Action Item:

1. Mr. Hugus requested that a discussion on DEP perchlorate standards (cleanup and drinking water) be included on a future IART meeting agenda.

Future Agenda Items:

• Massachusetts Department of Public Health Update
• Zones of Contribution
• TOSC Presentation on Ion Exchange

Handouts Distributed at Meeting:

1. Responses to Action Items from the May 25, 2004 IART Meeting
2. Presentation handout: J-3 Range Groundwater Rapid Response Action Plan
3. Fact sheet: J-3 Range Groundwater Rapid Response Action
4. Presentation handout: Revised Draft Feasibility Study Demo 1 Groundwater Operable Unit
5. Fact sheet: Revised Draft Feasibility Study Demo 1 Groundwater Operable Unit
6. Presentation handout: Investigation Update
7. Maps to accompany Investigation Update
8. Data tables
9. Technology Information Sheet: Granular Activated Carbon
10. Technology Information Sheet: Ion Exchange Resins
11. Well Cost Examples
12. UXO Discoveries/Dispositions Since 5/26/04 (ending 6/15/04)
13. News Releases, Neighborhood Notices, and Media Coverage (5/26/04 – 6/21/04)

Agenda Item #1. Welcome, Agenda Review, Approval of May 25, 2004 IART Minutes

Ms. Cassidy convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m. and the Impact Area Review Team (IART) members introduced themselves. Ms. Cassidy then reviewed the agenda. Mr. Hugus said that he'd like to add Peters Pond as an item to discuss under the "Open Discussion" portion of the agenda. Ms. Cassidy noted that this topic probably would be included in the Southeast Ranges update, but could also be discussed later, if needed and if time allowed. Mr. Cambareri said that he thinks that the discovery of depleted uranium should be discussed as a late-breaking news item. Ms. Cassidy assured him that this topic would be discussed at the meeting, after those items for which open public comment periods begin this evening. She then asked if there were any changes to the May 25, 2004 IART minutes. No changes were offered and the minutes were approved as written.

Agenda Item #2. Late-Breaking News and Responses to Action Items from the 5/25/04 IART Meeting

Mr. Hugus noted that the response to Action Item #3 was that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would provide information about perchlorate standards at this meeting. Mr. Panni said that DEP has asked the public water suppliers to test their municipal systems for perchlorate. That testing will be in November of this year, after which DEP will look at those test results and the toxicity data, will factor in the cost of long-term monitoring and treatment, and determine whether a standard is required. If so, the plan is to issue a maximum contaminant level (MCL) by the winter of 2005. Mr. Hugus asked if the standard of 1 part per billion (ppb) would be used until that time. Mr. Panni replied that he believes so. Mr. Hugus expressed concern about the standard-setting process having to do in part with the cost of monitoring. Mr. Panni explained that that is just part of the protocols for establishing MCLs. Mr. Hugus noted that he didn't hear anything about the health component.

Mr. Borci clarified that DEP is in the process of developing a perchlorate cleanup standard, which will key off of the 1-ppb number and have a breakpoint of 4 ppb, and could be put forth this summer. The data from the community water supply tests will be evaluated as part of the process to establish a perchlorate drinking water standard, or MCL, which is based on multiple components including how frequently the contaminant is found in the environment, risk information, health data, and cost information. Because the cleanup standard can be different, it can be set now, ahead of time, through a different process than that for determining the MCL, which is a health-risk based standard. Mr. Hugus said that he thinks the health component of DEP's calculations is the most important, not the frequency of perchlorate detections or the cost of monitoring.

Ms. Cassidy reiterated that two different processes are used to develop drinking water standards and cleanup standards. The state is in the process of developing a perchlorate cleanup standard, which is expected to go out for public comment sometime this summer. Mr. Hugus said that he'd like to have an update on this entire matter at a future IART meeting, and meanwhile is glad that "DEP is sticking to a standard of 1 ppb."

Mr. Schlesinger said that he's disappointed that the state is moving so slowly on this issue, and he thinks that DEP should care more about public health than it appears to. He also suggested that basing the perchlorate drinking water standard on the occurrence of detections in supply wells is inadequate, especially given the situation in Sandwich where perchlorate contamination has not reached the supply well but is known to exist upgradient, in the zone of contribution (ZOC).

Mr. Borci emphasized that frequency of occurrence is just one part of the whole process. He also said that it's well known that perchlorate has been detected at many locations on the base, and every bit of weight that should be given is being given to the fact that while perchlorate has not reached the Upper Cape Water Cooperative (Co-op) water supply well #2, it is in the ZOC for that well.

Ms. Conron asked whether a cleanup standard would be higher or lower than an MCL. Mr. Gregson replied that the MCL is usually the same as the cleanup standard for groundwater that could be used as a drinking water supply. Ms. Conron asked why both standards wouldn't come out together, in winter of 2005. Mr. Gregson replied that it's easier to develop a cleanup standard than an MCL, which involves other considerations.

Mr. Mullennix stated that if the Massachusetts DEP does in fact promulgate a cleanup standard for perchlorate, he believes that it will be the first state in the country to do so. He said that Massachusetts appears to have fast-tracked the process and he thinks it would be incorrect to say or imply that DEP is moving slowly on this issue.

Dr. Dahmani explained to Ms. Conron that cleanup standards usually are associated with soils and groundwater, which are classified according to their use (e.g. drinking water, industrial). The MCL, however, is different in that it applies just to drinking water, but it could end up being the same value as the cleanup number if that groundwater is going to be used for consumption.

Mr. Hugus said that he thinks it's important for IART members to have a working assumption about perchlorate standards in order to their jobs, without having to wait until winter of 2005. He added that he thinks that that assumption should be DEP's current "health advisory" of 1 ppb. Ms. Cassidy noted that this is a good point. She also told Mr. Hugus that as the team will see during tonight's Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1) Feasibility Study presentation, the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP) has assumed that the 1-ppb standard is going to be promulgated.

Mr. Cambareri referred to Action Item #1, which had to do with the evaluation of water quality in the Northwest Corner of the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), and questioned the meaning of the last sentence in the response to that item: "At this time we do not anticipate installing a new monitoring well in this area with the sole purpose of confirming water quality."

Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP is investigating two plumes in that area—the Northwest Corner plume and the Central Impact Area plume. The wells installed for those two investigations are intended to assess the nature and extent of the groundwater contamination at those two operable units. He then explained that the sentence to which Mr. Cambareri referred means that the IAGWSP's focus is to find the known contamination rather than to install a well in an area that has no wells to see if the aquifer is clean at that particular spot. Mr. Cambareri noted that the area is downgradient of the Central Impact Area plume. Mr. Gregson agreed and said that the IAGWSP is working to define the extent of that contamination. He also said that there's an area between the Central Impact Area and the recent RDX detection at the Northwest Corner where additional investigation is required.

Mr. Cambareri noted that, as mentioned in the action item response, well 95-6ES tested nondetect for perchlorate; however, perchlorate was detected in well 95-6B, which is 300 feet to the north. He also said that he doesn't understand why the IAGWSP, whose mission is to evaluate and identify contamination on and emanating from the Impact Area, is failing to provide information to the community as to whether or not the area in question is contaminated, especially in light of the upgradient contamination.

Mr. Borci said that if a well were installed there and tested clean, that really wouldn't provide any information because contamination could exist immediately upgradient. He said that he thinks Mr. Gregson is saying that the investigation is heading toward that area anyway, and it makes sense to define the exact bound of the contamination before knowing "where there might be a clean area to even begin to look." Mr. Cambareri remarked that the IAGWSP used that exact argument in 1997 when it hesitated to embrace the idea of far-field wells. Mr. Borci, who noted that he was involved with the cleanup program when the far-field wells were installed and was a fan of them at that time, said that "we've now filled in most of the empty spaces with some contaminated areas," but at this point installing a well in that western boundary wouldn't be beneficial, although it shouldn't be ruled out forever. He said that he expects the Northwest Corner and the Central Impact Area investigations to come together and show whether or not the area in question is free of contamination. Mr. Borci suggested that once the investigation processes are followed to completion, or even near completion, this issue could be revisited.

Mr. Cambareri said that he thinks it's important to recognize other processes occurring in the community, such as the ongoing MMR Joint Land Use Study, which could use data pertaining to conditions at town/base borders in order to determine appropriate steps to take. He also said that he believes that with the help of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the IAGWSP did embrace the idea of far-field wells and he thinks that a far-field well would be appropriate in this case.

Mr. Hugus said that he wanted to add to his earlier comment that he doesn't think anyone on Cape Cod should be drinking water that contains any perchlorate or explosives; when it comes to health standards, background is what's needed. He also said that he echoes Mr. Cambareri's concerns about the Northwest Corner of the base, which could include a future water supply area, making it important to know whether or not it's clean.

Agenda Item #3. J-3 Range Groundwater Rapid Response Action Plan

Mr. Gregson stated that the J-3 Range Groundwater Rapid Response Action (RRA), an interim removal action to begin addressing groundwater contamination at the J-3 Range, will be implemented as site investigation work continues to complete definition of the plume to the extent necessary to move forward with a formal feasibility study and develop a final remedy. He also noted that tonight's presentation initiates a 15-day public comment period on the RRA plan.

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the J-3 Range area, noted that source removal work is ongoing as part of the J-3 Range Soil RRA, and pointed out the groundwater plume. He noted that the J-3 Range was developed between 1935 and 1941 and was originally used for military training that involved small arms firing, mortars, and grenades. In the 1970s the range was used by a defense contractor, AVCO, now known as Textron, to develop and test tactical weapons systems for the Army and Air Force. Defense contractor activities included burning and open detonation of explosives, disposal of wastewater, and disposal of munitions in burial pits.

Mr. Gregson noted that the groundwater plume consists of two primary contaminants of concern: perchlorate at concentrations up to about 300 ppb, and RDX at concentrations ranging from about 10 to 20 ppb. The plume migrates from the source area to the south, and in the case of RDX contamination, travels beneath Snake Pond. Mr. Gregson said that while there are no known public or private wells affected by the plume, the pond is a potential receptor for contamination migrating to the south. He then turned the presentation over to Mr. Goydas of Jacobs Engineering.

Mr. Goydas reported that the RRA document includes three components: a data assessment that led into the evaluation of wellfield requirements to capture the plume; an engineering evaluation that looked at how the plume would be treated once it was extracted from the ground; and the evaluation of existing infrastructure that's part of the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) Fuel Spill 12 (FS-12) treatment system. He also noted that three treatment trains are being evaluated: standard granular activated carbon (GAC) and amended GAC that's augmented to have a greater affinity to remove a specific contaminant (perchlorate), fluidized bed reactor (FBR), and ion exchange. Mr. Goydas noted that during formal design, the wellfield configuration and treatment train requirements will be evaluated in detail. He also mentioned that ongoing studies on the base and elsewhere will provide needed information for final design in terms of evaluating carbon and ion exchange.

Mr. Goydas stated the J-3 Range plume is located immediately adjacent to the FS-12 plume, which resulted from an aviation fuel release and contains ethylene dibromide (EDB) and benzene contamination. In 1997 AFCEE engineered and installed an FS-12 plume treatment system that has been operating since that time. Mr. Goydas referred to the map and pointed out three non-operating FS-12 extraction wells, extraction well 1 (EW-1), EW-2, and EW-3, situated near the downgradient portion of the J-3 Range plume, which were evaluated to assess the effect they could have on preventing further migration of that plume toward Snake Pond.

Mr. Goydas noted that the IAGWSP looked at scenarios that included not only the three FS-12 extraction wells, but also an additional extraction well to the west, or an extraction well along the pond shoreline, or an in-plume extraction well, to see what the likely influent concentrations and required flow rates might be if the system is expanded to address the final remedy. He noted that once the ongoing investigation is completed, it would be summarized in a characterization report to be followed by a feasibility study to determine the final solution for the plume.

Mr. Goydas then showed several groundwater animations, or scenarios, that illustrated modeled predictions of what would happen to the plume with EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3 operating at a combined flow rate of 100 gallons per minute (gpm). The first animation was for RDX contamination with the three existing FS-12 extraction wells operating, and Mr. Goydas pointed out that the model, which is based on available data and the current plume depiction, shows that the scenario would halt further migration of RDX towards Snake Pond. He noted that the second animation, which was for perchlorate with the three wells operating, was a little different in that there's a larger mass of perchlorate, some of which is downgradient of the wells, although they would do a fair job of preventing further migration toward Snake Pond.

Mr. Goydas then showed the animation of the scenario that included a hypothetical extraction well west of EW-1, EW-2, and EW-3, and noted that it really doesn't perform any differently in terms of containment of the plume or aquifer restoration than the scenario involving just the three existing wells. He also showed the animation of the scenario that included a hypothetical extraction well along the pond shoreline near the leading edge of the plume and remarked that it was "not tremendously effective" in terms of additional mass removal. He explained that the additional well is not predicted to pull back the contamination that's already migrated to beneath the pond bottom, but the scenario would perform equally to the three-well scenario with respect to preventing further migration. Mr. Goydas also showed the animation of the scenario for RDX with the three existing wells operating and a hypothetical in-plume well, which he described as a "look ahead" to what might be required as part of final design. He noted that the model shows that the three existing wells perform about the same, and the upgradient well does remove some mass. He also said, however, that in reality the final determination of an upgradient well location would be based on results of the ongoing investigation.

Mr. Goydas stated that the three existing FS-12 extraction wells, operating at a combined flow rate of 100 gpm, should capture and prevent further migration of the J-3 Range plume toward Snake Pond. He also reported that the evaluation of using the FS-12 wells for the J-3 Range Groundwater RRA showed that doing so would not adversely impact the FS-12 treatment system that's been operating effectively since 1997. The evaluation also suggested that ecological thresholds pertaining to Snake Pond would not be exceeded as a result of pumping the three currently non-operating FS-12 extraction wells.

Mr. Goydas noted that the recommendation in the RRA plan is to use tailored carbon to address the perchlorate and standard carbon to address the RDX. Ongoing studies at the site and elsewhere would be used in the final design process to validate or modify this recommendation. Mr. Goydas then reported that rather than a stand-alone treatment plant, the evaluation indicated that there's sufficient footprint within the existing FS-12 plant to house the J-3 Range plume treatment requirements. Also, rather than having to install new pipeline and reinjection wells, the evaluation determined that it would be appropriate to return the cleaned groundwater to the aquifer though existing FS-12 pipeline and reinjection wells.

Mr. Goydas showed a schematic drawing of the above-ground treatment train and noted that pipeline would have to be installed from the extraction wells to the plant. He also explained that the extracted water would be treated through a series of carbon canisters—the first containing tailored carbon to primarily address the perchlorate, and the second containing standard carbon to address any RDX that's not removed in the first vessels. He noted again that the water would be returned to the aquifer through the existing injection pipeline and reinjection wells. Mr. Goydas then showed a diagram of the FS-12 treatment plant and pointed out that there's sufficient room within the structure to house the carbon units that would treat the J-3 Range plume.

At this time, Mr. Gregson noted that the 15-day informal public comment period that was initiated tonight is scheduled to run through July 7, 2004. He said that after comments from the public and the regulators are resolved, a finalized plan would be issued. This would be followed by wellfield design, construction, and then system startup. He also noted that comments would be accepted tonight at the meeting, by mail or e-mail to Pam Richardson at the IAGWSP, or through the IAGWSP web site.

Mr. Borci informed the group that they have the opportunity to comment on two components of the RRA: the treatment trains that were evaluated (e.g. tailored carbon, ion exchange), and the spacing and placement of the extraction wells themselves. He said that what the team was shown in the presentation was the IAGWSP's preferred alternative, but members are invited to provide comment on well placement and "things along those lines." He noted that EPA's comments included a request for more information, especially with respect to the well north of Greenway Road, which EPA believes would be beneficial now, without waiting for the final remedy.

Mr. Borci also spoke about two pieces of information that he thinks are important for team members to consider as they review the RRA plan. One was a recent perchlorate detection of 494 ppb at monitoring well 198 (MW-198), located in the core of the plume, north of Greenway Road, which has always had relatively high perchlorate concentrations from about 200 to 300 ppb. Mr. Borci said that the extraction well north of Greenway Road would be south of that high-concentration area, and if installed in a reasonable amount of time, it would capture that contamination. He said that additional monitoring wells are planned for that general location and new data from those wells could inform the exact placement of the extraction well, which is why EPA doesn't think it would necessarily have to be part of a final remedy.

Mr. Borci said that the other piece of information was that perchlorate concentrations have also increased in PZ-211, a piezometer well closer to Snake Pond. Concentrations there had ranged from nondetect to about 3 ppb, but the most recent sampling round showed detections at or just above 5 ppb in all three piezometer screens, which are about ten feet apart. He remarked that this is significant because it represents higher concentrations closer toward Snake Pond.

Ms. Cassidy clarified that the public comment period pertains to all the alternatives presented in the RRA plan, not just to the IAGWSP's preferred alternative.

Mr. Mullennix inquired about estimated influent concentrations to the carbon treatment train. Mr. Goydas replied that with the three existing FS-12 extraction wells operating, influent RDX concentrations are likely to be less than 1 ppb and influent perchlorate concentrations are expected to be between 4 and 5 ppb. He noted that influent concentrations would be higher with an in-plume extraction well operating, and said that those numbers are available in the RRA plan. Mr. Mullennix asked if the effluent is expected to be nondetect. Mr. Goydas replied that available data and data being collected suggest that that would be the case. Mr. Mullennix also asked how many times the carbon would have to be changed out before the plume is cleaned. Mr. Goydas replied that ongoing pilot studies would narrow the understanding and uncertainty associated with the question of how quickly the carbon would be exhausted. However, Mr. Mullennix asked for a rough estimate, and Mr. Goydas replied "presumably several months."

Ms. Conron noted some confusion in that the RRA is said to be an interim action, yet the animations showed that it would clean up the plume entirely. Mr. Gregson explained that the interim measures shown in the presentation were allowed to run until completion of cleanup. However, the feasibility study will look at the interim action as well as other alternatives that clean up the plume more quickly, more inexpensively, or more effectively. Ms. Conron asked when the RRA system is expected to begin operating. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP anticipates finalizing the plan this summer, which will be followed by the design process and then the start of construction some time next year. He also mentioned that the construction process should move along relatively quickly since much of the system is built already. Mr. Borci noted that the model runs had a delayed start of about one year, but the thought is that the RRA system startup should occur about one year from now. Mr. Gregson added that in the meantime the investigation will continue until the plume has been adequately defined to begin the feasibility study process and develop a final remedy. Ms. Conron inquired about the goal of the RRA. Mr. Gregson replied that the goal is to halt the migration of the plume as it heads to the south.

Ms. Conron suggested that team members need to read the RRA plan to learn more about the other treatment technologies, since they really weren't discussed during the presentation. Mr. Gregson replied that the evaluation of the different techniques—FBR, ion exchange, and tailored carbon—is described in the RRA plan. He said that tailored carbon seems to be the most promising, and that regular carbon probably would not treat the perchlorate adequately. Therefore, the IAGWSP is proposing a two-component system—something that involves ion exchange resin or tailored carbon to treat the perchlorate, and a standard carbon to treat the RDX. Mr. Borci added that fact sheets on ion exchange and tailored carbon were available at the meeting.

Mr. Hugus asked if there's something else in the RRA document that's "a real alternative," rather than "just different tweaks on this one." Mr. Gregson replied that the RRA plan itself lays out the alternatives in two ways—one having to do with the different treatment media, and the other having to do with placement of the extraction wells. Each of the alternatives looks at using the three existing FS-12 extraction wells, but one has an additional well to the south, and another has additional well to the west. Also, the plan includes a setup with the three existing wells and an in-plume well located at the higher concentrations to the north. Mr. Borci said that he thinks that the RRA plan contains adequate alternatives that "are tweaks on the core idea of stopping migration." However, he would have presented them in a different way, to show that there are options among the modifications of the main design. Mr. Borci also said that it's important to get comments on the plan and move forward, especially in light of the new data that are becoming available.

Mr. Hugus remarked that "it looks like it's too easy" that the existing FS-12 extraction wells "are in exactly the right place." He said that he's interested in the public being able to evaluate alternatives that do not involve the existing wells, but that do take into account the FS-12 plume. He said that he suspects that the IAGWSP is "trying to get away with spending the least amount of money here, not necessarily doing the best job." Mr. Hugus also noted that he doesn't know what calculations went into the "cartoon," which made it look like the cleanup would be a snap, nor does he know what would happen to the "fair amount" of J-3 Range contamination that's south of the existing FS-12 extraction wells. He then expressed dissatisfaction with always being presented with RRAs rather than official final solutions, which indicates to him that the system isn't working very well. Mr. Hugus said that he doesn't think the public would be too interested in commenting on the RRA plan "because it's been so packaged" and doesn't present "real alternatives."

Mr. Schlesinger remarked that the RRA seems to be "a money-saving method, not really designed to be the most effective" for the plume, particularly in light of the recent detections to the south. Mr. Borci noted that Mr. Schlesinger was referring to the detections at PZ-211, which are beyond the existing FS-12 extraction wells. He also said that in some of the model runs that contamination is "essentially almost pulled back a little bit." Mr. Schlesinger replied that that was one of his comments. He also said that because there's not yet any evidence that GAC removes perchlorate, asking the public to support a project based on that method is like putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Schlesinger also referred to one of the animations, which he thought was identified as simulation 5-2, and said that it shows no escape of the plume to the west and downstream of the extraction wells. Rather, it shows that the plume stays right at about the latitude of the extraction wells, with none of it going west or south. He further noted that another animation, which he thought was identified as simulation 5-8 or 5-28, shows plume materials going upgradient, back to the extraction well, and he thinks that this needs to be explained. Mr. Schlesinger said that if the simulations are provided with the document for public comment, the IAGWSP needs to explain them carefully so the public can comment appropriately.

Mr. Schlesinger further noted that he didn't think the presentation provided a good understanding of what tailored carbon is, nor did it include information about the adequacy of the reinjection wells. He questioned whether the FS-12 system was so overbuilt that it's capable of handling two plumes, and whether other systems were similarly overbuilt. Mr. Schlesinger also asked what would become of the EDB contamination while half of the FS-12 system is shut down in order to be used to treat the J-3 Range plume. Ms. Cassidy clarified that the FS-12 system would not be shut down at all, but would continue to run. The J-3 Range system would not impact the FS-12 system.

Mr. Panni asked how long the FS-12 system is projected to run to complete cleanup of that plume. Mr. Minior replied that it's projected to run for 12 more years. Mr. Panni then asked if the J-3 Range RRA takes into account the ongoing optimization of the FS-12 system and the expected cleanup completion date of the FS-12 plume. Mr. Goydas replied that performance of the RRA system was evaluated with FS-12 operating and without it operating, and with "intermediate steps along the way." Mr. Panni asked if this was reflected in tonight's animations. Mr. Goydas clarified that the animations assumed FS-12 operating at its average operating flow rate; however, the other evaluations were presented in the RRA plan.

Mr. Cambareri asked if it's correct that each of the three existing FS-12 extraction wells would be pumping at about 33 gpm. Mr. Goydas replied that it is not, and explained that higher stress would be apportioned to the western well, given its proximity to the plume. He also noted that packers would be used in the well screens to change them from a 60-foot length to about a 35- to 40-foot length in order to target the J-3 Range plume, and new pumps would be installed. Mr. Cambareri asked if the three existing FS-12 wells were initially reinjection wells. Mr. Goydas replied that they were not; rather, they are extraction wells that were never plumbed or operated.

Mr. Cambareri inquired about reinjection of the cleaned water from the J-3 Range plume. Mr. Goydas replied that the existing FS-12 system has sufficient capacity to reinject the required flow rate. He also said that ecological thresholds were evaluated in terms of the placement of water in the reinjection wells. Mr. Cambareri asked if it's correct that treated water from the J-3 Range plume is going to be mixed in with treated water from the FS-12 plume and then be reinjected into the aquifer. Mr. Goydas replied that it is. He also stated that influent and effluent waters from the J-3 and FS-12 plumes were examined to ensure that they were of similar qualities, and it was found that J-3 water quality is equal to or better than FS-12 water. Mr. Cambareri also asked if team members had received the RRA plan and if comments need to be submitted by July 7, 2004. Ms. Cassidy confirmed that both are true.

Dr. Dahmani asked if the estimates pertaining to the J-3 Range plume were based on a perchlorate cleanup level of 1 ppb. Mr. Goydas replied that in the RRA plan the restoration timeframe relates to the method detection limit; in the animations, cleanup was shown to 2 ppb for RDX and 1 ppb for perchlorate. Dr. Dahmani told Ms. Conron that the cleanup timeframe really depends on how clean the groundwater is going to get in terms of perchlorate—whether it's cleaned up to 1 ppb or to 5 ppb, for example.

Dr. Dahmani also said that he thinks the IAGWSP's proposed approach is sound and he expects it to be effective. He said that he believes that GAC or ion exchange treatment should work, and the pilot test definitely will provide a better indication of how effective it will be in terms of efficiency (i.e. the number of needed carbon change-outs or regeneration of ion exchange resins). Dr. Dahmani also told Mr. Schlesinger that pump-and-treat is never a money-saving method, but an expensive method, whose actual cost will depend on what the pilot test indicates and the cleanup goals. He said that he has full confidence that the J-3 Range plume will be cleaned up, although, like for the FS-12 plume, the system probably will have to be optimized in terms of adjusting pumping rates.

Mr. Schlesinger asked when he should expect answers to his questions. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP would provide answers as part of its response to comments, which is currently under way.

Mr. Mullennix asked the regulators if it would be possible to switch to an ion exchange treatment method immediately, in the event that the IAGWSP goes forward with a GAC treatment scheme and it proves unsatisfactory. Mr. Borci replied that if tailored carbon were approved, it would be approved with conditional language that if the system fails or looks like it's about to fail, ion exchange would be brought in; however, he doesn't know how quickly that could be done.

Agenda Item #4. Demolition Area 1 Feasibility Study

Mr. Nixon noted that the Demo 1 Groundwater RRA system is in the process of being constructed. The extraction and injection wells are in place and the containerized systems to be installed this summer at Frank Perkins Road and Pew Road are being completed. Mr. Nixon stated that the RRA system, which is scheduled to be up and running in September of this year, is meant to contain the Demo 1 plume until the comprehensive remedy can be implemented. The Demo 1 Feasibility Study (FS), for which an open public comment period begins this evening, evaluates different wellfield designs for a comprehensive system that meets the long-term goals of EPA's Administrative Order (AO).

Mr. Nixon noted that the public comment period on the Demo 1 FS runs through July 7, 2004, and will be followed by the remedy selection plan, a public comment period on the plan, the decision document, and then remedial design and implementation. He also said that comments on the FS can be submitted through the IAGWSP web site, or by mail or e-mail to Kris Curley.

Mr. Nixon then reviewed the FS alternatives, as follows: Alternative 1 (Minimal Action), which involves turning off the RRA system after four years, and was evaluated just as a point of comparison; Alternative 2 (Baseline), which involves continuing to run the RRA system, and actually would prevent off-base migration of perchlorate and explosives; Alternative 3 (Background), designed to reach background concentrations in a "reasonable timeframe" (as noted in the AO), or in this case, about 27 years; Alternative 4 (10-Year), designed to reach risk-based concentrations (RBCs) in 10 years (actually 10.7 years as modeled); Alternative 5 (Additional Alternative A), which is not specified by the AO, and reaches RBCs in about 14 years; and Alternative 6 (Additional Alternative B), which the regulators requested, and which includes an additional extraction well near the toe of the perchlorate plume, raises the overall flow rate, and is more costly.

Mr. Nixon noted that all of the alternatives involve the RRA treatment systems at Frank Perkins Road and Pew Road, and the IAGWSP envisions that the Frank Perkins Road system will use ion exchange resin and GAC. He also said that rapid-scale column testing has shown that GAC works to treat perchlorate, at least at fairly low concentrations, as does monomer-amended (tailored) GAC. Also, the ongoing innovative technology evaluation (ITE) at Pew Road is looking at two different types of ion exchange resins along with monomer-amended GAC. He reported that for the ITE study, which is scheduled to be completed this July, 55,000 bed volumes with concentrations of perchlorate between 1.8 and 3.9 ppb have been treated with no breakthrough so far. All three different types of filtering media seem to be working fine and actually exceeding expectations.

Mr. Nixon then showed well layouts for the FS alternatives and noted that Alternative 2 (Baseline) involves the two RRA extraction wells; Alternative 3 (Background) adds two more extraction wells for a total of four; Alternative 4 (10-Year) includes a total of five extraction wells; Alternative 5 (Additional Alternative A) also includes a total of five extraction wells, but pumping at slightly lower flow rates that allow for a smaller treatment plant and cost savings; and Alternative 6 (Additional Alternative B), which adds an extraction well downgradient of the toe of the plume and the associated piping to transport the water from there to the Pew Road extraction well header.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski asked if it's correct that there would be two extraction locations but one treatment system. Mr. Nixon clarified that for each of the alternatives there would be two treatment plants – one at Frank Perkins Road and another at Pew Road.

Mr. Schlesinger asked Mr. Nixon to identify the study he mentioned where there have been no breakthroughs in treating perchlorate up to 3.9 ppb. Mr. Nixon replied that he'd been referring to the Pew Road ITE study that is looking at two different types of ion exchange resin and a monomer-amended carbon, which is the same treatment medium being proposed for the J-3 Range plume. He then turned the presentation over to Dr. Abate of AMEC.

Dr. Abate showed a three-dimensional depiction of the current conditions of the Demo 1 plume, which he described as a 3-D representation sliced in half to show the internal concentration distribution. He then pointed out the two RRA extraction wells and two clay layers (one about 20 to 30 feet thick, the other about 10 feet thick) that were incorporated into the model. He noted that the clay layers impede vertical movement of the plume, which tends to ride over them.

Dr. Abate ran the animation for Alternative 2 (Baseline), mentioned that the corresponding clock evolves in 3-year intervals, and pointed out a dilute portion of the perchlorate plume downgradient of the Pew Road extraction well. He noted that that portion of the plume, which is below 1 ppb, dilutes and disperses to below the threshold concentration or detection limit of 0.35 ppb before it exits the base boundary. He said that this occurs by virtue of interaction with a pair of ponds in that area, which create a stagnation zone.

Dr. Abate noted that tonight he's showing only the perchlorate animation sequences, although RDX animation sequences are also available. He then showed the animation for Alternative 3 (Background) and pointed out the extraction well near the toe of the plume designed to intercept and prevent migration beyond it. He also pointed out the extraction well along Pocasset-Forestdale Road, upgradient of Frank Perkins Road, and mentioned that the pumping rate there would be 145 gpm. Pumping rates at the Frank Perkins Road well would be 119 gpm, at Pew Road 110 gpm, and at the toe 98 gpm. Dr. Abate said that Alternative 3 (Background) is very effective at removing contaminants within the 30-year target timeframe; 30 years from the modeled startup date of 2008, the bulk of the mass has been removed.

Dr. Abate then ran the animation for Alternative 4 (10-Year), which consists of five extraction wells. He said that with this alternative, the wells pump at significantly higher rates in order to remove all contaminant mass within 10 years, which it's able to do successfully from startup in 2008, after four years of the RRA system operating. Dr. Abate also clarified that the 10.7 years that Mr. Nixon had mentioned pertains to cleanup of RDX, whereas perchlorate would be cleaned up within 10 years.

Dr. Abate also ran the animation for Alternative 5 (Additional Alternative A), which he described as identical to the 10-Year alternative in terms of well layout, but featuring approximately 40% reduced pumping rates. He noted that the reduced pumping rates would save in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and would take just a few years longer to reach the same target objectives. He also said that while some mass would propagate beyond the Pew Road extraction well, this alternative would cut off the high-concentration portion of the plume and reduce the overall mass, causing the contamination beyond Pew Road to attenuate even more rapidly.

Finally, Dr. Abate ran the animation for Alternative 6 (Additional Alternative B), which includes a sixth extraction well downgradient of the toe of the plume to hasten the decline of concentrations in that area. He noted that the purpose of that well would be to preclude the possibility of off-site migration, even though those concentrations would attenuate naturally.

Mr. Hugus asked Dr. Abate to explain what is meant by "risk-based concentrations." Dr. Abate replied that in the case of perchlorate the RBC has been determined to be 1 ppb, whereas the detection limit is 0.35 ppb. Mr. Hugus asked if the RBC is the same as the cleanup standard. Dr. Abate replied that because a perchlorate standard has not been promulgated by the agencies at this time, in order to go forward with a design, the cleanup objective for perchlorate was set at 1 ppb.

Mr. Schlesinger referred to Alternative 2 (Baseline) and asked what happens to the portion of the plume underneath the clay layers, which seems to just disappear in the animation. Dr. Abate replied that the thickness of the clay layers was estimated based on locations where it was drilled through. While there aren't highly detailed data about the leading edge of the clay, it is known that no contaminants have been detected below the clay in monitoring wells that are completed to that depth, and so it appears that the clay has served as a very effective barrier and should continue to do so. In order to be conservative in the modeling, the clay's permeability was estimated in "a reasonable fashion," making it semi-permeable, given that nothing is truly impermeable. In the model, mass does propagate through the clay and then bleeds out of the clay over a long period of time. However, it's believed that that won't actually happen, since the clay is thought to be less permeable than it's been simulated to be. Mr. Schlesinger said that this doesn't explain what happens to the 3-ppb perchlorate contamination under the clay layers, as seen in the animation. Dr. Abate replied that the natural attenuation processes of dilution and dispersion would cause those concentrations to fall below the detection limit of 0.35 ppb.

Mr. Cambareri asked about the simulation of the influence of the pond that Dr. Abate mentioned would help prevent the perchlorate contamination at the toe of the plume from crossing the base boundary. Dr. Abate replied that a fairly simplistic approach was taken to modeling that kettle pond, which is very small, compared to Snake Pond. It was modeled as an active pond, in that it receives groundwater discharge, and discharges water back to the groundwater system. Dr. Abate said that it's very difficult to obtain information on the depth of a pond's influence, although the U.S. Geological Survey has done isotopic analyses at Snake Pond and elsewhere to try to understand the depth of interaction between surface waters and the groundwater system. Mr. Cambareri indicated that he thinks it is conjecture to say that the pond's influence would prevent perchlorate contamination from crossing the base boundary. Dr. Abate replied that in the first animation sequence it's possible to see a little cusp that depicts the upwelling and downwelling that occurs at the pond and creates a stagnation zone where water moves very slowly or not at all, and where the plume stalls. Mr. Cambareri remarked that this is not known with any certainty, but the choice was made to model it that way. Mr. Borci noted that system performance monitoring would show whether reality matches what the model predicts.

At this time Mr. Nixon showed a table containing design details and information on predicted performance for each of the six alternatives, and noted that the Demo 1 fact sheet includes a larger version of the table for IART members to review. He noted that for each alternative the table shows the number of extraction wells, the total pumping rate, the estimated cost including O&M costs, the number of years it would take for RDX and perchlorate to reach RBCs and to reach background, and the percent of mass removed. Mr. Nixon noted that Alternatives 2 through 6 are responsive and all meet the nine evaluation criteria that are laid out in the FS, some to a greater extent than others.

Mr. Nixon also noted that the next step in the FS process, following the public comment period that ends July 7, 2004, is the remedy selection plan, which is scheduled for the July to October timeframe. A public comment period on the remedy selection plan will be next, from September to October, with a decision document to follow, and remedial design to begin in January 2005.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski said that he wanted to inform the team that independent of the start of the remedy selection process for the Demo 1 plume is an ongoing negotiation process involving the Army litigation department (representing the National Guard Bureau), EPA, and Textron Systems Corporation. He explained that Textron had come forward and performed some cleanup work at the J-3 Range under a Consent Order, and now wants to settle its liability with respect to the site generally. Under discussion is what the United States—meaning the Army and EPA—would want in a settlement.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stated that one of the items the settlement is attempting to address is the Demo 1 treatment system, and it's thought that if the settlement incorporates that system "we'll be able to get to a remedy sooner." Mr. Walsh-Rogalski further noted that because settlement negotiations are ongoing, he's unable to discuss the details at this time. However, after negotiations have been completed at the staff level, the document will go to management in Washington, D.C. at the Army, EPA, and the Department of Justice, and once approved there, will undergo a formal public comment process.

Mr. Walsh-Rogalski explained that he's discussing this issue because he wants to be certain that people are aware of the Textron negotiations and that they are independent of the Demo 1 remedy selection process. The remedy selection process is not going to depend on what kind of settlement is reached with Textron, and will in fact be completed before any final resolution of Textron liability. For the purposes of discussions with Textron, however, certain assumptions are being made about the Demo 1 remedy, including ion exchange and GAC as the treatment media, and a treatment system large enough to be expanded in the future if necessary. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski then reminded the team members that they would have an opportunity to comment on the settlement document before it becomes final.

Mr. Schlesinger described the map on the cover of the Demo 1 FS fact sheet as "a lie of omission" in that it provides so little information, just a tiny red square depicting the Demo 1 site. He then noted that the ongoing ITE study, which has had no breakthrough thus far, is dealing with perchlorate concentrations up to 3.9 ppb, but there are much higher perchlorate concentrations in the Demo 1 plume. Mr. Nixon agreed that perchlorate concentrations would be a little higher, perhaps up in the teens, at Frank Perkins Road. Mr. Schlesinger asked if it's correct that the ITE study would be used for both locations—Frank Perkins Road and Pew Road. Mr. Nixon confirmed that it is. He also said that basically the higher the concentration, the less time before breakthrough occurs—however, a bigger vessel can be used to account for that.

Mr. Schlesinger asked if the treatment studies, such as the ITE, would be completed in time to meet the remedy selection process schedule. Mr. Nixon replied that the ITE study would be completed in July, although it's not really a factor in the design of the system. Mr. Schlesinger disagreed and said he sees that as a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Nixon acknowledged that one of the two types of ion exchange resins being evaluated by the ITE would be used in the Frank Perkins Road system, and he apologized for having misspoken. Mr. Schlesinger said that it makes more sense to him to understand that a remedy works before selecting a final remedy that may or may not work. Mr. Borci noted that the current comment period is an informal 15-day public comment period on the draft Demo 1 FS, but still to come is a formal 30-day public comment period on the final remedy.

Mr. Hugus commented that he's in favor of treatment that's not based on RBCs, but on cleaning to background, and that does not rely on natural attenuation, which is "not a remedy at all." He also said that he's for treatment that "gets the fastest capture of all mass," cleaning to background.

Mr. Hugus also said that it sounded as though Mr. Walsh-Rogalski had indicated that the timing of implementation of the Demo 1 plume remedy would depend on what Textron agrees to in its settlement. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski apologized if he hadn't been clear and explained that his whole point was that the two processes are not connected. Regardless of the amount of the settlement, the remedy selection will be independent of it. He also explained that a certain remedy is being assumed for purposes of the negotiations, and if the two remedies don't end up agreeing, the deal will have to he renegotiated before becoming final. Mr. Walsh-Rogalski stressed that the remedy selection process would not be constrained by what's been discussed with Textron in terms of the remedy.

Mr. Hugus noted that he heard a startup date of 2008 for at least one of the alternatives and he thinks that is "way too long." Mr. Nixon reminded him that in the meantime the RRA system would be operating to contain the plume. Mr. Gonser said that the 2008 startup date is what AMEC used for the model, but he anticipates that construction would begin in early 2006, with system startup in early 2007. Mr. Hugus said that he thinks that is still too long.

Mr. Cambareri said that RRA systems are like pilot systems, so he thinks the inclination would be to see that work and be certain about the technology prior to finalizing the design of the comprehensive remedy. He also referred to the table that compares specifics pertaining to each of the alternatives and questioned the $5-million cost differences among certain alternatives. Mr. Nixon referred Mr. Cambareri to Appendix C of the FS document, where all the cost information is summarized, as time would not allow him to get into a detailed explanation during this meeting. Mr. Cambareri then suggested rerouting the downgradient well's pipeline run, which is "right across the unbroken forest area there," by bringing it "down the well to the south, to hook up over to this other area." Mr. Nixon noted that the current routing is not necessarily the final word.

Mr. Gregson pointed out that the schedule shown in the presentation differs from the one contained in the draft revised FS document. He explained that the IAGWSP had been working with the regulators on ways to streamline the schedule and was able to decrease the amount of time from the FS to a decision on the remedy.Dr. Dahmani asked if the IAGWSP's standard approach to cleaning up sites will be source removal and pump-and-treat. Mr. Gonser replied that while he's certain that each site would be looked at individually, pump-and-treat seems to be the primary focus. Mr. Nixon mentioned the source cleanup projects at Demo 1, Demo 2, the J-2 Range, and the J-3 Range, and said that he believes the general answer to Dr. Dahmani's question is yes.

Mr. Hugus noted that he'd forgotten to say earlier that he's in favor of any treatment method that actively goes after the toe of the plume, rather than allowing it to naturally attenuate.

Mr. Schlesinger said that Alternative 6 (Additional Alternative B) seems to him to be the most effective use of money and time, to achieve background and do the best cleanup. He also remarked that any kind of alternative that cleans up the toe in addition to removing the mass in a timely fashion "has got to be the best one."

Agenda Item #5. Investigation Update

Southeast Ranges

Mr. Gregson showed a map of the J-2 Range investigation area and pointed out the plume in the ZOC for the Co-op water supply well #2. He reminded the team that perchlorate was detected in MW-327 at about 1.5 ppb, and that MW-330 along Gibbs Road tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives. He noted that the Co-op's sentinel wells tested nondetect for perchlorate and explosives, but the IAGWSP received permission to resample those wells using a packer and that work should be conducted in early July. Mr. Gregson also said that based on results from the well at J2P-39, which is being drilled currently, another well will be drilled along Gibbs Road to ensure that the extent of perchlorate contamination has been reached.

Mr. Gregson then pointed out the eastern side of the J-2 Range and noted that the contamination there is in the upper end of the ZOC for Co-op water supply well #1. He noted that at MW-334, which was drilled downgradient of earlier perchlorate detections in that area, profile sampling showed a low-level detection of perchlorate at 0.44 ppb. Also, at MW-335, which is located on Wood Road, profile sampling showed perchlorate detections at about 0.5 ppb, and nondetect for RDX.

Mr. Gregson then showed a figure depicting the eastern J-2 Range plume based on profile data. He reported that the IAGWSP has been working with landowners, the nearby school, the Natural Resources Department, and the state to get permission to drill off base, and that effort has been proceeding well. He pointed out the private well where perchlorate was detected on the northwest side of Peters Pond, and said that his office has been consulting with the regulators to select upgradient monitoring locations. Also, the IAGWSP sent out letters to residents to determine if they have any irrigation wells that it would be allowed to sample; so far, one such irrigation well has been identified. In addition, the IAGWSP sampled irrigation wells at the P.A. Landers facility and at the nursery near the entrance to the Forestdale School, all of which tested nondetect. Mr. Gregson noted that other than the detection in the private well, no additional perchlorate has been detected off base.

Mr. Hugus said that he doesn't think there's enough time in the meeting to properly discuss any of the topics, and the team needs to find a way to budget its time better. He also said that he thinks that the information that Mr. Gregson just showed should be a worry to Sandwich residents. He inquired about the level of perchlorate detected in the private well. Mr. Gregson replied that it was 1.007 ppb in the initial sampling round, and 0.8 ppb in subsequent sampling. Mr. Hugus stated that, like the situation on Foretop Road at the Northwest Corner, there must be some contamination behind that private well, there might be more beyond it, and investigation is needed. He also said that another matter of concern for Sandwich residents is the plume headed toward supply well #2. Mr. Hugus then said that he thinks the eastern J-2 Range plume should be mapped so it can be understood properly, and the map of J-2 Range plume heading toward supply well #2 should be extended to encompass recent detections. He also said that he'd noticed a suggestion to conduct the investigation from supply well #2 and track backwards, and he thinks that's a good idea.

Mr. Gregson said that he thinks that resampling the sentry wells using packers will provide very valuable information, as samples will be collected every 10 feet at those locations and provide a good cross-section of the aquifer there. This, coupled with information from the new wells that are being drilled and profiled every 10 feet should provide a good well fence of information upgradient of the water supply well.

Ms. Cassidy explained to Mr. Hugus that the program managers knew that this meeting agenda would be very full (with the public comment period items) and time would not allow for an in-depth investigation update. She noted that at the May IART meeting there was a fairly in-depth discussion about the J-2 Range plumes investigation and she expects such discussion to resume at the July meeting.

Mr. Schlesinger said that he agrees with Mr. Hugus that there's a need to be concerned about areas upgradient and downgradient of the perchlorate detection adjacent to Peters Pond. He also said that the graphics shown on the screen at meetings should include all the information that IART members have, specifically the ZOCs that relate to water supply wells. Mr. Schlesinger further noted that it's not only the residents of Sandwich who should be concerned about J-2 Range contamination, but also the residents from Mashpee, Falmouth, and Bourne who are drinking water from the Co-op water supply well #2. He said that he thinks the team should be hearing from the people in those towns.

Mr. Gregson noted that the IAGWSP has been presenting information on the J-2 Range investigations at IART meetings, which are held in each of the four towns that participate in the Co-op. Also, the IAGWSP has been working very closely with the Co-op managers, attending their meetings, and providing them with updated information as soon as it becomes available so they can make decisions with respect to supplying water to their customers.

Mr. Schlesinger inquired about proposed monitoring wells for the area near Peters Pond. Mr. Gregson replied that the IAGWSP has presented to the regulators for their consideration about six or eight potential drilling locations between Peters Pond and the base boundary. The IAGWSP is working with the regulators to finalize those locations and prioritize the order of drilling. Ms. Cassidy noted that those proposed locations were submitted to the regulators just within the last week or so, which is why they don't appear on any of the maps shown tonight. Mr. Schlesinger said that he hopes that the IAGWSP keeps Sandwich informed of the investigation findings, especially if the decision is made to skip one of the summer IART meetings, which he opposes.

Depleted Uranium

Mr. Gregson reported that last month, during excavation activities at Demo 1, a depleted uranium (DU) round was discovered and identified by a munitions expert in the field as an MK-149 armor-piercing discarding-sabot 20mm DU projectile, a round usually used in the Navy Phalanx Weapons System. The munitions expert noted that there were no marks on the rotating band and that the portion of the item called the windshield was still intact, indicating that the round had not been fired.

Mr. Gregson said that the item was put in a bag, the soil around it was removed and bagged, and the area where it was found was covered until excavation could resume. Radiation equipment was brought in to survey the soil taken from the area, the box the round had been placed in, all the items that might have come in contact with the round, and other scrap in the area, and there were no detections above background. Also, two of the existing monitoring wells in the Demo 1 depression (MW-19 and MW-73) were sampled and analyzed for gross, alpha, and beta radiation and both wells tested nondetect. Soil samples were collected from in and outside the area where the item was found and they showed no detections of total uranium above background.

Mr. Gregson noted that excavation work continued in other areas of the Demo 1 site, and after the contractors reviewed their health and safety plan, work resumed in the area where the item was discovered. He also said that originally it was thought that the round was found in a possible burn pit because of discolored soil in the area, but excavation activities determined that the discoloring was due to organic material rather than burn activities. The area at the round was excavated to a depth of approximately 1.5 feet and no other munitions items or other items such as the one that contained DU were found. Magnetometer surveys indicated that there were no other metallic anomalies below the excavation depth. Mr. Gregson also reported that the item was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where it was confirmed that the round was indeed a 20mm Navy round and that it had not been fired.

Mr. Gregson stated that MMR has no permit or license for using or storing DU rounds. The only record of DU rounds every having been at MMR is the shipment in and out of 11 DU rounds between 1982 and 1984 by Textron, which had a permit for DU handling. Mr. Gregson reminded the group of the past investigation looking into the presence of DU at MMR. He noted that the investigation was documented in the Final DU Investigation Report dated November 2001, which did not indicate evidence of the use of DU on contractor ranges. The investigation included soil and groundwater sampling at targets suspected to have been shot at with DU. Based on all the available information, the recent find of a DU round at Demo 1 was unexpected.

Mr. Gregson stated that because Demo 1 was used for disposal, it is going to be difficult to determine exactly how that one round ended up there. However, the ongoing soil excavation and screening activities, with the munitions experts who are in the field, did find the one round, and those procedures are in place to find any other DU rounds that might exist at Demo 1. Mr. Gregson said that the IAGWSP would keep the team informed of any information from any source regarding the origin of the round.

Mr. Mullennix remarked that the fact that the IAGWSP brought forward this "very small piece" shows the honesty, integrity, and good faith under which the program operates. He said that it would have been very easy for someone to have pocketed the DU item, but instead it was brought forward and he applauds the program for the honesty and integrity it has shown.

Mr. Hugus said that he thinks this topic should be discussed more thoroughly at the next IART meeting. He also said that he doesn't think it's probable that there's only one DU item on the base, he thinks the Guard should know where it came from, and he finds it unacceptable that there are no records of such a dangerous munition. Mr. Hugus also noted that Textron handled DU, experimented with armor-piercing munitions, and experimented quite a bit with 20mm rounds, so he thinks Textron should answer some questions.

Mr. Schlesinger noted that Mr. Gregson had said that the item was used in a Navy Phalanx Weapons System, and asked whether the other services were questioned about their experiences at MMR, when range history interviews were conducted several years ago. Mr. Gregson replied that he's not certain whether the Navy was contacted at that time. However, Mr. Gonser informed Mr. Schlesinger that this is happening now. The Army Research Lab contacted Crane Weapons Systems in Crane, Indiana to confirm that the item that was found was the kind the Navy uses, and to get any information on any contracts it had to test or use such rounds in New England. Mr. Gonser also noted that in fact the round is used routinely for Navy weapons systems, but it's also believed that the Air Force might have done some testing with a similar kind of round. Therefore, the IAGWSP is checking with the other services to see if they have any knowledge about "who had a license to do anything, really anywhere in New England."

Mr. Hood asked, "Is that the projectile in the sabot?" Mr. Gregson indicated that that's correct. Mr. Hood said that normally it would be loaded in a cartridge case, and because the case is not there, that would suggest that the round had been fired. Mr. Gregson began noting that there were no marks on the rotating band, but Mr. Hood inquired as to the whereabouts of the cartridge case. Mr. Gregson replied that although it's all speculation, it might have popped off if it was burned in a burn pit somewhere.

Ms. Cassidy noted that this discussion would resume at the July IART meeting.

Agenda Item #6. Open Discussion

Ms. Cassidy then asked team members to respond to the question of whether to forego either the July or August IART meeting. Mr. Schlesinger stated that, as Mr. Hugus mentioned, the team does not have enough time to discuss the issues. He said that he realizes that some team members might not be able to attend the summer meetings, but he thinks it's important to hold them because that time is needed for discussion. Ms. Cassidy noted that at this time the plan would be to hold an IART meeting in July, and probably in August as well, although that could be revisited at the July meeting.

Agenda Item #7. Adjourn

Ms. Cassidy said that the IART would meet next on Tuesday, July 27, 2004, at the Best Western Hotel in Bourne. She then adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.