Action Items:

1. Mr. Judge asked to be provided with copies of "sidebar" letters regarding adherence to state environmental standards as it pertained to base lease extension agreement.
2. Mr. Schlesinger asked to have the well cost breakdown figures he received distributed to all team members. Mr. Judge requested that the information be expanded to include cost figures that reflect expedited drilling methods currently being implemented to investigate the Disposal Area 2 plume. Mr. Kinney asked that the information also include the median cost for a well, rather than the average.
3. EPA agreed to send IART membership recruitment letters to residents in key Sandwich neighborhoods, and will also consider IART requests to contact the Sandwich Water District and Sandwich Board of Selectmen regarding same. Also, Mr. Schlesinger recommended that a direct mailing piece be developed and distributed to residents of neighborhoods east of MW-310 and MW-319.
4. Mr. Judge asked the IAGWSP to pursue methods to differentiate between perchlorate contamination from fireworks and perchlorate contamination from military munitions.
5. Mr. Schlesinger requested information on the sampling frequency and use status of the Shawme-Crowell water supply well. He also asked Mr. Gregson to check on whether Mr. Perry, the ranger at Shawme-Crowell State Forest, is receiving information on the Demo 2 plume investigation.
6. Mr. Borci asked to be provided with a timeframe for the availability of J-2 Range Disposal Area 2 plume well data and the development of a plume shell depiction. Mr. Judge asked that IART members also be provided with a cross-section figure.
7. Mr. Borci requested sampling of "A" screens in sentry wells associated with the Upper Cape Water Cooperative water supply well #2. Mr. Cambareri asked the IAGWSP to look into methods (such as "packing") for obtaining more discrete samples from the Co-op sentry wells.
8. Mr. Judge and Mr. Schlesinger asked for installation of a monitoring well between water supply well #2 sentry wells C7 and C4.
9. Mr. Gregson agreed to check on the use status of the irrigation well at the tech school in the Northwest Corner investigation area.

Future Agenda Items:

• Zones of Contribution
• J-3 Range RRA Workplan
• TOSC Presentation on Ion Exchange
• TOSC Presentation on Granular Activated Carbon
• Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

1. Responses to Action Items from the March 23, 2004 IART Meeting
2. IART Groundrules
3. Presentation handout: Remediation & Investigation Update
4. Data tables
5. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since 3/19/04 (ending 4/20/04)
6. Presentation slide: FY'04 Program Briefing
7. News Releases, Neighborhood Notices, and Media Coverage (3/20/04 - 4/26/04)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Review Agenda, Approval of March 23, 2004 IART Minutes

Mr. Murphy convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and reviewed the agenda, after which the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members introduced themselves. He also distributed a form on which team members were asked to indicate if they'd prefer to receive the monthly and interim progress reports by e-mail or by hard copy.

Mr. Murphy asked if there were any changes to the March 23, 2004 IART meeting minutes. No changes were offered and the minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Responses to Action Items

Mr. Judge said that after much discussion about whether agreement to sign the base lease extension was connected to the military's assurance that it would meet state environmental standards, and after having been referred to websites with on-line lease documents that do not indicate that connection, he has learned from Mr. Dow of "sidebar" letters between the National Guard and the state, which do refer to the Guard's agreement to uphold state standards. Mr. Judge said that these letters were signed or delivered around the same time the lease extension was signed. He asked that these letters, which he considers to be "the missing link between adhering to state standards and the signing of the lease," be provided to the IART. He said that he believes that the lease extension was signed because it was understood that the military would adhere to state standards. He also said that he thinks that it's necessary "to make sure that that happens, or that the governor be informed that the guarantees that were given to him regarding the lease are not being met."

Mr. Murphy said that he doesn't know whether this issue was covered in the Memorandum of Agreement and the Supplemental Lease Agreement, which were added to the Environmental & Readiness Center (E&RC) website. Mr. Judge replied that it was not, and added that he wants to know why the "sidebar" letters weren't provided to the team when he originally inquired about this issue.

Mr. Schlesinger asked why the team has to wait until the May IART meeting for J-1 Range plume cross-section figures, when the request for them was made at the March meeting. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is still working on those cross-sections, but has ready for this meeting J-2 Range plume cross-sections, which are a higher priority at this time.

Mr. Gonser announced that based on a recent RDX detection of about 5 parts per billion (ppb) at monitoring well 323 (MW-323), which is located near the base boundary in the Northwest Corner investigation area, the Army has decided to offer municipal water supply hookups to the three homeowners with private wells on Foretop Road. He explained that that detection level is above the federal health advisory, and although monthly sampling of the private wells hasn't yielded any RDX detections, given the uncertainties associated with this area due to its proximity to the Cape Cod Canal, it was thought prudent to offer municipal water supply hookups for those homes, which are the only ones in that area with private wells.

Mr. Kinney questioned whether perchlorate was also detected in MW-323. Mr. Gonser replied that it was, and noted that the approximately 5-ppb RDX detection occurred at about 50 to 60 feet below water table (bwt), while perchlorate was detected shallower, near the water table. Mr. Kinney suggested that perhaps the RDX and the perchlorate came from the base rather than a more local source. Mr. Gonser said that the thinks that the deep RDX detection goes back to the Central Impact Area, the mid-level RDX goes back to an area between the Impact Area and the base boundary, and the shallower perchlorate detection indicates a very nearby source.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he thinks that all the IART members should be provided with the well cost breakdown information that he received in response to a request he made at the March meeting. He also said that a footnote to the cost breakdown table mentions that drilling costs include one to days of standby time, waiting for profile results. He noted that it's his understanding that the standby time can be quite a bit longer, and he'd like to know why the drill rigs aren't managed more efficiently by being sent off to do other work right away.

Mr. Gregson explained that the standby time for the particular wells listed in the table ranged from 30 to 40 hours, which he expressed as one to two days. He also noted that a new approach is being used at the J Ranges to increase drilling efficiency and install wells more quickly. There, a rig drills the hole and then moves off to another location, and a cable tool rig is brought in to complete the well, which completely eliminates that standby time. Mr. Schlesinger suggested that this approach would cut back on the cost of the well. Mr. Gregson indicated that he's not sure, but he thinks this would cut the cost a little bit since it eliminates standby time for the more expensive drill rig. Mr. Schlesinger also asked if the well costs shown in the table represent the average cost of a well. Mr. Gregson said that he thinks the cost of most wells would fall within that range.

Mr. Judge asked that the team be provided not only with the well cost breakdown information that Mr. Schlesinger received, but also with a "more accurate document" that includes costs for wells that are being installed using the new approach that Mr. Gregson described, and includes the average cost for a well. He said that this information would help him feel more secure that $100,000 "is what we pay." Mr. Gonser noted that Mr. Judge will have a better understanding once he receives the information that Mr. Schlesinger has, since it breaks the costs down into well depth, unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal, road building, sampling analysis, and so forth - which vary from well to well. Mr. Judge remarked that if the average cost of a monitoring well is in fact $100,000, he thinks that the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) should immediately look into appropriating more money for the cleanup project in order to prevent being short of funds in the future.

Mr. Borci gave his assurance that each team member would receive the well cost breakdown information. He then cautioned against "throwing around a dollar figure per well" because the cost changes with each well location, and does include road building, UXO removal, and about a year's worth of sampling. He also said that he doesn't think the $100,000 figure is really accurate, but is less than that, "if you're trying to compare apples to apples at other sites or something like that." Mr. Schlesinger said that over the past six years the IART has been told repeatedly that monitoring well installation must be done sparingly because of the high cost. Now, however, it seems to him that the cost of wells is being defended at the same time. He said that if the wells really cost as much as the team has been told they do, he thinks that the program needs to increase its budget or learn to be more efficient. Mr. Borci clarified that he is not defending the cost of the wells, but is saying that "it's not a number that we should throw around."

Mr. Judge said that he thinks it is important "to throw around numbers" for budgeting purposes - so it can be understood what the project will cost next year and sufficient funding can be secured. He also said that he thinks Mr. Schlesinger originally asked for the cost of constructing a well, and everything else that was added in to come up with the $100,000 figure should be taken out.

Mr. Kinney said that he agrees with Mr. Judge and Mr. Schlesinger, but thinks that rather than the average cost of a well, the team should be provided with the median cost, which would be more meaningful given that a couple very expensive, hard-to-reach wells could throw off the average. He said that he thinks this is important because well cost has been given as a reason for moving slowly in groundwater investigations, and plume travel time estimates are not always accurate. He mentioned assurances about the travel time of groundwater contamination that extends into a zone of contribution (ZOC) for a water supply well, and noted that the Chemical Spill 10 (CS-10) plume, which was estimated to take about 15 years to reach Ashumet Pond, already has reached the eastern side of Johns Pond. Mr. Kinney said that he thinks it's important to nail down the cost, determine whether there's a way to reduce the cost, and install more wells faster.

Mr. Schlesinger indicated that accurate well cost figures are important in terms of planning ahead and ensuring that sufficient budget appropriations get into the 2005 defense authorization early enough to prevent a situation like the one that occurred last year, when some items were "too expensive" for the project "to take on without congressional support."

Mr. Judge asked that the request for the median cost of a monitoring well be noted as an action item. Mr. Schlesinger added that he also wants to see some kind of projection of potential costs that would exceed the authorization limitation so that the congressional delegation can be approached early enough to get those items into the defense authorization in time. Mr. Gonser clarified that operations and maintenance (O&M) monies pay for the installation of monitoring wells, which is not limited. This does not come under the same category for which there are Military Construction (MILCON) restrictions, as the proposed Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) treatment plant building did last year. Mr. Judge said that he still wants the information Mr. Schlesinger requested as reassurance that the promised funding for the wells doesn't become a problem in the future.

Agenda Item #3. IART Membership Discussion

Sandwich Membership Recruitment

Mr. Murphy reported that so far no membership applications have been submitted in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) news release inviting citizens of Sandwich to join the IART, and now EPA is considering a direct mailing to residents of Sandwich neighborhoods that border the base.

Mr. Schlesinger mentioned the possibility of also inviting someone from the Sandwich Water District to become a team member. Mr. Murphy said that while town officials are welcome to attend all the meetings, at this point EPA is specifically looking for citizens who are interested in membership. Mr. Schlesinger asked Mr. Murphy to define the difference between a water supply person and a citizen. Mr. Murphy replied that the biggest difference is that one is paid and the other is a volunteer. Mr. Borci said that he thinks it would be good to contact the people at the Sandwich Water District, make them aware of the recruitment effort, and see if they have any recommendations regarding potential team members.

Ms. Conron said that in her experience, the direct mailing was a much more effective method for reaching membership applicants from Bourne than was the announcement in the newspapers. She commented that the affected neighborhoods in Sandwich would be a wonderful place to start.

Mr. Judge noted that he was a paid representative from the Town of Sandwich when he joined the IART. He also requested that a letter be sent to Dan Mahoney at the Sandwich Water District asking him to become a full-fledged member of the IART. He said that Mr. Mahoney would only have the town's best interests in mind, and he (Mr. Judge) would like to see someone of Mr. Mahoney's caliber on the team.

Ms. Conron told the group that an IART member, along with a representative from the E&RC, recently attended a Bourne selectmen's meeting. She said that the IART member spoke about thermal desorption, a topic that she found very disappointing, considering other topics he could have discussed, such as the Northwest Corner and the water supply wells on base. Ms. Conron said that she thought the thermal desorption topic was "a turnoff," and also mentioned that while she hadn't actually attended the meeting, she watched it on local cable television. She also said that in terms of informing the citizens and encouraging their participation, she thinks it's important "to give them the right information that makes them want to be a part of something like this." She suggested that any talks given in Sandwich be about something of greater interest to the citizens.

Review of Groundrules

Mr. Judge stated that he wants everyone to maintain his first amendment rights and be able to speak freely both on the IART and outside of the IART. He then referred to a recent piece (a "My View" column) in the Cape Cod Times editorial page written by Bob Mullennix, which he (Mr. Judge) thinks would lead an average citizen to believe that drinking water that's slightly tainted with perchlorate is okay. Mr. Judge said that EPA is going to have to address this in some way. He also expressed dissatisfaction that Mr. Mullennix failed to note that he was not representing the IART or the views of the IART, especially regarding an issue that's currently being much discussed by the team.

Mr. Minior pointed out that Mr. Mullennix's identification as an IART member at the end of the piece might have been added by the newspaper's editorial page editor, not by Mr. Mullennix himself. He noted that Mr. Mullennix has no control over what appears on the editorial page, and he suggested checking with the paper to determine what actually happened. Mr. Murphy said that Mr. Mullennix did not identify himself as an IART member in the copy of the column that was e-mailed to him by Mr. Mullennix when it was submitted to the Cape Cod Times. Mr. Murphy also said that he thinks that asking team members to identify themselves as speaking on their own behalf is a reasonable request, but added that he doesn't think Mr. Mullennix violated the IART groundrules at all because he didn't identify himself as an IART member.

Mr. Judge suggested that Mr. Mullennix should have taken an active role in stating that he was not speaking on behalf of the team, especially since perchlorate was the subject matter. He said that whether or not Mr. Mullennix intended for the notation that he is a member of the IART to be added to the end of his editorial, he believes that Mr. Mullennix "did not actively seek to protect the integrity of this group." Ms. Conron added that she thinks the newspaper should list all of groups with which a person is affiliated, rather than just one. She said that she thinks Mr. Mullennix also belongs to Friends of MMR and several other organizations.

Mr. Schlesinger remarked, "First of all, we shouldn't be guilty by association." He also noted that both he and the late Dr. Feigenbaum had written "My View" columns and hadn't stated that they were speaking for the team, nor had they stated that they weren't speaking for the team, but the newspaper had identified them as IART members. Mr. Schlesinger further noted that he thinks this issue is a little beyond the team's scope. He said that all the citizen team members have opinions and need to be able to speak, and when he speaks to reporters he tells them that he's speaking for himself as an individual, and he thinks that should be made clear. He also noted, however, that a "My View" column generally starts out as a letter to the editor, who contacts the author - perhaps because the letter is too long or doesn't fit the format - to offer to make it a "My View" column. He said, "It doesn't work out that he's writing a column, and probably didn't intend this to happen."

Mr. Kinney stated that he wouldn't want to see any constraints put on anyone in terms of what they write and submit to the newspapers. He also said that the IART doesn't have control over the presentation that comes out in the media, and he doesn't think the team would "want to become the brain police" who try to make the local newspapers represent an author in a certain way. He suggested that it's incumbent on the people who are upset about Mr. Mullennix's "My View" column to put forth their own views and opinions to the media. Mr. Kinney further stated that while IART members certainly shouldn't be saying that they represent the team or are submitting a group article - unless that's the case - he doesn't think they can "get into the fine points of how it's going to be presented in the media."

Mr. Judge said that what he's talking about is self control, being sensitive to the other team members, and protecting the team and its activities. He also said that he would have "let it slide" had the team not recently had discussions about "protecting the integrity of the team and self control." He added that he accepts the article as is, but doesn't accept "the lack of self control exhibited in regards to protecting the integrity of the team and being sensitive to other team members who most certainly disagree with this."

Mr. Murphy stated that his sense from this discussion is that the groundrules really shouldn't be changed. He also said that the most useful thing might be for Mr. Judge to talk to Mr. Mullennix when he's at an IART meeting.

Mr. Judge remarked on "EPA's firm stance," which indicates to him that team members can say whatever they want, whenever they want, and "be representatives as a member of this team," without EPA having any problem with that. Mr. Murphy replied that EPA is not going to try to stop him from saying anything. He also said that he doesn't think Mr. Mullennix identified himself as an IART member, and doesn't think the issue can be taken much further. Mr. Judge remarked that he now knows that he wouldn't be "chastised at this table for saying hey, drinking perchlorate is fine…" and, "It's not coming from the base; it's the fireworks."

Mr. Butler asked if EPA plans to get the Town of Bourne to take responsibility for some of the cleanup at the Northwest Corner. Ms. Adams replied that, under the administrative orders, EPA is focusing on contamination emanating from the base. She also acknowledged that it appears that "some contribution may be coming from Bourne," but how to deal with that has not been resolved. Mr. Butler asked if the Town of Bourne's legal counsel should be aware of this. Ms. Adams replied that she would say yes. Mr. Judge added that he thinks the selectmen also should be informed, and should be reminded that they appointed Mr. Mullennix to the IART. Mr. Murphy clarified that the Bourn selectmen did not appoint Mr. Mullennix to the IART, but included his name among several recommendations they made to EPA. Ms. Adams said that it's her understanding that the selectmen are aware of the situation at the Northwest Corner.

Mr. Schlesinger said that although he understands that it's not yet fully understood what contribution to contamination at the Northwest Corner might be coming from the Town of Bourne, he wonders what this might mean for the rest of the towns, in terms of perchlorate. Ms. Adams replied that she would say, "and with reasonable caution," that "the other towns should consider that." She also said that this relates to Mr. Mullennix's request that EPA investigate fireworks all over Massachusetts, which she thinks is a whole other project that could be the subject of a very large initiative, and one that the IART is not in a position to take on.

Mr. Cambareri referred to the IART recruitment discussion and said that he thinks that the Sandwich Water District already is involved with the Upper Cape Water Cooperative and has members on the MMR Military/Civilian Council. Therefore, he thinks that a letter regarding recruitment efforts should be sent to the Sandwich selectmen either instead of or in addition to a letter to the Sandwich Water District.

Agenda Item #4. Remediation and Investigation Update

Demolition Area 1 Rapid Response Actions and Recent Detections

Mr. Nixon reported that the proof of performance (POP) test at the thermal treatment unit was completed at the beginning of April. Test results showed that the air emissions standards comply with the permit issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and showed treatment of the soil for the explosive compounds. He noted that some perchlorate was detected in the treated soil samples, but it's believed that this was the result of cross-contamination from some very high-level spiking tests conducted during shakedown testing. Although the system was decontaminated before the POP test was done, it appears that a little bit of perchlorate remained in the baghouse, which is part of the air pollution control systems that feed fine particulate material back into the treated soil. Mr. Nixon said that when full-scale treatment begins a couple months from now, more frequent sampling than usual will be done for perchlorate in order to prove that the system actually does work and to ensure that the baghouse is clean when treatment starts.

Mr. Nixon showed a figure entitled "Demo 1 Site Map Excavation Progress," pointed out the area where UXO clearance was completed to a depth of two feet and where excavation will now begin, and pointed out the location of a burn pit, which is believed to be the same one that TetraTech discovered a couple years ago. He noted that material from the burn pit will not be run through the thermal treatment unit, but will be analyzed and transported to an appropriate off-site facility. Mr. Nixon then pointed out two locations of lead-contaminated soil, which also will be removed and brought to an off-site facility. He said that while the UXO removal and excavation work continues, the POP test report will be prepared, and it's expected that DEP will provide final permit approval.

Mr. Nixon stated that the construction phase of the Demo 1 Rapid Response Action (RRA) for groundwater is ongoing. Also, the supplier that makes the treatment containers should begin fabricating them soon, after which they'll be shipped to the site. Mr. Nixon noted that RRA system startup is scheduled for September 2004. He also said that the IAGWSP is working on the Demo 1 Feasibility Study (FS), the internal draft is currently on his desk and will go out on May 20, 2004, and he could provide an update on the FS at the May IART meeting. Mr. Nixon also reminded the group that an FS provides information to evaluate different treatment alternatives, but does not determine what the selected alternative will be. He noted that the steps that come after the FS are a remedy selection plan, remedial design, and a decision document. The final system should be up and running in about two to three years, during which the RRA system will be operating.

Mr. Nixon then showed a map of the Demo 1 plume and pointed out MW-211, which is adjacent to the Pew Road extraction well, and noted that RDX was detected there for the first time, at 0.56 ppb, and the perchlorate concentration there has increased. He said that this is not a surprise because the plume is moving forward and higher concentrations are expected to arrive there. He also noted that by September the Pew Road extraction well will be pumping at a rate of 100 gallons per minute (gpm), and will contain that contamination. For the ongoing innovative technology evaluation (ITE) at the Pew Road system, the extraction well is currently pumping at a rate of 10.5 gpm, which is gathering some of the contamination, especially near the well. Influent concentrations at the well remain fairly steady at about 3.5 ppb to 3.9 ppb.

Mr. Judge asked if any fireworks were shot off at the Demo 1 plume. Mr. Nixon replied that no fireworks were shot off there, but it's his understanding that the state police did dispose of some confiscated fireworks in the area. Mr. Judge said that he wants to see an accounting of where and when the fireworks disposal occurred. He also implied that this seems to be another situation - like at the Northwest Corner - where RDX and perchlorate exist in the same plume, but the RDX is base-related and the perchlorate is not. Mr. Nixon pointed out that no one said that the perchlorate at Demo 1 was not base-related. Mr. Judge remarked that he has a strong suspicion that the military isn't going to be able to blame fireworks for every plume on the base that contains both RDX and perchlorate. Mr. Nixon noted that no one is trying to say that perchlorate in the Demo 1 plume is from fireworks; he had just been answering Mr. Judge's question. Mr. Judge said that he wants to find out about the fireworks disposal.

Mr. Minior stated that the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) requested and received information from the Office of Public Safety regarding the disposal of confiscated fireworks on the base, a practice that ceased in 1997, when the first administrative order was issued. He also said that the information was made available to the regulatory agencies. Mr. Borci added that he believes that this information was also provided to the IART in response to an action item request. He also told Mr. Judge that while there's an outstanding question about the source of perchlorate at the Northwest Corner, everyone agrees that at Demo 1 the disposal or demolition of multiple items contributed to the perchlorate contamination in groundwater. He further explained that "every plume is dependent on its source, and every source is different and unique unto itself."

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the possibility of speciating perchlorate (i.e., determining if it's a type of perchlorate found in fireworks or a type found in military munitions). Mr. Gonser said that the IAGWSP's Bill Gallagher looked into the possibility of identifying different types of perchlorate, or tracking its source, and didn't come up with any effective means of doing so. Mr. Nixon added that perchlorate is "a chlorine atom with four oxygens around it," and he doesn't think any speciation could be done on an ion that simple.

Dr. Stahl asked how many drums of contaminated soil would need to be removed from the burn pit. Mr. Nixon replied that he doesn't know yet, but will be taking a look at the site tomorrow. He said that he imagines that more than a couple of drums of soil would have to be removed. Dr. Stahl asked if Mr. Nixon would have an answer at next month's meeting. Mr. Nixon replied yes, and added that although it's not certain, he's hopeful that that soil will already have been removed by then.

Mr. Dow inquired about the contaminants of concern found at the burn pit. Mr. Nixon replied that the burn pit material hasn't been sampled yet under the current program. He also said that the area has been described as "black-stained burned soil."

Mr. Dow returned to the subject of tracking perchlorate. He said that it concerns him that there isn't a very good conceptual model of how perchlorate gets from the soil into the groundwater - whether there are residues of perchlorate that are not salts, which would dissolve at a different rate of speed if the perchlorate came from military munitions rather than from fireworks or some other source. He said that it seems to him that even if the perchlorate itself can't be tracked, there might be other components that bind the perchlorate that could be tracked, and it may make sense to look at that. He noted that there are residues associated with RDX and HMX that cause that contamination to move either more quickly or more slowly from the aerated zone of soil down to the saturated zone. Mr. Dow said that he thinks it would be useful to look at "where there are chemical differences" and to try to develop a model that shows what the linkage is between the soil source areas and the mass of contamination that's actually in the plume. He also mentioned that there are number of plumes in the southern part of the base that have detached from their source areas, and it seems to him that if perchlorate is as soluble as has been suggested, the same thing could easily occur with perchlorate plumes, and the perchlorate couldn't be found at the source "unless there was some other form beside a simple salt."

Mr. Hood said that he was able to locate someone at the University of Chicago who has some experience with speciation of perchlorate based on Chilean fertilizers, which are an issue in the western part of the country in terms of whether perchlorate contamination there is from the fertilizer or from military munitions. Mr. Hood said that this person's research was based on there being different isotopes with the oxygen, and he had been able to tell the difference. He also said that they discussed the metals that Mr. Dow was talking about, and it was noted that they wouldn't be a good indicator because there tends to be separation and they wouldn't travel through the groundwater at the same speed as the salts. Mr. Hood said that at last month's tech meeting he offered contact information for the person at the University of Chicago, and his recollection is that Mr. Gregson said that it wouldn't be worth spending millions of dollars to try to figure out where the perchlorate came from - a comment that he thinks Mr. Gregson got from Mr. Gonser. Mr. Hood said that he agrees that it might be better to spend the money on cleanup; however, "the possibility of speciating it is out there; whether it can be done or not remains to be seen."

Ms. Conron said that she thought it would be possible to tell the difference between perchlorate used in munitions and that used in fireworks because of the degree of purity. Mr. Hood replied that perchlorate is a very common commodity in the chemical industry, and it turns out that the perchlorate used in munitions and in fireworks is very similar chemically. At this point the only known possibility of telling the difference after the chemical has been in groundwater is the isotopes of oxygen. He added that there's no guarantee that this can be done, but the person at the University of Chicago thinks he can do it.

Mr. Judge said that because he thinks there's "some deniability going on here," he believes that it's very important and worthwhile to look into tracing back the perchlorate contamination. He mentioned that the state is paying for cleanup of the J. Braden Thompson plume in Sandwich because it hadn't been possible to establish a military link to the drums of chemicals that were its source. He said that he wants to be sure that "the correct person can get the bill" and pay for cleanup of perchlorate contamination.

Mr. Gallagher explained that one of the problems with Mr. Hood's suggestion is finding a source for each type of perchlorate. The IAGWSP doesn't really have the appropriate firework or military munitions for use as a baseline, which makes it a little more difficult to try to speciate them. Mr. Judge said that his understanding is that the military keeps very good procurement records. He said that he found this out when, after having denied the availability of records pertaining to a large number of mortars discovered in Sandwich, the military later produced those records when looking to secure funding for use of a contained detonation chamber and to prove that the mortars did not contain mustard gas. Mr. Judge reiterated his request that the IAGWSP look into speciating perchlorate.

Mr. Gallagher replied that finding some military pyrotechnics from that era would be easier than figuring out what was in the fireworks, the manufacture of which is more art than science. Mr. Judge stated that his interest is primarily in determining if the perchlorate is not military related; then it might be assumed that it's related to fireworks.

Mr. Murphy noted the action item request for the IAGWSP to make the effort to differentiate between perchlorate from military munitions and perchlorate from fireworks.

Demolition Area 2 Recent Unvalidated Detections

Mr. Nixon said that MW-311 and MW-312 were drilled as part of the ongoing investigation to define the extent of contamination at the Demo 2 plume. He showed a map of the area and reported that RDX was detected at 0.34 ppb in the deeper screen, and at 0.63 ppb in the shallower screen of MW-311. These low-level detections indicate that the well is probably at the very northern edge of the plume, or, given that they are relatively shallow detections, they might indicate the existence of an additional, very low-concentration source area. Mr. Nixon noted that MW-312, which is "further up the way," tested nondetect for explosives.

Mr. Nixon then pointed out the soil berm source area at the Demo 2 site, and noted that the IAGWSP didn't receive any public comments on the Demo 2 RRA workplan. He said that UXO clearance is being done at the site in preparation for soil excavation, pending approval from EPA and DEP. He also noted that the plan is to remove approximately 500 to 525 cubic yards of soil from Demo 2 and treat it at the thermal treatment unit.

Mr. Schlesinger asked about plans to install monitoring wells downgradient of MW-262. Mr. Nixon replied that the IAGWSP will soon be presenting a plan to the regulators that involves about three to five additional monitoring wells to further delineate the plume, including monitoring north of MW-262. Mr. Schlesinger inquired about any access issues associated with that area. Mr. Nixon replied that that location does seem fairly remote, and because the road has been so muddy due to the wet spring, he hasn't yet risked driving out there. He said that access there will be tough, and he also mentioned the possibility of issues with getting approval for a groundwater RRA because Natural Heritage might have some concerns about the habitat.

Mr. Kinney mentioned the low-concentration detection at MW-311 and asked if the ones that delineate the plume are consistently higher in concentration. Mr. Nixon replied that they are, generally around 2 ppb. Mr. Kinney said that his experience has been that concentrations are not always consistent throughout a plume (such as CS-10 and CS-4), and there could be detached sections downgradient. Mr. Nixon noted that the geology at Demo 2 and at Demo 1 is simpler, because it doesn't involve nearby surface water bodies. Rather, these plumes follow a more typical model where higher concentrations are seen near the source area and lower concentrations are seen farther away from the source. Mr. Kinney inquired about placement of the other proposed wells. Mr. Nixon replied that four to six more wells are being considered, "going downstream to bracket the edges, and also to find the extent."

Mr. Borci clarified that there might be two sources of contamination. Results from the two recently installed wells could be indicating the "toe of the plume and also an edge or something." He mentioned an engineer training site south of MW-311, and noted that although not much sampling has been done at the site, there's now some additional information that that area might have been used for detonation activities. He said that the plan is to take another look at the site. He also said that the proposal to install several more wells is a good thing, which might help determine the extent of contamination in that area.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the status of the Sandwich supply well that appears to be downgradient of the Demo 2 plume. Mr. Gregson said that he believes that Mr. Schlesinger is referring to the supply well at the Shawme-Crowell State Forest, which tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate when the IAGWSP sampled it in the past. He said that he's not sure how often that well is sampled or when it was last sampled, but would find that out. Mr. Gregson also said that there are no associated sentry wells with that relatively small volume supply well. Mr. Schlesinger asked Mr. Gregson to also confirm whether the supply well is being used for drinking water purposes, and to check on whether the ranger at Shawme-Crowell State Forest is receiving information from the IAGWSP. Mr. Gregson agreed to do so.

Mr. Judge asked if the Demo 2 plume is the result of dumping or some other activity. Mr. Nixon replied that, similar to Demo 1, the Demo 2 site was used for teaching military engineers how to blow things up. The charges used at Demo 2, however, were much smaller than those used at Demo 1, and there was no apparent disposal or use of perchlorate at Demo 2. He also mentioned that chunks of C4 were found on the ground at Demo 2 and cleaned up. Mr. Judge then inquired about the line of clearings along the road, visible in the aerial photograph of the area. Mr. Gregson explained that they are clearings for power line poles.

J-2 Range Recent Unvalidated Detections

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the J-1 and J-2 Range area, and said that efforts to help define the extent of the J-2 Range Disposal Area 2 plume are ongoing. He noted that a 140-ppb perchlorate detection and a 10-ppb RDX detection at MW-289 led to the initiation of a nine-well drilling program to the north to define the nature and extent of that contamination. As mentioned earlier, the IAGWSP has been trying to accelerate this investigation by using two rigs to install each monitoring well - the first to drill the well and move off to the next drilling location, and the second to complete the well and install screens.

Mr. Gregson reported that profile results at MW-322, which is located along Wood Road, showed perchlorate in six intervals, with concentrations ranging from 0.5 ppb to 1.3 ppb, and RDX in three intervals, with concentrations from 0.3 ppb to 0.5 ppb. He said that these relatively low contaminant concentrations indicate that the very edge of the plume might have been reached. He also pointed out MW-170, which has been nondetect.

Mr. Gregson then referred to MW-327, located downgradient of MW-313, where perchlorate was detected at 5 ppb. He said that profile results at MW-327 showed perchlorate in three intervals, ranging from 0.35 ppb to 1.5 ppb, and RDX in one interval, at 0.47 ppb. Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP also sampled the sentry wells for the Upper Cape Water Cooperative (Co-op) water supply well #2, which tested nondetect for explosives and perchlorate. He also said that MW-327 is one of four additional wells that were proposed. The next well, MW-330, is currently being drilled at the intersection of Barlow Road and Gibbs Road. Locations for the other two wells will be based on results from MW-330.

Mr. Gregson noted that while the groundwater investigation continues, the IAGWSP is also working on a soil RRA that would help alleviate and eliminate the source of the Disposal Area 2 plume contamination. He further noted that funding is in place for Fiscal Year 2005 (FY'05), starting in October, for a response action to address the Disposal Area 2 plume.

Mr. Schlesinger asked when a Disposal Area 2 plume shell would be added to the maps. Mr. Gregson explained that a tradeoff of using an expedited drilling approach in this area is that takes a little longer to get well samples. Once the wells are finalized and validated data results become available, the IAGWSP will develop a plume shell for the maps. Mr. Borci asked that a request for a timeframe for the availability of Disposal Area 2 plume well data and the development of a plume shell depiction be noted as an action item.

Mr. Gregson showed a figure that depicts the Disposal Area 2 plume perchlorate contamination and pointed out water supply well #2, its ZOC for average current pumping conditions, its ZOC for the permitted 1 million gallons per day, and the plume contours - nondetect, 1 ppb, 2 ppb, 18 ppb, and 100 ppb. He noted that the figure has not yet been updated so that the 1-ppb contour includes the most recent perchlorate detection. He also pointed out cross-section line B-B', which runs down the center of the plume, and cross-section line A-A', a Wood Road transverse cross-section.

Mr. Gregson showed cross-section B-B' and pointed out the perchlorate detections, the two ZOCs for water supply well #2, and the sentry wells, which tested nondetect for perchlorate and RDX. In response to a request from Mr. Schlesinger, Mr. Gregson also pointed out MW-327. He then showed cross-section A-A', and noted that the plume appears a bit wider than the Demo 1 plume. He said that this is probably the result of the plume's close proximity to the top of the mound, which is causing some variation in groundwater flow that could be spreading it out laterally a little bit and actually might be slowing the advance of the plume, as compared to the Demo 1 plume.

Mr. Judge remarked that now that perchlorate has been detected in MW-327, he doesn't think the military can continue to tell the public not to worry. He also proposed that water supply well #2 be considered for shutdown until the toe of the plume has been defined. Mr. Gregson noted that the sentry wells, which are located on Gibbs Road, are designed to be five years upgradient of the supply well. He also said the IAGWSP communicates closely with the Co-op and the Sandwich Water District, which have received information about MW-327. Mr. Gregson said that the Co-op is provided with all the data, which it will consider when deciding which wells will continue to be pumped and which won't.

Mr. Judge suggested that contamination could be traveling between sentry wells C7 and C4, given that there's a nondetect on either side of the detection at MW-313 on Jefferson Road. He remarked that he's losing confidence in the ZOCs for all three of the Co-op supply wells, and then asked where the contamination detected at MW-265, near the ZOC for water supply well #3, is headed. Mr. Gregson pointed out the general direction where the contamination is thought to be headed. Mr. Judge remarked that there aren't any wells to indicate that. Mr. Gregson replied that there a number of clean wells along the edge of the ZOC. Mr. Judge pointed out that the contamination is "skirting" the clean wells on either side, and he expressed concern that the sentry wells for the supply well are spaced at an even greater distance.

Mr. Judge then said that in order to make the public feel more secure, he thinks that the investigation of contamination near supply wells #2 and #3 should start close to the wells and work backward toward the source, rather than the other way around. He also stated again that he'd like to see water supply well #2 shut down.

Mr. Kinney asked Mr. Gregson to explain how the ZOCs were determined. Mr. Gregson replied that the ZOCs are based on modeling that was done for the permitting of those particular wells, at 1 million gallons per day for each well. He also noted that the wells currently pump at about one-third their permitted capacity. Mr. Kinney questioned whether the speed of contamination traveling through groundwater would increase when the wells do pump at full permitted capacity. Mr. Gregson replied that he thinks that kind of effect would be seen only right near the pumping well itself, while the rate of transport in the more distant area wouldn't be affected.

Mr. Kinney said that the military had told the people of Cape Cod that the northern part of the base was clean, and then, because of national security issues, prevented any investigation there for years - and now the ZOCs for the water supply wells are in danger. He also said that the assumption that the sentry wells are five years upgradient of the supply wells is based only on modeling and theories, and his experience has been that sometimes contamination travels through groundwater much more quickly than expected. Mr. Kinney said that he wants "a really fat and expedited and intense investigation" to find out where the plumes are and move forward with some sort of rapid response to stop them. He asked it there's any talk about expediting the investigation so it can be accomplished at a much faster rate.

Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP has been expediting the investigation all along, and always looks for ways to do things faster in a situation like this one. He said that the investigation is a top priority for the cleanup program. He also said that the well that's being drilled currently is expected to be a valuable data point that could answer some of the questions asked tonight, two more well locations already are funded, and in October funding will be available for a pump-and-treat system to address the plume.

Mr. Pinaud said that although it's not definitive at this point, he thinks that the investigation probably has reached the leading edge of the Disposal Area 2 plume. He also said that he thinks treatment should be a priority, and that October is too long to wait. Mr. Pinaud also told Mr. Judge that the decision of whether or not to pump water supply well #2 rests with the Co-op, and not with anyone in the room.

Dr. Stahl noted that the sentry well screens look to be quite wide. Mr. Gregson agreed and said that this was taken into consideration when the sampling approach for those screens was designed. Mr. Goydas explained that this entailed looking at the chemical data, the groundwater data, and the groundwater model to help determine locations downgradient where "the plume might intersect the existing sentry well network." Dr. Stahl questioned whether the placement of the sentry well screens should be reinvestigated to ensure that they would catch the plumes that are being seen in that area. Mr. Goydas said that if the plume is detected in the wells being drilled at the leading edge, those detections would indicate where the plume is actually riding in the aquifer. Once that's been determined, the appropriateness of the existing downgradient monitoring network can be assessed.

Dr. Stahl asked how often the sentry wells and supply wells are monitored. Mr. Gregson replied that he thinks they are monitored on a quarterly basis. He also said that that frequency will be assessed depending on results from the well being drilled on Gibbs Road. Dr. Stahl asked how many more years of clean water could be expected from water supply well #3, assuming that the leading edge of the plume has been reached. Mr. Gregson said that he does not have that answer off the top of his head, but he wouldn't say not to worry.

Mr. Borci inquired about the depth of the 1.5-ppb perchlorate detection at MW-327. Mr. Gregson replied that he doesn't know the exact depth offhand, but recalls that it was consistent with what was seen upgradient. Mr. Borci also asked Mr. Gregson to point out the sentry well screens that the IAGWSP sampled. Mr. Gregson said that he believes that the two lower screens (D and C) were sampled. Mr. Borci requested that the IAGWSP go back and sample the upper screens as well. Mr. Gregson agreed to this request.

Mr. Schlesinger agreed with Mr. Judge that a monitoring well should be installed between sentry wells C7 and C4, given that the plume might be very narrow at that point and bypassing those wells. He also challenged the suggestion that the Disposal Area 2 plume is wider upgradient because it's close to the top of the mound. He noted that the more western plume is even closer to the top of the mound and isn't as wide, and added that he thinks the Disposal Area 2 plume is wide there because the source is wider. Mr. Gregson pointed out the direction in which the top of the mound migrates, pointed out the plume's source area, and explained that because that contamination is "on this side of the mound," the result is a more "spreading effect" as the top of the mound migrates.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about follow-up to the request to install a well between C4 and C7. Mr. Gregson replied that MW-330 (at the intersection of Barlow Road and Gibbs Road) is being drilled currently, and the next two well locations will be based on sampling results from MW-330. Mr. Schlesinger asked if another well would be drilled to the west if MW-330 comes back clean. Mr. Gregson replied that that could be considered, and pointed out another possible well location in the vicinity. Mr. Schlesinger recommended installing new wells in both those locations.

Mr. Dow referred to the "plumelet that's down below," seen on cross-section B-B'. He said that it's not obvious to him what the source of that plumelet is, and difficult for him to visualize how "it could cross from the other side of the groundwater mound and get to that depth." Mr. Gregson replied that a very strong vertical gradient exists near the top of the mound, and there's room south of the J-2 source area to have that source coming from somewhere up on the J-1 Range. At this time not much more is known about the potential source area for that plumelet.

Mr. Dow described the plume as somewhat diamond-shaped, and asked what would focus it to become narrower after the groundwater mound migration caused it to spread out. Mr. Goydas explained that variable recharge conditions cause the top of the mound to shift in a somewhat northwest/southeast condition. Very close to the source area, as the contamination migrates through the vadose zone to the water table, it does widen. Downgradient, however, there is loss of contamination in that some concentrations go below the method detection limit. Mr. Goydas explained, "The reality is the flow tube may be impacted at a wider width, but you're only seeing contaminants in a narrow zone" because of conditions that occur in the aquifer, such as dispersion. Once the contamination moves away from that spreading near the source, it follows a much more linear flow path.

Mr. Judge asked if copies of the cross-section figures were provided to the team. Mr. Gregson replied that they were not, because they are based on profile data. Mr. Judge requested that the cross-sections be updated to include the detection at MW-327, and then distributed to the team, as he finds them very helpful. Mr. Judge also said that while he agrees that it's the Co-op's decision to shut down a supply well, he just hopes that the members of the Co-op are as informed as Mr. Gregson says they are. He noted that this just adds to his belief that it would be invaluable to have a Co-op representative as an IART member.

Mr. Cambareri confirmed with Mr. Gregson that the IAGWSP's monitoring wells have 10-foot screens, while the Co-op's sentry wells have 30-foot screens. He asked if it would be possible to use a packer or something similar, to seal off discrete horizons within the 30-foot screen. Mr. Gregson said that it is possible, but also noted that the low-flow sampling technique, which is consistently used in the program, would to some extent isolate the appropriate zone. Mr. Cambareri said that he's not sure that this approach would be as reliable as using packers, which he thinks would confirm that the screen was sampled discretely. He requested that the IAGWSP look into the feasibility of implementing this sampling method.

Mr. Cambareri also said that he thinks that the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) should be informed about the situation at the J Ranges. Mr. Pinaud assured him that DEP routinely shares information with the environmental officer, Mark Begley, who reports to the three commissioners on the EMC. Mr. Cambareri then asked if information is shared with the Co-op before it's shared with the IART. Mr. Gregson replied that it depends on when data become available.

Mr. Gregson continued his presentation by reporting that two additional wells were drilled in the area near MW-310, MW-319, and MW-307, which had detections of explosives and perchlorate. He noted that profile results at MW-321, which is located downgradient of MW-307, showed perchlorate concentrations ranging from 1.1 ppb to 3.7 ppb, RDX from 1.1 ppb to 1.4 ppb, and HMX from 2 ppb to 4 ppb. Profile results from MW-324 showed perchlorate from 0.7 ppb to 1.8 ppb, RDX up to 5.6 ppb, HMX at about 2 ppb, and 2,6-DNT at less than 1 ppb.

Mr. Gregson said that four well locations (J2P-37, J2P-26, J2P-19, and J2P-25) have been proposed to assess the extent of this contamination, which appears to be migrating east from the eastern end of the J-2 Range. He then pointed out the ZOC for the Co-op's water supply well #1, and the ZOC for the Sandwich supply wells, which are both near that eastern contamination area. He also pointed out a well that was drilled several years ago, MW-57 (located east of MW-310), which has five screens, from water table to bedrock, all of which have tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. Mr. Gregson noted that this plume is near the top of the mound, and there's a lot of variability in the direction of groundwater flow, making it a little more difficult to select downgradient well locations. Information from the new wells will be used to update the groundwater model and help complete new particle tracks, and the IAGWSP has started looking off post for both existing and potential well locations. Mr. Gregson also noted that the IAGWSP has been looking to identify any private wells in the area. No private wells were identified in the neighborhoods between Route 130 and the base boundary, but some were identified in a neighborhood that's a little further downgradient.

Mr. Gregson displayed a particle track figure and pointed out the lines that represent permitted and current ZOCs for water supply well #1, and current ZOCs for the Sandwich water supply wells. He noted that the figure illustrates some of the challenges being faced in terms of dealing with the model and the particle tracks. He pointed out how the particle track from MW-319 curves off in an easterly and then somewhat southeasterly direction, and the particle tracks from detections to the north tend to curve around the top of the mound and head in a north/northeasterly direction. Mr. Gregson said that the particle tracks might explain why there are no detections at MW-57, or perhaps there are multiple source areas and the contamination might be going around that well.

Mr. Gregson stated that the IAGWSP is looking at property records as part of an effort to obtain access to off-post locations to help define the extent of this contamination, which is likely migrating off base. He said that this investigation area is of particular concern because of the nearby water supply ZOCs and the private wells downgradient.

Ms. Adams expressed great dissatisfaction that the particle track figure that Mr. Gregson showed didn't include the permitted ZOCs for the Sandwich supply wells. She noted that a figure included in the presentation handout did show the permitted ZOCs, and they extend much closer to the base boundary. Ms. Adams also questioned why there are no proposed well locations east of MW-319 and MW-320, since it appears that the plume is headed east. Mr. Gregson replied that the currently proposed wells are also important and were "in the pipeline," but the work that's being done to identify private wells and look at property access issues is part of planning for well locations to the east. Ms. Adams again emphasized her strong belief that permitted ZOCs should be included every time actual ZOCs are shown on a map.

Mr. Schlesinger stated that he fully expected that at tonight's meeting the team would be informed of plans to install additional wells east of MW-310 and MW-319, and he's disappointed that that is not the case. He also said that the Forestdale School might have an irrigation well that's near enough to MW-319 to be of some use in that area. Mr. Gregson replied that that possibility was discussed earlier this week and is going to be researched.

Mr. Schlesinger also said that he thinks the IAGWSP should do a direct mailing to residents of the neighborhood near the plume to inform them about what's happening, what the potential impacts area, and let them know that there's an opening on the IART. Mr. Borci noted that this very issue was discussed at the last tech meeting, and he assured Mr. Schlesinger that it would be addressed.

Mr. Judge remarked that he finds it strange that the blue particle track shown on the figure is "skirting right between two sets of supply wells." He said that he doesn't buy it, and would prefer to see a big line that encompasses that entire area of concern - based on both modeling and on ZOCs. He also said that he thinks the modeling is misleading in this case "because it seems so comforting." Mr. Gregson displayed a figure that showed the area of investigation and pointed out the particle tracks and potential source areas. Mr. Judge asked if the team received a copy of that figure. Mr. Gregson said that he didn't think so. Mr. Judge said that he wants to receive the figures shown at meetings in advance of the meetings, and if any figures are considered not accurate enough to be provided, he would prefer that they not be shown at all. Mr. Gregson explained that the IAGWSP is trying to provide as much information as possible, but is hesitant about distributing too many figures that are based on unvalidated profile data or modeling runs that need to be updated. Mr. Judge said that he just wants to receive figures that the IAGWSP intends to show at a meeting, even if he receives a hard copy during the meeting itself.

Mr. Schlesinger requested that top priority be given to scheduling the future agenda item "Zones of Contribution," as the topic is of particular importance with respect to the J Range plumes.

Northwest Corner Recent Unvalidated Detections

Mr. Gregson stated that the investigation at the Northwest Corner is continuing. He reported that at MW-309, which was installed to define the plume's southwestern boundary, perchlorate was detected at about 0.6 ppb in the screen at the water table, and at about 0.8 ppb in the screen 30 to 40 feet bwt. At MW-314, which was installed to define the plume's northwestern boundary, perchlorate was detected at 0.57 ppb in the screen at the water table. At MW-323 (the well on Canal View Road that was discussed at the beginning of this meeting), perchlorate was detected at 3.14 ppb in the screen at the water table, and at 0.47 ppb in the screen 45 to 55 feet bwt. Also in that well, RDX was detected at 5.7 ppb in the screen 45 to 55 feet bwt, and at 1.3 ppb in the screen 120 to 130 feet bwt.

Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP is proposing four additional wells (NWP-17, NWP-18, NWP-19, and NWP-20) to further delineate the extent of the perchlorate plume, including one to fill in a geographic data gap between MW-299 and Gun Position 14 (GP-14), another on the former L-3 Range, and another to step out from MW-323. The specific location for the fourth well has not yet been determined.

Mr. Gregson also pointed out locations in the Northwest Corner where RDX was detected, which include: MW-323, the condominium complex's community supply well, an irrigation well at a private residence, and MW-284, near the canal. He noted that it appears that the RDX detections might be related, although it's yet to be understood hydro-geologically why the detections line up in a direction that doesn't follow the direction of the water table contours in that area. He said that this might be because of the proximity to the canal, the geology in that area, and the fact that the water flow lines are converging as they discharge into the canal - possible complications that are not being picked up in the model.

Mr. Gregson reported that additional soil sampling has been proposed for former GP-14, GP-12, and GP-19, in order to evaluate those sites as potential source areas for the perchlorate and RDX that's being detected. Information from the groundwater and soil investigations will be used in the process to evaluate remedial options at the Northwest Corner.

Mr. Judge said that he's concerned that there aren't any wells near GP-19. Mr. Gregson clarified that in addition to a proposed well (NWP-19), there is also an existing well nearby. Mr. Judge said that he's concerned about the lack of wells between GP-19 and the tech school near the canal. He said that he'd like to see that problem corrected so that the school is protected. Mr. Gregson noted that the tech school is on town water and does not have a drinking water supply well. However, it does have an irrigation well that has tested nondetect. Mr. Schlesinger asked if the irrigation well is being used. Mr. Gregson replied that he would check on the use status of that well.

Mr. Judge said that monitoring wells between GP-19 and the tech school would also "exonerate them from being part of the problem." He said that if it could be shown that GP-19 seems to be "the main problem" and contamination from there is flowing toward the school, it wouldn't make sense that the fireworks display area behind the school "is part of the problem." Mr. Judge added that he wants to "identify Gun Position 19 as our source area and put the preferred wells in there to delineate or identify that as the source of our problem."

Mr. Borci stated that although it took some time, EPA is very glad to hear the good news that the IAGWSP is going to provide town water hookups for the Foretop Road homes that have private wells.

Mr. Racheotes of Foretop Road said that he'd like to publicly thank everyone on the IART, in the press, and anyone who "in any way, shape, form, or manner, pushed, pulled, and eventually brought" him and his wife to the point where "you have my undying gratitude in your efforts."

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about the status of the J-3 Range plume. Mr. Gregson replied that a J-3 Range RRA for groundwater is scheduled to go out this Friday, and this topic can be added to the May IART agenda.

Mr. Murphy suggested that team members review the "FY'04 Program Briefing" presentation slides and prepare any questions they might have for the next meeting.

Agenda Item #5. Adjourn

Mr. Murphy announced that the IART would meet next on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at the Falmouth Holiday Inn. He then adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.