGWSP align the two, try to get all the alternatives on the table very quickly, and go through the detailed analysis, also quickly. Ms. Jennings added that it's obvious that the Central Impact Area remedy will be the most costly of the entire site, so it's important to understand how that money is best spent - on the soil, on the groundwater, or on a combination of both.

Mr. Schlesinger stated that while it might not be a "particularly politically popular" request, he would like to have included in the cleanup cost estimates the cost of wellhead treatment in the town of Bourne "for forever." He clarified that he is entirely in favor of cleanup, especially of source material, as he understands there's a need to clean up the UXO and soils contributing to the source. However, he thinks that in order to be responsible, the cost of dealing with the groundwater problem in a different way also should be examined.

Ms. Jennings replied that she thinks that the objective is not to have wellhead treatment as an alternative, but to select a remedy that would prevent that outcome. She said that the focus is to restore the aquifer at its point and minimize migration, not allow it to travel off base and impact the water supply. Mr. Schlesinger indicated that while he understands what Ms. Jennings is saying, there's a reason for cleaning up the water, which is that people don't want to drink it. And since the cleanup cost could be so high, he thinks that it would be more responsible to at least include the cost of wellhead treatment, although he is not looking for that kind of decision. He said that he thinks it would be irresponsible not to at least look at the cost of wellhead treatment because of being "environmentally against it."

Mr. Cambareri said that he thinks Mr. Gregson presented an analysis that shows the challenge and struggle of trying to determine what the Central Impact Area source area is. He also said that the map that shows the particle back tracks from areas of groundwater contamination is "a snapshot of today," but he questions how things were 10 to 20 years ago when the sources were being generated, and whether those sources haven't moved into the vadose zone such that removal of the surface soil really wouldn't remove the source. Mr. Cambareri indicated that he thinks it's important to be certain about identifying actual source areas, and in that sense he finds himself in agreement with what Mr. Gregson said. However, he is also concerned about the possibility that some of the toe of the Central Impact Area plume might be "squeaking by" the monitoring wells out front that have tested nondetect. He noted that he has always advocated for another set of boundary wells farther downgradient from the plume as it is shown.

Mr. Cambareri then asked how UXO removal fits into the FS for groundwater and soil. Mr. Gregson replied that UXO removal would be included with the soil part of the FS. He also noted that the conceptual model includes several types of delivery methods of contaminants: rounds that exploded as intended, depositing fine particulate on the ground; rounds that didn't explode as intended, but perhaps instead broke up, depositing chunks of explosives on the ground; and impact rounds with a casing made of a solid piece of steel, with explosives inside. Mr. Gregson said that these three source types will be assessed as part of the FS. Mr. Gonser added that any soil remediation, by its very nature, has to deal with UXO just to get the equipment in to do the work. He said that UXO and soil almost have to be considered in combination, not only from an environmental standpoint, but also from a safety standpoint.

Mr. Cambareri asked if there's a noninvasive type of UXO removal program that would be implemented in the event that the decision was made to clean up the groundwater but not remove the source area. Mr. Gonser replied that although he knows of no such program, a lot of money is being spent on research and development of ways to deal with UXO. He said that it might be possible to apply the in situ soil treatment without the safety risk of removal. Also, the IAGWSP is looking at less expensive ways to remove the UXO without really dealing with the soil, such as a machine that could sift the UXO out of the soil and then lay the soil back down. Mr. Gonser then reminded that group that in addition to economic costs, habitat impacts also have to be considered.

Ms. Jennings reported that the project managers recently met with Natural Resources people to discuss their concerns about the Central Impact Area and the plan to have them address the IART at a future meeting. She said that because the alternatives really aren't on the table yet, the decision was made to have the Natural Resources people come to the April or May IART meeting and give a "foundation" presentation about their concerns pertaining to the Central Impact Area. After more concrete alternatives are available for discussion, the Natural Resources people would be invited back to another IART meeting to share their reactions to them. Ms. Jennings also noted that she was very encouraged to learn that the Natural Resources people very much understand the need to strike a balance between protecting the habitat and the value of the aquifer itself.

Mr. Mullennix inquired about the existence of any irrigation wells or supply wells downgradient of the Central Impact Area plume. Mr. Gregson replied that in general the particle tracks shown on the map flow up toward the Cape Cod Canal and discharge into it around the area of the Bourne skating rink and toward Buzzards Bay. He then noted that there are a couple of private wells at the base of the Bourne Bridge, as well as some irrigation wells in that area, but no municipal supply wells.

Mr. Hugus thanked Ms. Jennings for reaffirming "the philosophy that was established by citizens a long time ago," which is that aquifer restoration is the goal, and that proposals for wellhead treatment don't fit in with that philosophy. He also said that a full-blown study of the Central Impact Area probably would include a no-action alternative, which he thinks would be the same thing, as it would lead to wellhead treatment. Mr. Hugus then stated that his advice is to install an extraction well fence to stop the plume, given that the source area isn't going anywhere, but the plume continues to contaminate more of the aquifer every day. He also said that he thinks that the source area should be studied, but noted that it can be cleaned up while an extraction well fence is running.

Mr. Dow noted that he recently attended talks that addressed the issue of restoration and would suggest that in addition to having Natural Resources people come to an IART meeting, someone also be invited to discuss restoration at the Central Impact Area. He noted that whatever actions are taken at the site, it will be important to consider not only preservation of habitat, but also restoration of the habitat that's disturbed.

Mr. Cambareri remarked that although there are currently no supply wells downgradient of the Central Impact Area plume, he thinks it's important to keep in mind that the Cape Cod community continues to grow and could see increased water demands of up to 40% in the year 2020. He said that the only way to serve the community is by finding more water supply well locations and taking care of the ones that already exist. He also noted that on Cape Cod, areas where there are no public water supply wells are known and regulated as potentially productive aquifer because it is a sole-source aquifer and is very highly permeable and yields a good amount of water. He further noted that the area downgradient of the Central Impact Area plume was identified by the USGS as suitable for a public water supply well. He said that this is a reason to move with some speed on the groundwater portion of the FS.

Mr. Mullennix said that he'd asked about drinking water supply wells downgradient of the Central Impact Area plume because, as a resident of Bourne, he wanted to know whether there was any imminent and significant endangerment to public health, and was pleased to hear that there is not. Mr. Cambareri noted that he is saying that there may be some constraints on future citizens of the town of Bourne.

Agenda Item #6. Open Discussion

Mr. Murphy asked if there were any comments on the responses to action items from the previous IART meeting, which are usually discussed at the beginning of the agenda. No comments were offered.

Mr. Pinaud distributed copies of a March 14, 2005 letter to EPA's assistant administrator from DEP's commissioner regarding the status of perchlorate contamination in drinking water and DEP's plan to regulate perchlorate in Massachusetts. He said that he thought the letter, which is self-explanatory, would be of interest to the team members.

Mr. Mullennix said that he thinks it would be worthwhile to have a presentation to the IART by an expert or experts on perchlorate, who could explain EPA's or DEP's position and educate the team about the toxicity of the perchlorate. He said that he would be particularly interested in having someone from EPA who could talk about the latest RfD for perchlorate in EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) database. He asked that arrangements for such a presentation be made sooner rather than later, if at all possible.

Mr. Cambareri commented that that is an excellent idea, although he'd prefer to have the IAGWSP send him to the perchlorate conference in San Francisco and he could report back to the team. Mr. Schlesinger said that he hopes that someone from the team is able to attend that conference or that the team is able to find someone who attended and would be willing to report back.

Mr. Dow mentioned that Carol Rowan West of DEP gave a very informative presentation on perchlorate at a previous Senior Management Board (SMB) meeting, and he thinks she would be a good candidate for doing the same at an IART meeting. Mr. Mullennix respectfully requested that an EPA toxicologist be asked to present as well, should Ms. Rowan West do so.

Agenda Item #7. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy announced that the IART would meet next on April 26, 2005 at the Covenant Baptist Church in Sandwich. He then adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.