Impact Area Review Team
Future Agenda Items:
Handouts Distributed at Meeting:
Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Approval of April 26, 2005 IART Minutes
Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. and the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members introduced themselves. Mr. Murphy reviewed the agenda, and then asked if there were any comments on the April 26, 2005 IART meeting minutes.
Mr. Schlesinger referred to page 8 of the minutes and read: "Mr. Gonser stated that the Department of Defense (DoD) policy at this time does not allow him to take action to treat perchlorate, which is why the RDX issue was raised." Mr. Schlesinger then asked if Mr. Gonser could provide the team with a written copy of the DoD policy. Mr. Gonser replied that he could provide a copy of the current guidance, which authorizes sampling for perchlorate if there is a suspected or known release and if there is a pathway to a receptor. Mr. Schlesinger asked Mr. Gonser to define "pathway to the receptor." Mr. Gonser replied that what is meant by "pathway" is somewhat subjective and DoD has not been very constraining about that. He noted that the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) has done quite a bit of sampling where there may or may not be an immediate pathway to receptors. Mr. Schlesinger then asked if the policy pertains to both RDX and perchlorate, but is interpreted differently for each such that the IAGWSP was able to respond to the RDX contamination at the Northwest Corner investigation area. Mr. Gonser explained that there are state and local regulations that deal with regulated constituents, such as RDX. Perchlorate, however, is not a regulated compound and has no maximum contaminant level (MCL) associated with it. Nevertheless, in the absence of regulatory requirements to move forward on perchlorate contamination, the military has recognized that it will be an issue in the future and should begin identifying areas of perchlorate contamination in order to be prepared to deal with it.
Mr. Murphy asked if there were any further comments on the April 26, 2005 IART meeting minutes. None were offered and the minutes were approved as written.
Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Responses to Action Items
Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP has discussed the issue of document distribution with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). He said that while historically team members have been provided with paper copies of reports, this might not be the most effective method environmentally or in terms of cost. Therefore, the IAGWSP is proposing that it instead provide team members with an executive summary that includes a cover letter noting the review period and information on how the full report can be obtained (on the web site, or by contacting the IAGWSP for a CD or a hard copy), if the team member is interested.
Mr. Schlesinger said that he wants to receive the full report, as he is concerned that the executive summary and the text in the actual report might not match up. He also noted that he doesn't feel a need to receive all the appendices and tables associated with reports, but would like them to be available on the web site.
Mr. Mullennix said that an executive summary would be sufficient for him.
Mr. Gregson explained to Mr. Schlesinger that the purpose of the executive summary would not be to solicit comments on the document itself, but to inform team members of the subject matter of the full report so they could decide whether they want to obtain a copy of it for review and comment. Mr. Schlesinger noted that in that case it would suit him to receive the executive summary, as long as the full document is readily accessible on the web site.
Mr. Cambareri said that he'd like to receive a hard copy of the entire document. Dr. Dahmani echoed Mr. Cambareri's request, and noted that one copy would be sufficient for the Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) team.
Mr. Schlesinger noted that he would like to receive hard copies of maps associated with large reports such as Rapid Response Action (RRA) plans, so they could be brought to meetings and shared with colleagues easily.
Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP is looking for feedback on its proposal to forego the June 28, 2005 IART meeting in light of the Snake Pond Event on June 16, 2005 and the Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) public hearing, also anticipated to be scheduled for June. He said that the IAGWSP could e-mail investigation results to IART members and provide any other information at the Demo 1 public hearing.
Mr. Mullennix said that he is willing to forego the June IART meeting. Ms. Adams asked if there's a plan to combine the July and August meetings, as has been done in the past. Mr. Gregson replied that two separate meetings are planned for July and August. Mr. Murphy asked when a date would be set for the Demo 1 public hearing. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP hopes to be able to set that date within the next couple of weeks, with the hearing likely to occur sometime at the end of June.
Mr. Schlesinger noted that he's usually opposed to foregoing meetings, but can think of only one pressing potential issue at this time, which would be if DEP were to present its new MCL for perchlorate. He said that he thinks that any other issues could be handled by e-mail.
Mr. Cambareri noted that he is willing to forego the June meeting. Mr. Murphy recommended that the team revisit this question at the end of the meeting.
Responses to Action items from the April 26, 2005 IART Meeting
Mr. Gonser referred to Action Item #9, which noted that he would provide an update on the status of DoD perchlorate policy setting. He reported that in September 2003 DoD issued an interim policy that authorizes sampling for the presence of perchlorate in any previously unexamined site where there is a reasonable basis to suspect that the release has occurred as a result of DoD activities and where a complete human exposure pathway is likely to exist. He also said that he was in Washington, D.C. recently and spoke with individuals at the Pentagon regarding the initiative to establish a new policy on perchlorate from the DoD perspective. Being considered for the draft policy, which is being coordinated with EPA Headquarters, are potentially expanding the sampling requirements to military wastewater treatment facilities and military water supply systems, and, in the absence of a perchlorate standard, perhaps taking the initiative to move forward with response activities if a risk assessment of the perchlorate contamination indicates a risk. Mr. Gonser said that he believes that DoD is looking at 24 parts per billion (ppb) as the level of concern, based on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study.
Mr. Gonser noted that the policy is in draft form and will be submitted to the various services for review and comment, and he mentioned that there are some issues with the application overseas that still need to be resolved. He said that once all the services have commented on it, the policy could end up being significantly different than it is now. Also, because the policy is being coordinated with EPA, some interagency issues will have to be addressed. Mr. Gonser stated that DoD is planning to move forward, at least on some basis, with looking at responding to some perchlorate sites, understanding that it may take some time for a national perchlorate standard to be established. He also said that DoD is hoping to finalize its new policy, which will probably supersede the one he agreed to provide to the IART, sometime within the next couple of months.
Mr. Schlesinger questioned the use of 24 ppb as a level of concern, and noted that NAS hadn't intended that as an MCL. Mr. Gonser confirmed that 24 ppb is the drinking water equivalency level (DWEL) for perchlorate put forth by NAS and adopted by EPA, which is in the process of translating that figure to a cleanup level that considers sources of perchlorate other than water. He also said that he thinks DoD is looking at 24 ppb as a place to get started on some of the worst sites initially, but will continue to refine that number as it becomes clearer what the standard should be or when a standard is set.
Ms. Adams asked whether the draft policy addresses state standards. Mr. Gonser replied that the individual with whom he spoke said that it's sometimes difficult dealing with state standards because they are all different and have to be considered separately to determine their applicability. Mr. Gonser also said, however, that in general the concept is that the cleanup program complies with applicable state standards, and he hasn't heard anything contrary to that.
Dr. Dahmani inquired whether the detection level to be used for the additional testing would be around 1 ppb. Mr. Gonser said that he thinks the original guidance on perchlorate includes an entire appendix on sampling and analysis protocols, but can't say exactly what detection limits will be required. He also said that he imagines that the IAGWSP will continue to use the same ones.
Mr. Schlesinger said that it seems that the new policy looks at on-base groundwater and treatment centers and considers actions for areas of high contamination levels. And therefore he wonders what would happen in areas like those at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) where there are low levels of perchlorate contamination. Mr. Gonser replied that he thinks that some level will be determined that allows for a risk assessment and authorization to conduct a response action. Mr. Schlesinger asked if the risk assessment would be different in some way. Mr. Gonser said that he believes that a standard CERCLA-based risk assessment would be used. The difference is in taking the initiative to move forward on something beyond sampling for a contaminant for which there isn't yet a standard, and DoD is working with EPA to determine what that (action) level should be.
Mr. Dow questioned how a standard risk assessment protocol could be used when the dose-response relationship isn't actually known, given that the various scientific experts used different sources of data, with NAS looking at adults and DEP looking at children. Ms. Jennings replied that DoD and EPA are relying on the NAS for that dose-response relationship. Yet to be decided, however, is the conversion of the 24.5-ppb DWEL for risk assessment purposes. She also noted that absent information on the relative source contribution, the standard policy in CERCLA is to use 20% of the reference dose (RfD) as the conversion. She said that she thinks Mr. Gonser is saying that the NAS dose-response information has been accepted as the basis for a CERCLA risk assessment, but added that EPA is still waiting for information on how to take that RfD and convert it to complete a risk assessment.
Ms. Jennings also noted that future risk, in addition to current risk, is often considered when doing a CERCLA-type risk assessment and can justify an action. She then asked if DoD is looking at responding to future as well as current risk. Mr. Gonser said that he hadn't asked that specific question and doesn't know enough about the policy to be able to answer it. He did say, however, that he imagines "it would be similar to the way we normally do business."
Mr. Dow referred to the NAS approach and said that a no-effect level is not the same as an adverse-effect level, so "that's not actually a dose-response relationship."
Mr. Schlesinger said that the dose-response relationship is unclear to him and he wonders if there's someone who could present this information to the IART in a way that it could be better understood. Mr. Gonser replied that this request could be considered. He also said, however, that he doesn't think DoD is trying to resolve the risk issue at this point. Rather, it is looking at perhaps taking some action on perchlorate contamination, in addition to sampling, while waiting for those sorts of issues to be resolved.
Mr. Schlesinger asked if it's correct that a risk assessment would need to be done in the event that the new wells that are being installed prove a pathway between the J Range plumes and the Peters Pond area in Sandwich. Ms. Jennings noted that in the recent past Mr. Mullennix asked to have someone speak to the IART about toxic issues related to perchlorate, and the response to that request was that it would be best to wait and see what happens with the state standard, which, it is hoped, may be put forth shortly, and "may trump out this discussion." She also said that she did talk to someone at EPA Headquarters about coming to speak to the IART, if it becomes appropriate to do so, but in the meantime recommends continuing to collect data from the Peters Pond area and waiting another month or two for the state standard, which "may be enough."
Mr. Mullennix referred to Action Item #3, his request for information on the results of the DEP fireworks study conducted at UMass Dartmouth. He said that the response notes that the results of the reference study have been incorporated into a larger report, which concerns him because oftentimes it seems that when a study is incorporated into a larger study, the results from the original one tend to get buried. He also said that he believes that the fireworks study came about as a direct result of the investigation at the Northwest Corner, and therefore he thinks it's only appropriate that the IART see the original report and actual data obtained from that study. Mr. Mullennix also inquired about the status of the Northwest Corner report, which EPA and DEP had rejected and asked the IAGWSP to revise.
Mr. Gregson replied that information from the additional air modeling that's currently being conducted is going to be rolled into that revised Northwest Corner remedial investigation report, which is scheduled to be issued this fall and finalized next spring. Mr. Mullennix said that his concern is that the original report clearly stated that fireworks were the primary source of perchlorate contamination at the Northwest Corner, and it's well known that fireworks displays occur all over the state and the country. He also said that he has some intelligence that the UMass Dartmouth study showed evidence of perchlorate contamination at that site where fireworks displays have occurred for several years, with increased perchlorate contamination found immediately after a display. Mr. Mullennix noted that it seems clear that the evidence points to perchlorate deposition being caused by fireworks displays, but it appears that this information is being buried, which he considers inappropriate, especially since the state is driving toward a perchlorate cleanup standard that's far lower than any other in the nation. He said that he would appreciate anything Mr. Pinaud could do to help the IART find out the results of the UMass Dartmouth study, and anything Mr. Gregson could do to expedite the air modeling effort and move the remedial investigation report forward so that it's available prior to the state establishing an MCL for perchlorate.
Ms. Jennings clarified that in addition to perchlorate, RDX, which is not from fireworks, has also been detected at the Northwest Corner. She said that she thinks it would be incorrect to say that contamination in the Northwest Corner is solely, or even primarily, from fireworks. Mr. Mullennix replied that the IAGWSP and its consultants and the regulators clearly hold different opinions on this issue. He also said that it's been more than a year since the original report was issued, and he is asking for the additional conclusions in the revised report to be brought to the table, rather than "sliding it underneath the rug," which, in his opinion, is what seems to be happening.
Dr. Dahmani noted that the perchlorate MCL should not be driven by the source of perchlorate contamination, but by health and environmental concerns. He then referred to Action Item #8, pertaining to the regulatory processes for setting perchlorate standards, and noted that the response states that DEP follows the federal process for setting the MCL for perchlorate. He said that it appears that with the EPA approach, a federal standard won't be established for another four or five years, and questioned whether the state standard will take as long.
Mr. Pinaud said that he doesn't have a timeline, but knows that DEP wants to try to come out with a groundwater standard and an MCL at the same time. He also said that he thinks it is likely that DEP's MCL will be out sooner than EPA's. Dr. Dahmani asked if Mr. Pinaud has any information as to which of the distinct steps listed in the action item response have been accomplished. Mr. Pinaud replied that he does not have the information at this time. Ms. Jennings said that while the state is following the same type of steps that EPA follows to establish an MCL, the state is further along in the process and so it's hoped that a state standard can be expected within a few months.
Ms. Conron said that she doesn't see how the question of whether there's perchlorate in the UMass Dartmouth fireworks affects the IART's discussion on cleaning up MMR and the groundwater, and therefore doesn't understand why there's anything to hide. She also said that it seems that the IAGWSP agreed that the military is at fault for the contamination at the Northwest Corner since it provided town water hookups to residences there. Mr. Gregson clarified that town water hookups were provided in response to a detection of RDX upgradient of those homes, not because of the perchlorate that was detected in that area. Ms. Conron asked if Mr. Gregson is suggesting that there's no possibility that any of the perchlorate at the Northwest Corner is from a military source. Mr. Gregson clarified that he is saying that it's likely that some percentage of the perchlorate contamination seen at the Northwest Corner is from fireworks, although he doesn't know what that exact percentage is. Ms. Conron said that she would agree that some of the perchlorate there probably came from the fireworks, but she doesn't think fireworks are the sole source.
Mr. Mullennix said that he believes that the initial Northwest Corner report indicated that the predominant source of perchlorate was from the fireworks, and this is why he is so interested in the UMass Dartmouth study, which he thinks came about as a direct result of information contained in the report. He also mentioned that there is another location in the state where wells had to be shut down because of perchlorate contamination in an area where fireworks displays occurred for a number of years. Mr. Mullennix said that he thinks it's important to investigate the sources when looking at perchlorate contamination, and he simply wants to see the data from the study, have the revised Northwest Corner report pushed forward, and come to some commonality of conclusion.
Mr. Cambareri noted that he too wants to see the UMass Dartmouth data, but after it's been put together in a report that's comprehensive and deals with the issue state-wide, not just at MMR and in the town of Bourne. He said that he thinks that DEP is proceeding cautiously and gathering all the available data (not only from the Northwest Corner investigation and UMass Dartmouth study, but also from testing being conducted across the state) in order to come out with a correct interpretation, and he thinks it makes sense to wait until DEP's report is complete. Mr. Cambareri further noted that he thinks the initial Northwest Corner report was "correctly turned back on its heels" as it seemed too simplistic and failed to provide detail about the depths of the various hydrologic flow paths and sources. He also said that the course of any scientific investigation is to review data, come up with some conclusions, share different perspectives, and then sometimes look to "expound upon what are some of the more exact findings of that study."
Mr. Schlesinger referred to Action Item #4, regarding use of LRWS5-1 as an additional downgradient monitoring well for the J-2 Range perchlorate plume, and asked if it would be possible to install a new well at that location, where the former well was removed. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP could take a look at that location in the context of the entire plume and determine whether it would be a good spot for a monitoring well.
Mr. Schlesinger referred to Action Item #6, his request that future monthly report maps include a depiction of contamination in the Peters Pond area, and the response that private wells are not depicted on those maps in order to protect the privacy of the homeowners. He then noted that the affected homeowners "quite publicly" expressed their concerns at last month's IART meeting. He also said that while he understands the decision to protect privacy, he thinks that not depicting off-base contamination on maps prevents the public from understanding the extent of the problem, making it difficult to gain public support to mobilize resources.
Mr. Schlesinger also said that the base-wide map does show contamination in the Peters Pond area, but the monthly report maps provided to IART members don't show the area at all, which should be the opposite in order to be in keeping with the policy of protecting the privacy of homeowners. He then said that the bottom line, however, is that he thinks that the contamination in the Peters Pond area should be shown on both maps, and asked if there's an existing policy regarding this issue.
Ms. Jennings said that the different maps (the base-wide map, the monthly report maps, and the investigation maps used during IART presentations) were developed for different purposes, and what is contained in them was negotiated in the past, long before her association with the project. She noted that she thinks that the maps used at IART meetings are the best source of information and she doesn't find the base-wide map or monthly report maps to be useful for purposes of the investigation. She also said that while she would agree that all of the maps should be consistent, that is not the case because they are used for different purposes and are generated by various sources. She advised Mr. Schlesinger to rely on the investigation maps used at IART meetings.
Mr. Schlesinger stated that over the many years that he's been associated with the cleanup program, it has never been "hashed out" what should be depicted on the various maps. He also said that the only maps he receives are the monthly report maps, not the ones shown at IART meetings that Ms. Jennings calls useful. He then questioned the reasoning behind producing maps that aren't useful and said that he is annoyed. Ms. Jennings noted that IART members receive copies of maps used at meetings as part of the presentation packet. Mr. Schlesinger replied that those maps are not distributed to the public and therefore he believes that the public is not being properly informed. He also noted that previous discussions about mapping occurred prior to the discovery of off-base contamination and so he thinks the issue should be readdressed.
Mr. Minior stated that the policy followed by the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) since the mid-1980s is not to denote private well sampling results on any document released to the public in order to protect the privacy of the homeowner, but only show off-base detections that occur in monitoring wells.
Ms. Grillo said that there's recognition that the base-wide plume map generated by the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC) would not have the most up-to-date information because it was to be issued just twice a year. She also said that this map hasn't been issued in quite a while and the E&RC hasn't really addressed DEP's comments, despite DEP's request for a comment resolution meeting. Ms. Grillo said that because the base-wide map is the one most likely to reach individuals who don't come to meetings, it's important to ensure that is as up-to-date as it can be.
Mr. Mullennix said that he thinks it's really "all about the data," and what data are published and how they are published, and his frustration is that "people seem to be opinionated" depending on which side of the table they're on. He referred to the current situation regarding the source of contamination that was detected off base and noted that one group "wants to get that information publicized and out in front of everybody," while others would argue that it wouldn't be wise to do so until a thorough analysis has been done. He said that he thinks there's certainly a difference of opinion based on which side of the table a person is on.
Mr. Schlesinger referred to Mr. Minior's comment and said that "just because the regulators have been satisfied with something since the 1980s doesn't make it right." He also said that the regulators work for the citizens, and the job of citizen IART members is to let everyone know what they think of the direction of the study and its documentation, and all he is doing is saying that he dislikes that the contamination at the Peters Pond area isn't being depicted on maps. Mr. Schlesinger explained that he just wants to ensure that the information gets out to the public, and it seems to him that too often information does not get out in a timely manner or is "whitewashed" when it is released so that the public doesn't see the full extent of contamination. He further noted that some discussion about mapping had occurred before Ms. Jennings' involvement with the project, yet to date a map like those used during IART meetings can't be found anywhere in the community. He remarked that to him "it's pitiful that the public agencies would allow this to happen," and added that "the way that this information dispersion is going on in this study stinks" and completely lacks transparency, unlike other federal projects.
Mr. Cambareri said that he understands Mr. Schlesinger's frustration and wishes that all the right data were presented in the right way all the time. He also noted, however, that he was pleased to see that the recent version of the base-wide map denoted the perchlorate detection in the Peters Pond area, and thought that it was appropriate, but hasn't studied the rest of the map as yet. Mr. Cambareri then said that he thinks that all the team members come to the table with their own views and perspectives, but doesn't know that that needs to be pointed out, as Mr. Mullennix did. He also noted that he comes to the table as a public official, a citizen, and a scientist, and believes that he has brought "a level approach" with his perspective on the MMR cleanup operations since 1990. Mr. Cambareri further stated that he thinks that the main issue is "how safe is the drinking water," which he considers a very important public policy issue, not only at MMR, but across the state. He also mentioned the importance of being careful to be accountable to the public and come out with the right information.
Ms. Adams said that she thinks it would be worthwhile to discuss mapping of off-base contamination at a future IART meeting, when the team could make a conscience decision about whether or not to follow the AFCEE protocol.
Mr. Dow asked whether the recommendations noted at the bottom of the Responses to Action Items document had been discussed. Mr. Gregson replied that these would be addressed during the Investigation Update. Mr. Dow also referred to the air modeling Mr. Gregson had mentioned and said that he thinks that the IAGWSP should gather some independent data to validate the model, which would mean that more soil sampling might have to be done.
Agenda Item #3. J-2 Range North Groundwater Rapid Response Action Plan
Mr. Gregson noted that the public comment period on the J-2 Range North Groundwater RRA Plan closes tomorrow. He showed an RDX/perchlorate map of the plume and pointed out the Upper Cape Water Cooperative (the Co-op) water supply well #2. He also reported that the RRA system consists of three extraction wells along the axis of the plume and four reinjection trenches, and will involve the same type of mobile treatment unit as the one being used for the Demo 1 RRA system, which includes a treatment train of granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, and GAC. Mr. Gregson stated that based on comments already received, and any received tonight or by the close of business tomorrow, the IAGWSP will finalize the J-2 Range North RRA plan and move forward with the action.
Mr. Cambareri asked if the Co-op has a consultant reviewing the RRA plan. Mr. Gregson replied that he does not know. He also noted, however, that an IAGWSP representative attends Co-op meetings to brief the group on the planned actions, and he will check to see if the Co-op has received a copy of the plan.
Mr. Schlesinger asked whether the plan is flexible enough to accommodate the 69-ppb perchlorate detection that occurred at monitoring well northwest of the plume. Mr. Gregson said that he would point out that monitoring well during the Investigation Update, and added that he doesn't think that this RRA will address that particular detection. Mr. Schlesinger expressed concern that it's unknown whether the width of the plume in "that area" extends beyond the placement of the infiltration trench, and therefore it cannot be assessed whether that placement is appropriate. Mr. Gregson said that he would address this concern during the next presentation and review the well coverage, which is believed to be "pretty good" in that area. He also mentioned that the extraction well will serve to collapse the plume there.
Dr. Dahmani asked Mr. Gregson to identify the contaminant concentrations upon which the extraction well pumping rates and capture are based. Mr. Gregson replied that the capture zone goes out to the current mapped detection limits of RDX and perchlorate. Dr. Dahmani said, "to nondetect, basically," and Mr. Gregson replied, "the capture zone goes out to the edge of the plume."
Mr. Mullennix noted that the plan states that RDX eventually will reach water supply #2 at a concentration of 0.0000035 ppb, and asked whether it's possible to measure that low. Mr. Gregson referred to "the beauty of using models," and said that it would be sufficient to say that the RDX that reaches the well would be at very low levels.
Agenda Item #4. Investigation Update: J Ranges
Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the status of regularly employing the new EPA method of analysis (lower detection limit) that was used to identify low-level perchlorate detections in the Peters Pond area. Ms. Jennings replied that the method was used (and continues to be used) to analyze samples from the residential wells at Peters Pond Drive in order to address the question of whether or not perchlorate existed there, and the effort to tie that contamination back to the base continues. At this point, however, EPA doesn't think it's necessary to use the lower detection limit for all sampling, since the method that the IAGWSP is currently using achieves a low enough level to design a system that would effectively capture anything that would be "even above the state standard."
Mr. Gregson reported that J-2 Range drive-point drilling along the base boundary began on May 17, 2005 (location J2E-DP1), and plans for the drive-point location on Peters Pond Drive are progressing. He noted that drilling of the first location was successful, having reached a depth of 212 feet, which is well below the water table, although there had been some difficulty in drilling up until the water table was reached. He said that results from this drive-point are expected soon, and the IAGWSP is working on obtaining final environmental approval for additional drive-point locations along the base boundary and at the property on Peters Pond Drive where perchlorate was initially detected in a residential drinking water well. It's anticipated that drilling at the Peters Pond location will occur during the first half of June, with results at the end of the month.
Mr. Gregson also reported that an existing monitoring well previously used for synoptic water table monitoring was recently identified as a sampling location for the eastern J-2 Range investigation, to see what might be upgradient of Peters Pond Drive. A sample was collected from that well (90MWT0014) on May 13, 2005 and results are expected soon.
Mr. Gregson stated that a question to be considered when drilling the Peters Pond Drive drive-point location is whether there are any unusual vertical gradients there. If it turns out that information obtained from that drive-point indicates a need to answer that question, a couple more drive-points can be installed for the purpose of taking water level measurements in order to determine whether a normal downward gradient or, for some reason, a vertical gradient exists there. Mr. Gregson then noted that tritium age dating of water relies on the ability to sample a fairly high volume of water, which is unobtainable when using the drive-point method. Also, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) method of age dating has previously yielded inconclusive results at MMR, so was deemed inappropriate for the Peters Pond Drive location.
Ms. Jennings asked Mr. Gregson to specify when results are expected from the first drive-point location and the one at Peters Pond Drive. Mr. Gregson replied that results from the first drive-point location are expected by the end of the week, and results from the Peters Pond Drive location are expected in late June or early July.
Ms. Jennings then asked if it's correct that piezometers would be installed only if deeper contamination is found in the drive-point at Peters Pond Drive. Mr. Gregson replied that if perchlorate is found only at the water table in that drive-point, the IAGWSP's opinion is that it wouldn't need to install piezometers there. If there are no detections at that location, or detections at the water table as well as deeper detections, it would be helpful to install piezometers in order to obtain information about the relative vertical gradients.
Mr. Mullennix asked if the residential wells on Peters Pond Drive had been sampled since the last IART meeting. Mr. Gregson replied that they were sampled recently. Ms. Jennings noted that residential wells are supposed to be sampled on a quarterly basis, but the one on Peters Pond Drive where perchlorate was initially detected is being sampled monthly.
Ms. Adams asked if age dating could be done at the residential well Mr. Gregson just mentioned, as opposed to at the drive-point locations. Mr. Gregson replied that a series of samples throughout the water column is needed for age dating; therefore, just taking a sample from the water table would not be sufficient. Mr. Schlesinger asked for a more detailed explanation of why multiple samples are needed for age dating water. Mr. Gregson explained that tritium age dating has to do with what's called the 1960s bomb peak, when a great deal of nuclear bomb testing was being done. Relative concentrations of tritium are identified throughout the water column, and there's a spike that corresponds to the 1963 bomb peak. Water that's deeper than that spike is older, and water that's shallower is younger.
Mr. Schlesinger then asked if the various questions about the P.A. Landers irrigation well had been answered. Mr. Gregson replied that he believes that the IAGWSP has provided the regulators with the information that was gathered, including the well location, depth, pumping rate, and screen interval, but has not yet sat down to discuss it and consider next steps. He mentioned that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had been very helpful in tracking down the information. Mr. Schlesinger requested that this information be provided to IART members via e-mail. Mr. Gregson said that he could honor this request.
Mr. Cambareri inquired about the diameter of the drive-point and the amount of time it took to reach the water table. Mr. Gregson replied that the diameter is 1-3/8 inches and that it took a couple days of drilling to reach the water table, which was tedious work. Mr. Cambareri mentioned the possibility that the perchlorate contamination detected at Peters Pond Drive might be older, and have traveled beyond that immediate area. He then recommended that the IAGWSP consider a drive-point location on the northwest shore of Peters Pond, which also would be closer to the water table. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP would consider this recommendation.
Dr. Dahmani noted that it's unclear to him how the IAGWSP will measure water levels with the drive-point profiler and use that as a piezometric level. Mr. Gregson explained that there would be a couple of drive-points next to each other, screened at different depths, and the water levels in each would be measured. Dr. Dahmani asked if the plan is to "actually draw up a water level meter." Mr. Gregson confirmed that it is. Dr. Dahmani asked if it's correct that it's possible to measure a water level within a geo-probe drive-point profiler. Mr. Gregson replied that it wouldn't be done during the drilling operation; rather, small-diameter wells would be installed if the decision is made to do so. Dr. Dahmani suggested that it would make sense then to just install a piezometer permanently. Mr. Gregson noted that this is a consideration, but it would be up to the homeowner to decide if he wanted a permanent fixture on his property. Dr. Dahmani noted that equilibrium would be needed in order to get a good measurement. Mr. Gregson agreed that it would be necessary to "wait some time for that to settle." Dr. Dahmani spoke in favor of permanent installations so that if there is a vertical gradient it could be monitored over an entire year, rather than a one-time event.
Mr. Gregson continued with his presentation by noting that an additional well (MW-369) was drilled to help determine the width of the J-1 Range plume. That well had a profile RDX detection of about 4.2 ppb, which indicates that the plume might be a little wider at that location. He noted that this is not surprising, given the variation in groundwater flow in that area near the top of the mound. Mr. Minior inquired about the depth of the RDX detection. Mr. Gregson replied that it was consistent with the other plume, about in the middle of the water column. Mr. Gregson also reported that perchlorate was detected at MW-331 at about 0.35 ppb, which indicates that that edge of the J-2 North plume may move out a couple of feet toward the west. However, this doesn't change the interpretation of the plume very much, nor the RRA plan.
Mr. Gregson also reported that perchlorate was detected at a record-setting 730 ppb in the tenth round of sampling at MW-198 in the J-3 Range plume. This is consistent with how the plume is mapped, and occurred in the well that has always had the highest levels of contamination, with the previous maximum concentration detected there being 322 ppb. Mr. Gregson noted that, fortunately, the J-3 Range RRA extraction well that's going to be located about 1,000 to 1,500 feet downgradient of MW-198 will capture that contamination.
Mr. Schlesinger inquired about any plans for follow-up in response to the RDX detection at MW-369. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is near the end of the J-1 Range plume remedial investigation of this plume and has a couple more well locations planned. If sampling results from those wells indicate the need, additional well locations will be drilled to complete the delineation.
Mr. Schlesinger also asked about MW-158, near the easternmost J-2 Range plume. Mr. Gregson replied that perchlorate was detected at low levels in MW-158 in previous sampling rounds, but it currently tests nondetect. He also said that the nearby plume boundary doesn't go back quite that far, and noted that investigations of some additional anomalies in the J-2 Range are ongoing and an effort is being made to identify other potential source areas. Ms. Adams asked to have that well location identified. Mr. Gregson pointed out the well on the map and noted that particle tracks and groundwater flow would go "back to this spot."
Mr. Schlesinger questioned whether MW-154, MW-121, and MW-122 are at a sufficient depth to determine if there's a source area associated with the detections that occurred at MW-158. Mr. Gregson replied that those wells "are deep enough to see at least that." He also said that there are many potential source areas at the J-2 Range that can be relatively small burial/disposal pits.
Mr. Dow asked Mr. Gregson to identify the source with which the detection at MW-127 is associated. Mr. Gregson noted that the well is on the J-1 Range, but he would have to get back to Mr. Dow with an answer to his question.
Mr. Gregson also referred to a map and pointed out MW-368, which Mr. Schlesinger had mentioned earlier, and noted that the RDX and perchlorate detections there might indicate that two of the J-2 Range plumes have merged together. He said that additional work will be done to confirm that. Mr. Schlesinger asked if the detection at MW-366 reflects profile data or a well result. Mr. Gregson replied that he would have to check and report back on that.
Agenda Item #5. Central Impact Area Status
Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP has been meeting with the regulators about every other week to discuss the feasibility study screening for cleanup of the Central Impact Area. He showed a map depicting both the RDX plume (to the 0.25 detection limit) and the perchlorate plume (to the 0.35 detection limit) at the Central Impact Area. He also noted that the decision was made to bring together the groundwater feasibility study with the soil and unexploded ordnance (UXO) feasibility study and come up with a comprehensive remedy.
Mr. Gregson showed a slide entitled "Current Data Gaps" and noted that the groundwater remedial investigation (RI) report is undergoing agency review, and the draft soil RI report is almost complete pending some refinement of the source areas. The two documents will provide the basis for the feasibility studies. Mr. Gregson stated that some work done over the past few months suggests that the source area for groundwater contamination at the Central Impact Area could be as large as 80 acres, but it's thought that additional investigations might allow for refining the source area down to less than that size. He also noted that information about the source area is based on soil data, groundwater data, UXO data, aerial magnetometry (air mag) data, and the like. Also, the risk assessment needs to be completed, as do treatability studies to evaluate various in-situ treatment technologies. Mr. Gregson also reported that the IAGWSP is conducting a review of existing UXO data based on previous UXO work at sites such as High Use Target Area 1 (HUTA 1), HUTA 2, the Eastern Test Site, and Targets 23 and 42, as well as air mag surveys and aerial photography assessments to look at cratering. Information from all of these sources is being compiled in an effort to map out the concentrations of UXO in the Central Impact Area and get some idea of their depths.
Mr. Cambareri remarked that the items listed on the slide are not necessarily sequential then, since UXO density would have to be known in order to complete the RI. Mr. Gregson explained that the collection of UXO data has gone hand-in-hand with soil data collection, and all of that information is going to be rolled into the feasibility study screening report. He noted that it's important to refine the information when looking at cleanup alternatives, and the IAGWSP is looking at whether the areas of high UXO concentration correspond directly to areas that appear to have high levels of soil contamination in order to consider if a response action for soil will take care of the UXO problem as well, or if response actions will have to be separated.
Mr. Gregson then reviewed potential groundwater technologies being considered: ex-situ physical/chemical, which involves pumping the groundwater, treating it using either carbon, ion exchange, or zero-valent iron or pallidized iron, and returning the treated water to the aquifer; ex-situ biological, which involves pumping the groundwater, running it through a fluidized bed reactor, and returning the treated water to the aquifer; and in-situ technologies, including a permeable reactive barrier wall, injection of zero-valent iron in the subsurface, and enhanced bioremediation through the addition of amendments. Mr. Gregson noted that the in-situ methods present a challenge in terms of actually contacting the treatment with the contaminated groundwater when trying to address a very large plume at relatively low concentrations. He also said, however, that all potential alternatives are being considered and that a combination of technologies might provide an attractive cleanup alternative.
Mr. Gregson reviewed potential soil technologies being considered: a hydraulic barrier, or capping, which would provide a barrier to direct contact with the contamination and halt migration of contamination to the water table, but has disadvantages in terms of cost and ecological impacts; ex-situ physical/chemical, which involves excavating the soil, treating it through soil washing or thermal desorption, and returning the treated soil to the site; ex-situ biological, which involves excavating the soil, mixing in biological amendments to treat it, and returning the treated soil to the site; in-situ technologies, which involve the use of lime or peat moss and soybean oil amendments to accomplish in-place biological composting, but come with the challenge of overcoming the issue of UXO and low-order rounds, which may not be amenable to biological treatment; in-situ soil flushing, which involves the use of a solvent to dissolve the contaminants out of the soil, thereby allowing them to reach the groundwater, and be treated there; and excavation and removal, which involves digging up the contaminated soil and transporting it to an off-site landfill for disposal, which has some cost and certainty advantages, but does not detoxify the soil. Mr. Gregson noted that the result of excavating 80 acres of soil down to 2-foot depth would be about 60,000 tons of excavated soil.
Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP and the regulators are evaluating the technologies and trying to come up with a manageable number of alternatives (about six to eight) to consider as part of the feasibility study. For groundwater, the alternatives will range from no-action and long-term monitoring to complete restoration of the aquifer across the entire plume, and may include hotspot treatment at areas like the intersection of Tank Alley and Turpentine Road and containment options to prevent plume migration. Preliminary modeling of the various scenarios will be done as part of the screening report in order to ensure that the actions are feasible, and information from the modeling will be used to build alternatives for the feasibility study.
Mr. Gregson said that soil and UXO alternatives are going to be considered along with groundwater alternatives because source area removal can affect the levels of contaminants in groundwater and the amount of time the treatment system would need to operate. He then displayed a figure depicting areas where there are detections of explosives at the water table that presumably translate to active source areas and a swath representing a potential soil removal action as part of the feasibility study.
Mr. Gregson noted that a wide range of soil alternatives is being considered, including options that address the entire 330-acre Central Impact Area site, approximately 80 acres to remove some of the higher soil contamination (which, as noted earlier, may be refined to a smaller area), or smaller areas like the swath along Turpentine Road and Tank Alley. A no-action alternative also is being considered. Mr. Gregson stated that all of the soil removal alternatives address UXO as well. He also noted that as the IAGWSP goes through the evaluation of UXO density, it will look at other areas that may contain UXO but don't yet have a corresponding groundwater impact so that those items can be removed in order to prevent future impacts.
Mr. Gregson then reviewed next steps: complete RI for soil and groundwater, refine current source areas, complete risk assessment, conduct technology evaluations, complete feasibility study screening report (draft expected October 2005), and prepare feasibility study for soil and groundwater.
Mr. Cambareri asked if it's correct that the second map Mr. Gregson displayed shows concentrations of RDX at the water table. Mr. Gregson replied that it is, and noted that the first map was a plan view of both RDX and perchlorate contamination, regardless of its depth in the aquifer. He explained that it's thought that by backtracking from the areas of RDX at the water table it will be possible to identify soil at the surface that might be actionable for cleanup. Mr. Cambareri asked if the RDX concentrations at the water table have changed over time or if the map depicts composite detections. Mr. Gregson said that he was told that the concentrations in those wells "are remaining relatively constant" and over the past five to seven years of the project "there's continued to be an ongoing source of about the same concentration." Mr. Cambareri asked if it would be accurate to say those area are long-time sources of groundwater contamination. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn't know if that leap could be made, but it could be said that they are probably the current sources of contamination. He also noted that historical aerial photographs show a shift in cratering over time. Some of the World War II vintage photos indicate "shooting at a lot of stuff up in here," however, at that time mostly TNT type munitions, rather than RDX, was used.
Mr. Cambareri asked if the well points on the map represent a cluster of well sites, such that there have been multiple testings at a variety of depths over time. Mr. Gregson replied that this is the case. He also said that a complicated feature of the Central Impact Area, which doesn't show up on the figures, is that the area of groundwater contamination that's shown is really a composite of a number of small plumes from a number of different sources. He noted that one monitoring well with a detection could be right next to another that's nondetect at the same depth, but does have a detection at different depth. He also noted, however, that this will be disregarded to a certain degree when doing the groundwater cleanup, and a system will be constructed to capture a large area of contamination.
Mr. Schlesinger said that he had not known that the Central Impact Area plume was really many small plumes at varying depths, and would like to see cross-section figures that illustrate that in order to aid his understanding of the contamination there. He also asked if the risk assessment that's going to be conducted will be only a human health risk assessment or will include all potential receptors. Mr. Gregson replied that the planned risk assessment will encompass all potential receptors and will look at ecological risk. Mr. Schlesinger noted that he's curious about the perspective of the Natural Resources people on the various options, and suggested that they might prefer an option that's more expensive but poses less ecological risk. Mr. Gregson said that it will be important to keep the Natural Resources people informed of the alternatives as the feasibility study stage is reached so they can weigh in with their concerns, such as maintaining the habit.
Dr. Dahmani asked it there's any documentation that explains the reasoning behind the selection of cleanup technologies being considered. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP presented a list of the technologies to the regulators and worked up a matrix that compares the different technologies, but is still working through that discussion with the regulators. Dr. Dahmani asked if that information could be provided to the IART. Mr. Gregson said that he would discuss this request with the regulators and if possible send out the list of technologies by e-mail.
Dr. Dahmani asked if the plan is to begin testing the technologies through treatability studies in the fall. Mr. Gregson replied that some bench-scale testing is currently being conducted to answer the question of whether it makes sense to do field-scale testing of the particular technologies later on. He also said that he's not sure if the downsides of the some of the technologies could be overcome by the benefits - for example, the option that involves spreading compost on the ground sounds easy, but comes with ecologic impacts and the problem of dealing with the UXO.
Mr. Cambareri said that he'd like to see a composite of the two Central Impact Area maps that were shown this evening, which he thinks might provide some information as to what would happen over a period of time with no source removal. He explained that he is curious about this because it seems that the treatment technologies for the source area that were discussed tonight are all "drastic," or disruptive to the surface ecosystem. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is staying open to all the alternatives and their associated benefits and costs. He noted that one alternative among the many to be considered before a final remedy is selected is to install a line of extraction wells and do nothing with the soil. Mr. Cambareri recommended that next month's IART agenda include another presentation on the Central Impact Area, and he noted again that he'd like to see a composite map.
Mr. Dow inquired about the existence of any plants that might be used to hyper-accumulate perchlorate in the less contaminated areas, for cleanup in a non-intrusive fashion. Mr. Gregson replied that he hasn't seen anything like that in the literature or at other sites. He also mentioned the issue of introducing non-native species to the current habitat and noted that not a lot of perchlorate is being seen in the surface soil samples from the Central Impact Area, and even in the water table the maximum perchlorate detection is only about 3 ppb.
Mr. Dow then noted that AFCEE found that the anaerobic conditions cause by dissolved organic carbon at the Landfill-1 (LF-1) plume actually caused reductive de-chlorination of the some of the solvents there. He recommended that the IAGWSP consider looking into the possibility of adding water with low levels of dissolved organic carbon to create anaerobic conditions in the top of the groundwater at the Central Impact Area to help remove either RDX or perchlorate or some of both. He also said that it's hard to visualize capping or excavating 80 acres and so he is trying to think of more cost-effective, less intrusive methods to deal with the source area.
Mr. Schlesinger remarked that landfills have been capped across the country and he thinks that capping sounds potentially feasible, although sort of intrusive. He also mentioned that the Fate & Transport of RDX report that was issued some time ago was never discussed at an IART meeting, and it might be beneficial to do so. Mr. Gregson agreed that it would be good to review the results in that report, which pertains to work done at the University of Texas.
Mr. Gregson inquired about the size of the LF-1 cap. Mr. Minior replied that it is 66 acres in size. Mr. Murphy noted that the cap at Fort Devens is 85 acres. Mr. Cambareri said that a cap at the Central Impact Area would be around 360 acres. Mr. Gregson clarified that the overall operable unit is 330 acres, but based on the water table assessment and other information, it's believed that the source are is around 80 acres. Mr. Cambareri said that he thinks that LF-1 monitoring still shows contamination coming off the landfill. Mr. Minior indicated that the monitoring is showing groundwater that's almost clean. Mr. Cambareri noted that he hasn't seen a good assessment of the effectiveness of landfill caps and is somewhat skeptical.
Ms. Jennings referred to the map that shows the shallow RDX contamination and said that one of the challenges that the regulators and the IAGWSP have been facing is to try to determine the real source of contamination at the Central Impact Area. Over the past few months the project managers have been looking at multiple data layers, including soil concentrations, groundwater concentrations, and density of UXO, and it appears as though the shallow groundwater contamination does represent "a good rough guesstimate" of where the current source is located. She also mentioned the hope that some monitoring wells will be installed to the right of the swath shown on the map to better define that area where soil data indicate that contamination would be seen in shallow groundwater. Ms. Jennings also noted that the question of a future source is still under discussion, and is not represented by the map.
Ms. Jennings explained that the project managers are trying to focus on determining the current source, or the majority of the current source, and are looking at a range that includes the entire 80-acre area, the 10-acre swath as shown on the map, an extended swath that is 14 acres in size, and the next deeper level of groundwater contamination, which encompasses a 25-acre area. She said that as the focused feasibility study process goes forward over the summer, many alternatives will be screened out for obvious reasons, and the alternatives that are carried through for detailed analysis will be presented to the IART in a "much more detailed conceptual way." Ms. Jennings said that the project managers have been working on the Central Impact Area project quite aggressively over the past few months and wanted to update the IART on the progress made thus far.
Mr. Cambareri noted that about two years ago at UMass Amherst he heard a presentation by the researcher who conducted the Fate & Transport of RDX study. He suggested that the IAGWSP might want to ask that gentleman to make a presentation at an IART meeting, or perhaps at some other forum.
Dr. Dahmani said that he recalls that the Fate & Transport of RDX study was done on soil cores, which represent a very small portion of the soil, and in terms of fate and transport, he thinks there is nothing better than the current actual data that are being collected from the site. He also said that he agrees that the top of the groundwater contamination is representative of where the soil concentrations are because "it doesn't seem like it takes a long time for that water to percolate through the unsaturated zone to the groundwater zone." Dr. Dahmani then said that it seems to him that capping areas where high contaminant concentrations are known to exist would probably be a preferred option for the simple reason that it would keep water from contacting the contaminated soil and thereby prevent the contamination from percolating through to the groundwater. He noted that other currently available soil treatment technologies are nowhere near as efficient as capping. Mr. Gregson added that a cap would also eliminate other potential exposure pathways.
Mr. Gregson then noted that there are really three types of contaminant deposition at the site: high-order rounds (the very small particulate in smoke that gets deposited on the surface and dissolves quickly), low-order rounds (rounds that break open or don't blow up completely and result in chunks of explosives that dissolve less readily), and UXO, which can rust through over time and release contaminants.
Mr. Schlesinger said that he does not discount Dr. Dahmani's point about the importance of actual data from the site, but believes that a presentation on the Fate & Transport of RDX report would be useful because he doesn't think that the citizens on the IART are knowledgeable enough about that topic to be able to understand which cleanup mechanism might be better. Mr. Gregson said that he thinks that some of the findings of that study would be important to review.
Mr. Cambareri said that he thinks that the team members need a "coloring book version" of the source mechanisms Mr. Gregson noted so they can conceptualize them. He also inquired about any consideration of contamination that might be in the unsaturated zone. Mr. Gregson replied that the way contamination in the unsaturated zone was handled at Demo 1 was to ignore it, because it wasn't feasible to dig that deep, and any contaminant would eventually percolate to the water table and be captured by the extraction wells. He also said, however, that whether there's an additive to put in the soil "to knock that out in a quicker timeframe" is something to keep in mind. Mr. Cambareri also mentioned his concern about what he called "spotty coverage" at the toe of the Central Impact Area plume.
Agenda Item #6. Revised Combined Schedule
Mr. Gregson said that because the meeting was running late, he would not provide a detailed presentation on the Revised Combined Schedule. He noted that the presentation handout provided this evening is a boiled-down version of the 17-page schedule that the IAGWSP uses for all the projects. He also referred to Demo 1 groundwater as an example and reviewed the schedule in the handout from the RRA to construction and operation of the final treatment system, which will continue operating through cleanup. Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP is working on many projects simultaneously, with groundwater RRAs being conducted at the major sites: Demo 1, the J-2 Range, and the J-3 Range. He noted that the IAGWSP has been working on the budget out to 2015. Also, that the schedule includes sites such as the Ammunition Supply Point and the Small Arms Range, and the Wide Area Source Assessment (WASA), which is a site-wide look at MMR to see if there are any other areas that need to be investigated. He asked the IART members to review the presentation handout, after which their comments and questions could be addressed at a future IART meeting.
Ms. Jennings asked if the different colors on the schedule chart denote a particular meaning. Mr. Gregson replied that the blue bars pertain to groundwater projects and the yellow bars pertain to soil projects.
Agenda Item #7. Open Discussion
Meeting on Membership Recruitment
Mr. Murphy noted that he, Ms. Conron, Mr. Schlesinger, Ms. Grillo, and Lori Boghdan of the IAGWSP met recently to discuss IART membership recruitment efforts. Ms. Conron reported that the group identified numerous organizations to contact regarding IART membership, including high school science departments, AmeriCorps, and the Sierra Club. She said that they also talked about producing flyers and making presentations, and agreed that action to recruit new members should be taken as quickly as possible.
Mr. Schlesinger noted that he had offered to make some of the presentations. He also said that he thinks that some individuals are fearful of not being qualified to discuss the type of material covered at IART meetings, and a presentation could help them become more comfortable with the idea that there is indeed "a ramp-up time to becoming part of the team as a citizen," but there is no need to be fearful. Mr. Schlesinger noted that some members who joined the team in the past hadn't stayed long, and while he doesn't know if the reason they left was because they didn't understand what was happening, he thinks that this needs to be addressed. He also remarked that the cleanup study was propelled by citizen effort since its beginning, and the public has benefited because of the citizen involvement. Therefore, he thinks it truly behooves the team to make the effort to get more citizens to the table.
Ms. Grillo reported that prior to tonight's meeting she sent out e-mails regarding the membership recruitment effort to a number of organizations, including the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the local Audubon chapter in Wellfleet, SCORE (an organization of retired executives), AmeriCorps of Cape Cod, and the Work Force Education Resource Center at Cape Cod Community College, which is forwarding her message to another department with an environmental slant. Ms. Grillo noted that the message she sent was not detailed but merely informed the recipients of the effort to recruit new citizen IART members and included her name and Mr. Murphy's as contacts for additional information.
Ms. Conron said that the group had pretty much agreed that it's important to target individuals who have some interest in data, and also spoke of trying to reach potential members through selectmen's meetings. She welcomed any help that anyone could offer with respect to the recruitment effort. Mr. Schlesinger also encouraged citizen IART members who were not at the recruitment meeting to provide input.
Mr. Murphy asked if there were any concerns about foregoing the June IART meeting, as discussed earlier this evening. Mr. Schlesinger asked why it's necessary to have a separate Demo 1 public hearing, rather than combine it with a regular IART meeting. Mr. Gregson explained that because of the importance of reaching the point where the first decision on a final remedy is going to be made, the IAGWSP wants to hold a separate public hearing. He also noted that the public involvement plan calls for a formal public hearing with a court stenographer and for the IAGWSP to prepare responses to comments made at the hearing. He further noted that combining the hearing with a regular meeting could cut into allotted times for other IART discussion items.
Ms. Conron asked if the hearing would be considered the IART meeting for the month of June. Mr. Murphy clarified that as final remedies go out to the public, they deserve a separate meeting focused on that particular subject. He also noted that this approach has worked well for AFCEE and prevents problems with trying to cover too much information at a single meeting.
Mr. Mullennix asked if resolution was reached on the document distribution question. Mr. Gregson replied that he believes that the decision was for the IAGWSP to send out an executive summary with a cover letter identifying ways to access the full report, either on line or by contacting the IAGWSP office to send one.
Mr. Cambareri inquired about the date of the Snake Pond event. Mr. Murphy replied that it's scheduled for June 16, 2005, on the beach at Snake Pond. He also noted that the consensus seems to be to forego the June IART meeting, and added that any important investigation results would be e-mailed to team members in the interim before the July meeting.
Agenda Item #8. Adjourn
Mr. Murphy announced that the IART would meet next on July 26, 2005. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.